Announcement

**BarakzaiAbdali** · 02-12-2012, 10:53 PM

Why I titled this thread with the subtitle of "5th column citizens beware" is that I plan on taking a very unpopular position in the thread. I have little to worry about and could care less about threats, ad hominem, or the infamous but worn out accusation of "Paki." Rather, I enjoy these rejoinders because they just show me that I won the argument. In this position, I plan on defending Ghundal and his assertion that he is more "anti war" than his detractors. I look forward to the deluge of criticism.

There is song by Paul McCartney called "The Fool on the Hill." Its an apt song that discusses a person who is ridiculed and generally known by his peers as "the fool." The irony in the rock song/poem is that "the fool" actually sees "the sun going down." Perhaps McCartney is addressing the PF masses regarding Mr. Ghundal.

I think the laughable irony I have observed here is that Maiwand and Ghundal have been labeled as "keyboard" warriors.

So I thought deeply about this. What is a keyboard warrior? Well it seems simple enough... the implication is that a real man picks up a rifle and walks into the "heart of darkness" and faces his enemy directly in battle. The couch potato and his colleague, the keyboard warrior, on the other hand, are implied insults that appear to say the following:

1) You aren't in the game but you are cheerleading the most vicious players.

Response: Laughable and pitiful at the same time. Ghundal views the native Taliban and other groups as an insurgent force that is attempting to eject a super power enemy (and its emigre backers) that has self created global national security interests in their country. The basic premise here is that Bob from Tennessee, armed with an AK, has no role or place in Kunar province just as he had none in Iraq.

The knee jerk response is that if Bob has no place there, than Abu Musad has none either. Sounds reasonable at the outset, but under analysis that view crumbles: Bob is getting shot at by everyone... Abu Musab may have had protectors but generally all involved parties, even the northern alliance didn't appear to mount an insurgency against the 200 Abu Musabs in Kandahar or try to take them out. Now, if Abu Musab's home country had sent a uniformed army into Afghanistan, I am sure that sympathies would have been different and a similar response might have been had as Bob is having right now.

2) You are a hypocrite.

How? The charge doesnt match the evidence. I don't see Ghundal calling for the forced Islamisization of Europe or America. I also dont understand how such a slur can take hold considering the fact that there are upward of 300 official military category bases from the NATO powers and the US in the Muslim world, but not a single common training base in any western nation. The closest thing to a base might be the slums of Dearborn Michigan or the the ghettos of London, yet I sure dont see patrols or drones emanating from these regions.

3) You aren't there and dont have ground level experience.

This is the most entertaining of all of these slurs. How do they know that the critics of the war dont have "ground level" experience? Does this slur pertain to the way the average Afghan felt under draconian Taliban rule? If it does, the data is lacking. There are as many testomonials from "those on the ground" in that era that had positive views of their rule as there are of the emigres living abroad that have negative views. So then, the slur boomerangs back onto them. Mr. Sherzai was in Quetta, Mr. Taj Wardak was in the US, Mr. Ghani was also in Balitmore etc during that area as well. Some may say that family told them what was going on and what was going wrong... but thats a cop out because they were caught with their pants down.

4) You support one type of hegemony while the neocons simply support another.

This references some odd view that some how links a noninterventionist view with the one that then says you A) automatically support Pakistan which is in bed with China (indicating religious hypocrasy) and B) if you dont support the US presence you automatically support Iranian, Pakistani, and Saudi interference in Afghanistan. It also makes little sense in the face of a confirmed overwhelming Afghan character to the insurgency. The issue with this claim is that it lacks insight. What does one then say about Ron Paul's opposition because he actually believes its against America's interests? Is he in bed with the Saudis and Pakistan as well? Or what now of Lt. Col. Davis? Is is assessment of the war being counter productive in line with a Pakistan centric policy?

5) In the words of one of my favorite posters here: "motives motives motives."

The claim is that the current "anti war" face that Maiwand and Ghundal represent had no issues with the Bins and Abus using Afghanistan as a place from which to mount a war against world powers.

There is a great deal of ahistorical basis to this claim. If you examine Maiwand's claims in detail they do not stop at the door step of being anti war against this war or the Iraq war. The foundation of his and Ghundal's claims is that interventionalism and war bought the Abus and Bins to Afghanistan in the first place. In actuality, their basis for being anti war is stronger than the Code Pink supporters of the Kabul regime. It takes into account, the view of the whole of the Orient and the dramatic damage to progress that has been done by sustained colonialism. This view doesnt see sunni or shia and actually picks at Soviet and American chess games in places like Iran and Egypt as well. Can't get more antiwar than that!

Lets suspend history and its progress post 2001 for a second though just to examine these claims. So the general retort is that the war in and of itself was instigated by a Brzenski style move that lured another super power into an unwinnable war of attrition.

Read Mr. Karzai and his brother, Abdul Qayum's own biographies and interviews. Prior to 2001 they were, themselves pressing for intervention in Afghanistan. Mr. Khalilzad signed his own signature onto the report entitled The New American Century encouraging Mr. Clinton to intervene militarily with regime change in the Muslim world.

Mr. Mossoud was in France cajoling the French to arm and intervene on his behalf as well.

At this point, Mr. Asfandyaar and his colleagues across the border offer their tacit support to a sustained US presence as well.

Code Pink and the neoliberals are also trying to further their own motives in the Orient via military interventionalism.

As far as I see, not a single one of these people is standing on the front lines trying to do a commando raid into Quetta to nab Mullah Omar. Instead, Tim from Hartford is being sent to kill Sikander from Marjah to further these ends.

So the issue here is 5th column citizens. Who is more dangerous for Britain really? Is is that fanatical and crazed pseudo scholar Anjum Chaudry who calls for the absurd building of a dome with a minaret next to Big Ben or is a certain local communist who demands that Britishers die in the droves in Iraq and Afghanistan to further his ends?

A 5th column citizen like Alan Dershowitz does not take into account the safety, feeling, and unethical utilization of his adopted country's resources to further the interest of another country. In Alan's case, its Israel that benefits.

Now, the much less competent Afghan elite emigres are taking a page from Dershowitz's book and are attempting to Israelify Afghanistan in the view of the American and the British public view. You hear common phrases such as "we cannot leave... thats like throwing Afghanistan's women under the bus!" The problem there is that the Israeli government is far more capable, far more meritocratic, and far less corrupt than the government that these folks back making it almost impossible to lobby in the way AIPAC has.

The other issue is that Dershowtiz has little to personally gain from his extremist support of Israel. What is perhaps admirable about Mr. Dershowitz is that he does all of his work for Israel Pro Bono. That same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the Afghan emigre elite who gain Dubai island palaces and make large $$$ transactions with the help Uncle Sam affords.

So in the end, when you pile together the evidence, Ghundal's views actually do represent a more anti war view than the aforementioned parties. After all, the general AQ strategy promotes keeping the US in Afghanistan to continue to deliver a thousand cuts to Gulliver's legs. Ghundal himself knows that there is absolutely no way that a resurgent Taliban could ever threaten the West or America except if American policy continues to affect the Muslim world (e.g. the current fiasco in Bahrain, Sudan, Kashmir, and now Syria).

6) Reconcile your ethics please!

If its wrong for the recently deceased leader of America's adversaries to have used the mid, central, and far east as a place to lure American blood and treasure, how does Mr. Karzai's pre 2001 behavior and that behavior or Mr. Najibullah's New York Time piece asking for US intervention in Afghanistan after the Soviet's pulled out the carpet from under him (he appeared to have coined the term the "green menace") not come under the same ethical scrutiny?

In summary, acting on Mr. Ghundal's personal wishes results in a more anti war outcome for BOTH East and West than that of the 5th column citizens who are willing to allow Tina and Bill to die for Hamida and Hamid.

**Ghundal** · 02-13-2012, 12:01 AM

It is funny how I am being accused of recreating a narrative by being ANTI-WAR

Being ANTI-US wars does not equate to being ANTI-US.

Last I checked, over 71 percent of the US is against the US war in Afghanistan

They are Americans too

You said what I have tried to say, and thanks for that.

People who are against the US war in Afghanistan are ANTI-WAR. This even extends to Afghans who are opposed to Karzai and the foreign war.

I am actually hopeful that the US-Taliban talks will lead to an end of this war, and it appears that the US is ready to leave. Is it wrong to be looking towards peace and independence in Afghanistan?

There is no conflict in being ANTI-WAR and EXPLAINING the fact that Afghans presently and historically will never tolerate foreign occupation.

There is absolutely a conflict though for those who support the US War and say they are ANTI-WAR too (superficial)

Let me be clear. Anyone who spins Pakistan as the reason for the Afghan insurgency and labels the Afghan insurgency as Pakistani terrorism is spinning a PRO-WAR view. They may not say it directly, but that is exactly what they are doing. The hilarious and contradicting part is that they are seemingly BLIND to Pakistans support for the US war and drone attacks.

Without Pakistan support (supply routes), this war was impossible. I suspect it is one of the reasons the Taliban have opened their first diplomatic office in Qatar for peace talks. These coded PRO WAR people are in favor of increased Pakistan support for the US war. In fact, for all their alleged anti-Pakistan rhetoric, it actually goes out the window.

They are not nationalists at all.

These 5th column citizens should go and join NATO to fight the Taliban. Or at least they should go after NATO leaves to enlist in Karzais regime if he chooses to stay on.

Not only that, they appear to be so angry about the US-Taliban talks. This indicates that they want the US to fight their war for another decade.

So now we wonder why they forever will be relegated to the Karzais and ANPs

**BarakzaiAbdali** · 02-13-2012, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Ghundal View Post

It is funny how I am being accused of recreating a narrative by being ANTI-WAR

You said what I have tried to say, and thanks for that.

People who are against the US war in Afghanistan are ANTI-WAR. This even extends to Afghans who are opposed to Karzai and the foreign war.

I was told yesterday by Tor Khan that I have an ANTI-US stance. I was not surprised as that appears to be the last straw that can be pulled. I have many American friends who are opposed to the US wars as I am. Are they also ANTI-US?

I am actually hopeful that the US-Taliban talks will lead to an end of this war, and it appears that the US is ready to leave. Is it wrong to be looking towards peace and independence in Afghanistan?

There is no conflict in being ANTI-WAR and EXPLAINING the fact that Afghans presently and historically will never tolerate foreign occupation.

There is absolutely a conflict though for those who support the US War and say they are ANTI-WAR too (superficial)

Let me be clear. Anyone who spins Pakistan as the reason for the Afghan insurgency and labels the Afghan insurgency as Pakistani terrorism is spinning a PRO-WAR view. They may not say it directly, but that is exactly what they are doing. The hilarious and contradicting part is that they are seemingly BLIND to Pakistans support for the US war and drone attacks.

Without Pakistan support (supply routes), this war was impossible. I suspect it is one of the reasons the Taliban have opened their first diplomatic office in Qatar for peace talks. These coded PRO WAR people are in favor of increased Pakistan support for the US war. In fact, for all their alleged anti-Pakistan rhetoric, it actually goes out the window.

They are not nationalists at all.

These 5th column citizens should go and join NATO to fight the Taliban. Or at least they should go after NATO leaves to enlist in Karzais regime if he chooses to stay on.

I havent read Tor Khan's posts. I was merely addressing the issue that

1) viewing the moral imperitive of a war as being on the side of the native resistance fighters

and

2) being upset with the invading power for not having the moral imperitive

doesnt make you pro war. In fact, even Amjad Chaudry's odd meanderings about the sorts of things like converting Windsor Palace into a Quranic museaum or renaming Abby Road as Abu Road don't amount to being pro war. It just makes him idiotic looking.

I would say that folks like Charles Krautheimer and Max Boot are the definition of pro war. I would also venture to say that Dershowitz is very pro war with his advocacy of using American fire power to attack Iran, without thinking about regional and global consequences, not to mention the impact that such a move would have on American interests.

So when I read their works the thinking seems to be the following:

Everyone has a proxy force. America's proxy force is the ANA/ANSF, Saudi and Pakistan have the Taliban, Russia and Iran have fragment splinter groups of the Northern Alliance. Their message to you appears to be that if you believe the Taliban have the "moral imperitive" of this war then you basically are just a keyboard warrior supporting a proxy force which is equivalent to the other backers of the other groups.

I think such thought processes are lame attempts to reconcile an inability to put forth a moral imperitive for self gain purposes.

For instance, Lavanay Zalmaay once mocked my statement that Bin Ladin, in the eyes of some of the Muslim world has the same moral imperitive that Che Geuvara had. He scoffed, assuming that I was comparing the two men head to toe in terms of moral outlooks, strategies, and bed post notches etc. The reality of it is as follows:

1) I loathe communism 2) I have no familial or emotional connection to Latin America and 3) galvanizing doctrines are just that... galvanizing doctrines. In the status of insurgency they are defensive and not offensive.

In that vein, here is where your detractos lose ground. I will use the Latin American example as a basis.

Dr. Geuvara was a communist and espoused those views, lets not kid ourselves. Iran tried to claim his mantle for Islamic causes and his daughter made sure to rebuff them. However, despite my disdain for communism, as an analytical person who seeks out evidence, I cannot impose a moral judgement of his galvanizing doctrine against what he viewed as Yankee imperialism. If one takes Cuba as an example, the Americans and the mafioso for years backed the brutal dictator and tyrant Batista in Cuba and propped up hundreds of dictators in succession in Chile and other Latin American countries. There was no Islam or no Christianity to serve as galvanizing defensive insurgent doctrine in Latin America since this was Christian on Christian oppression (i.e. Roman Catholicism is the common religion of Latin America). Therefore, Dr. Geuvara saw communism as the antithesis to the capitalistic basis for the morally bankrupt efforts some dominant Western nations were putting into controlling the resources of poorer countries in his region. The message resonated with a large cadre of folks in that region because they realized that their aspirations were being oppressed and suppressed with the coup against Allende and the imposition of dictators like Pinochet and Batista. The Soviet power backed Dr. Geuvara and his colleague Fidel Castro. If one examines the brunt of their writing and work (read the diaries of Guevara) there is less of an emphasis on Lenin-mao-and Marx purism and more of an emphasis on overturning what Dr. Geuvara saw as brutal injustice. The Sandanistas and others would follow suit in adopting a doctrine that clashed with the doctrine of the Americans. Interventionalism in Panama (sometimes direct) would fuel the flames of these insurgencies that had foot soldiers with little familiarity with Lenin's written doctrines but wanted to eliminate inteference in their countries.

Now, if you talk to 5th columnist Cubans in Florida they will rail against Guevara, the President of Venezuala, and Castro but they take little time to reflect on their role in oppressing the native population and the rural masses of Latin America that could not work with what was being imposed on them (i.e. the forced creation of banana republics). They cite Dr. Geuvara's murders of Cuban students who opposed the new Cuban state under Castro as examples of Geuvara's brutality.

However, the moral imperitive appears to lie with Dr. Geuvara when the news of atrocities in Geutamala and human subject testing by American Physicians there under the aegis of the proxy government comes to light. Despite my disdain for communism, I cannot deny where the moral imperitive lies.

Yet these Cubans who backed Batista and have pictures of Kennedy hanging in their parlors continue to back rigid sanctions and clamor for military action (and special force action should Castro die and confusion occur in the after math). THis is all sold under the false pretexst that the Cuban people would welcome this action and that Cuba, a tiney island nation whee Guantanamo Bay is right next to, is a thread to a super power. The average American probably could not care a lick or a wit about this internicine Cuban issue... but these folks have pulled their adopted country into this mode. That is exactly why Gingrich and all the republicans crowed against Castro for hours in Florida on the eve of the recent primary.

In this same way, the problem with the proxy motif or the proxy force accusation is that it has a historical basis that sounds good at first, but the foundations of the accusation are weak.

The argument they are attempting to construct requires us to suspend belief in reality and ignore:

1) The rural versus urban divide in Afghanistan that exists despite the shrill cries of these folks.

2) Ignore why one potential "proxy" has a more broad level appeal to the aforementioned rural masses.

3) Ignore the role and instigatory tactics that the other proxies utilized locally and globally to needle and augment the creation of what they refer to as a "Pakistani/Saudi" proxy.

That is exactly why even handed foreign analysts with no role or no stake personally or professionally in the quagmire have identified the insurgents as having a moral imperitive that drives them. The problem with these people's views is that their 5th column citizenry is a detriment to their adopted country and to Afghanistan, by ensuring that reactionaryism dominates at all times and that the adopted nation invests its blood and treasure in endless wars trying to align non existent national security interests with quixotic impositons of non native value systems.

**asad71** · 02-13-2012, 11:15 AM

1.In the recent years a very interesting development has been taking place in Arab society - among the common man. There is now strong belief that the best of the Arabs - the Banu Hashen and the Bani Umayya had spread out into the far corners of the world carrying the Message of Islam. What has remained are the worst element. Therefore all the agony to the Arabs.

2. In fact there are attempts to locate the seeds of Banu Umayya and Bani Hashem available anywhere and bring them back by marrying Arab women. There have been several instances when this actually happened during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets.

3. Your identity has prompted me into pointing this out.

**Ghundal** · 02-16-2012, 09:45 AM

I'm curious Barakzai.

What do you think of this quote and what do the PRO WAR (fifth column citizens) think of it?

"Under the Taliban we always got help. But now, we are here in Kabul and we are getting aid and we are getting help from a lot of countries and this son-of-a-bitch Karzai doesn't even care about us," Ibrahim says

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...#ixzz1mWiLlDYh

Why do the usual refrain from engaging you Barakzai?

Why are they not talking about the moral imperative?

Announcement

The Davis Report: 5th column citizens beware

The Davis Report: 5th column citizens beware

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment