Responses to the 'anti-Islamist' video

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Becareful, I have sworn on this video



Stop Syria from becoming a colony of Saudi Islamists and Wahabis

Fascinating. Soldat pretty much lives, to the definition, with the approach that interventionalism is A-OK as long as its against Islamists and as long as it endangers all western lives save his own.

With Soldat, the cat at this point is out of the proverbial bag. The PF mantra has generally been to advocate away from takfirism and from labeling someone as anti Islamic or a Non Muslim. For that reason, Toramana, Soldat, LZ and a host of folks have been able to tip toe around the label Kafir, or openly take on the title of Atheist, but not actually be labeled as such. Its actually not a bad thing to avoid takfirism, but calling a spade a spade is something that ought to be encouraged.

The goal of this Soldat Centered group has generally been what the RAND corporation has promoted in the Muslim world. These folks generally parade around as Muslims "on the edge" or "enlightened" or "hearkening back to a pre Islamic cultural purity - yet Muslim still." But in reality, their goal is to subvert Islam and Soldat has pretty much proven the point (see below).

Because of Soldat's explicitly stated advocacy goals, he has pretty much proven Michael Scheuer and the CIA's assessment that American/British Policy in the Muslim World has fueled and fomented AQ and the current disasterous war. For Soldat:

1) NATO can intervene to control the resources of the Muslim world
2) NATO can maintain bases in Muslim countries that are wildly unpopular
3) NATO ought to encourage autocrats destroy any resistance that is popular
4) Kashmir should be ignored and left to fester with India recieving increased support.
5) Libya ought to have been ruled by Qaddafi forever
6) Iraq's shiahs ought to be strenghthened
7) Chechnyan resistance needs to be smashed
8) Uighar Chinese should be outbred and ousted from their lands
9) Support Assad so that Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Axis forms a buffer to Islamist movements from Asia to teh Levant and back
10) Israel deserves unending support as it augments the goal of 9.

Thats all fine and well, except for the fact that Soldat is riding a war horse that only makes true Hungtingon's "Clash of Civilizations Theory" and has strapped the rest of us along for the ride towards idiotic oblivion.

For the most part, none of these 10 goals of Soldat's overlap with true US national security interests if the constitution and the original American charter were to be followed. Instead, intervening and assisting Russians against Chechnyans, the Chinese against Uighars, and the autocrats against their own people only inserts American (and Canadian) blood and treasure into far flung stupid ventures that have only depleted their world status not added it.

Now we have this:
http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=26236

As confirmation that Soldat is actually not a non Muslim... not an atheist, but by the definition given explicitly in the Quran and the hadith, a Kafir par excellance. He has donned the label "ex Muslim" himself, indicating that this was not an inborn error of environment and ignorance, but rather a conscious decision.

Therefore, Soldat has basically rendered nearly all his arguments obsolete for anyone that ascribes to a modicum of Islam or even has pity for oppressed people.

Basically, he has explicity now taken on the mantra that Islam should be defeated and erased.

What should the true approach be?

Complete and utter noninterventionalism in all cases. The real formula should be only half of what Soldat stands for

1) Remove NATO/American and bases from all Muslim countries (in fact Americans ought to pursue the Ron Paul policy of removing the European bases as well).
2) Have no comment or part at all in the internicine strife in Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey or God knows where else. Let these folks solve their own problems. Trade with all of them but do not get into their conflicts
3) Energy self sufficiency should be a stated economic and scientific goal.

There are those that have deemed the above as unrealistic goals that would somehow render the US into what the world and history have never seen: a disinterested super empire.

Exactly. Why not? At this juncture, the world has more information access at its fingertips than ever before in history. With all that we know, and with the fact that empires' hubris takes them down the path to destruction, not pursuing the above is like saying: Most well off countries have denizens that end up dying of diseases of the wealthy... so, don't change your habits because that heart attack is bound to come! Also, the era of mutually assured destruction had some benefit and would likely flourish again.

At the end of the day, Soldat is nearly a polar opposite, yet eery equivalent of his opposition. The difference may very well be that his opposition is willing to actually face the heat of battle... Soldat is more prone to make videos from Manchester.

Soldat, I hear that Assad needs some man power in Homs. You look like you need to join his ranks.

[JattApache]

4) Kashmir should be ignored and left to fester with India recieving increased support.

What do you mean

[Karachi]

^ in my opinion kashmir should be independent from india and pakistan, they dont want to be part of either

[JattApache]

^ in my opinion kashmir should be independent from india and pakistan, they dont want to be part of either

^ There should be a referendum

But now kashmiris know that india will be an economical superpower

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What do you mean

I mean simply that in the Soldatian worldview, and that of the Lindsay Grahams ... (basically any of these arm chair warrior hypocrites) whenever a Muslim land claim or separatist movement lays claim to a piece of land (e.g. Xuighars, Chechnyans, Kashmiri separatist or Pakistani Islamic land claims to Kashmir) these are ipso facto condemned and/or ignored. However, East Timor and South Sudan and Israel are perfectly A OK places to intervene and ensure that Christians and others have perfect rights to their land claims.

The Kashmir issue does not concern America, just as the Sudan issue ought not to have concerned America. Whether Indians and Pakistanis kill Kashmiris to their heart's delight or whether Kashmiris successfully remove both countries from their land is the business of these parties and these parties alone. No American (or Pashtun) life for that matter should ever be sacrificed in such idiotic struggles. Nor should American policy tilt in the direction that it allows for others to percieve that American support or British interference will ensure that all Muslim causes will be subverted and all other minority groups supported.

Basically, India and Pakistan can go to town on each other militarily to their heart's content. No nuclear technology of any sort ought to be sold to either side. The general preference at this point is to butter up the Pakistani elite and military and provide them with killing machines galore (that they use on their own people) and to provide India with advancement routes galore (e.g. the nuclear technology for energy self sufficiency recently).

The Soldats of the world do not see it this way. They view it as their right to take people who have no vested interest (except theologically perhaps) and get them involved in an alliance with violent Russkeys in the caucases, BJP hindu fundamentalist wet dreams, and Chinese repression because those are are oppressed are folks that Soldat wants massacred. He however, is too cowardly to do the job himself... instead he wants to ensure that the job gets done with western support. This in turn results in further radicalization of the Muslim world and violence is directed against the Western powers instead of the autocrats and those that deserve to deal with the problem.

[Pakhtunzai]

^ There should be a referendum

But now kashmiris know that india will be an economical superpower

What economical superpower? Fair enough India is growing steadily but most of the country is in the slums, look at the entire west bengal they are treated like animals and abandoned by the Indian government to fend for themselves. A lot of Biharis were forced to move to other regions and even move countries to get a better life. Quite the majority of India is struggling except the more developed parts in the cities.

I think the Kashmiris would rather they have their own independence as opposed to the constant genocide they are facing daily from the Indian army.

As for Syria, is the typical story of any other muslim country nowadays, puppet government(installed by the US), people try to overthrow the govt and get bombed the hell out of, then the US "intervene", help get rid of their puppet and then install another goddamn puppet!

[badmash_khel]

>.<

[DaMalakandGhar]

Fascinating. Soldat pretty much lives, to the definition, with the approach that interventionalism is A-OK as long as its against Islamists and as long as it endangers all western lives save his own.

With Soldat, the cat at this point is out of the proverbial bag. The PF mantra has generally been to advocate away from takfirism and from labeling someone as anti Islamic or a Non Muslim. For that reason, Toramana, Soldat, LZ and a host of folks have been able to tip toe around the label Kafir, or openly take on the title of Atheist, but not actually be labeled as such. Its actually not a bad thing to avoid takfirism, but calling a spade a spade is something that ought to be encouraged.

The goal of this Soldat Centered group has generally been what the RAND corporation has promoted in the Muslim world. These folks generally parade around as Muslims "on the edge" or "enlightened" or "hearkening back to a pre Islamic cultural purity - yet Muslim still." But in reality, their goal is to subvert Islam and Soldat has pretty much proven the point (see below).

Because of Soldat's explicitly stated advocacy goals, he has pretty much proven Michael Scheuer and the CIA's assessment that American/British Policy in the Muslim World has fueled and fomented AQ and the current disasterous war. For Soldat:

1) NATO can intervene to control the resources of the Muslim world
2) NATO can maintain bases in Muslim countries that are wildly unpopular
3) NATO ought to encourage autocrats destroy any resistance that is popular
4) Kashmir should be ignored and left to fester with India recieving increased support.
5) Libya ought to have been ruled by Qaddafi forever
6) Iraq's shiahs ought to be strenghthened
7) Chechnyan resistance needs to be smashed
8) Uighar Chinese should be outbred and ousted from their lands
9) Support Assad so that Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Axis forms a buffer to Islamist movements from Asia to teh Levant and back
10) Israel deserves unending support as it augments the goal of 9.

Thats all fine and well, except for the fact that Soldat is riding a war horse that only makes true Hungtingon's "Clash of Civilizations Theory" and has strapped the rest of us along for the ride towards idiotic oblivion.

For the most part, none of these 10 goals of Soldat's overlap with true US national security interests if the constitution and the original American charter were to be followed. Instead, intervening and assisting Russians against Chechnyans, the Chinese against Uighars, and the autocrats against their own people only inserts American (and Canadian) blood and treasure into far flung stupid ventures that have only depleted their world status not added it.

Now we have this:
http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=26236

As confirmation that Soldat is actually not a non Muslim... not an atheist, but by the definition given explicitly in the Quran and the hadith, a Kafir par excellance. He has donned the label "ex Muslim" himself, indicating that this was not an inborn error of environment and ignorance, but rather a conscious decision.

Therefore, Soldat has basically rendered nearly all his arguments obsolete for anyone that ascribes to a modicum of Islam or even has pity for oppressed people.

Basically, he has explicity now taken on the mantra that Islam should be defeated and erased.

What should the true approach be?

Complete and utter noninterventionalism in all cases. The real formula should be only half of what Soldat stands for

1) Remove NATO/American and bases from all Muslim countries (in fact Americans ought to pursue the Ron Paul policy of removing the European bases as well).
2) Have no comment or part at all in the internicine strife in Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey or God knows where else. Let these folks solve their own problems. Trade with all of them but do not get into their conflicts
3) Energy self sufficiency should be a stated economic and scientific goal.

There are those that have deemed the above as unrealistic goals that would somehow render the US into what the world and history have never seen: a disinterested super empire.

Exactly. Why not? At this juncture, the world has more information access at its fingertips than ever before in history. With all that we know, and with the fact that empires' hubris takes them down the path to destruction, not pursuing the above is like saying: Most well off countries have denizens that end up dying of diseases of the wealthy... so, don't change your habits because that heart attack is bound to come! Also, the era of mutually assured destruction had some benefit and would likely flourish again.

At the end of the day, Soldat is nearly a polar opposite, yet eery equivalent of his opposition. The difference may very well be that his opposition is willing to actually face the heat of battle... Soldat is more prone to make videos from Manchester.

Soldat, I hear that Assad needs some man power in Homs. You look like you need to join his ranks.

Seems, your understanding of history doesn't go beyond the myopic world-view Wahabi and ideologies have fed you with i.e., these are only Muslims that have been the target of imperial oppression forgetting that Muslims have massacred Muslims as well as non-Muslim when it was their imperial turn.

[tor_khan]

This is the 'new' version of the original thread with the signature post going to BarakzaiAbdali.

First, of all, Barakzai Jan, thank you for a thoughtful rebuttal. I do believe it was appropriate. Even Soldat would admit that I have taken many raps for protecting his right to speak and keeping him within the body of our global Pashtun community. However, the original video thread was clearly a moment of frustration and it shows - both in the bad taste in the language that Soldat chooses to repeat over and over and the overall lack of objectivity. In short it wasn't one of Soldat's finest, and it should never have left his bedroom. The only reason it appears here in the new version of the thread is because it was quoted. That is all the reference that is required and truth be told, I am still divided about allowing it appearing in quote form. The rebuttal is why I have salvaged a new version of the original thread.

The point that I wanted to pick up with Barakzai was on the view that the US, in its own interests, should pursue a non-interventionist policy rather than being dragged into conflict and 'policing' the international community. My own thoughts centre on whether there is any probability of this given the nature of economics and international relations.

Soldat is an example on one end of the spectrum, but are there others who in expressing their loyalties to other persuasive influences do so under the banner of withdrawal. In the context of what happens 'at home' I think second and third generation Pashtuns will have very little influence as they are lost to varying forms of 'cultural drift'. It makes many of them susceptible to nostalgia and autofix solutions, and not the long-haul (or the carefully selected partnerships) that are essential for long term peace and stability.

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

This is the 'new' version of the original thread with the signature post going to BarakzaiAbdali.

First, of all, Barakzai Jan, thank you for a thoughtful rebuttal. I do believe it was appropriate. Even Soldat would admit that I have taken many raps for protecting his right to speak and keeping him within the body of our global Pashtun community. However, the original video thread was clearly a moment of frustration and it shows - both in the bad taste in the language that Soldat chooses to repeat over and over and the overall lack of objectivity. In short it wasn't one of Soldat's finest, and it should never have left his bedroom. The only reason it appears here in the new version of the thread is because it was quoted. That is all the reference that is required and truth be told, I am still divided about allowing it appearing in quote form. The rebuttal is why I have salvaged a new version of the original thread.

The point that I wanted to pick up with Barakzai was on the view that the US, in its own interests, should pursue a non-interventionist policy rather than being dragged into conflict and 'policing' the international community. My own thoughts centre on whether there is any probability of this given the nature of economics and international relations.

Soldat is an example on one end of the spectrum, but are there others who in expressing their loyalties to other persuasive influences do so under the banner of withdrawal. In the context of what happens 'at home' I think second and third generation Pashtuns will have very little influence as they are lost to varying forms of 'cultural drift'. It makes many of them susceptible to nostalgia and autofix solutions, and not the long-haul (or the carefully selected partnerships) that are essential for long term peace and stability.

lol i see what u did there...

[tor_khan]

lol i see what u did there...

Amir. I trust there is humour in the message above and the line you highlighted, but if I don't understand, it is because living in oblivion, affords me peace and happiness.

I like peace and happiness.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Seems, your understanding of history doesn't go beyond the myopic world-view Wahabi and ideologies have fed you with i.e., these are only Muslims that have been the target of imperial oppression forgetting that Muslims have massacred Muslims as well as non-Muslim when it was their imperial turn.

Hello Toramana, I never thought I would live to see the day where the supposed greatest nationalist of our time (his words not mine) would allow us to to surmise that we've seen a swati hide behind damalakandkhar.

You appear to have glossed over the portion of my writing where I note that the excuse of the cyclical ebbs and flows of history do not excuse those living in the era to simply use the past as an excuse in their planning for the future. Its as simple a concept as the English phrase: Two wrongs dont equal a right. After all, a large portion of your red hatter platform rests on a contrived past history.

Myopia is an interesting state because it also implies a potentially sharp visual accomodation to that which is closest to you (ie the here and now). So I accept that I see the status of the present clearer than you do, thank you very much for the compliment. Yet I think that our indian colleagues above can counter you in that I have clearly discussed the blow back that Indian Muslims face in the modern era with the rise of Hindu dominance in India. I will let you do the homework of finding that post.

No, Toramana, I think the term preferrable for you is amblyopic. Your eyes cannot produce a fixed image because one of them wanders... ie its a lazy eye. In your zeal to take on Islam and erase it from the historical record... and in your zeal to make broad ahistorical assumptions about the Pashtun people, and in your zeal to create an alternate reality and rendering of our history you are exposed clearly.

Read closely the commentary Soldat left in what he assumed was a website that no one would frequent:

"There is no point in America being there and expecting the people to suddenly be democractic, if the soldeirs are unable to tolerant and follow the laws of their own land, how are they going to confront the Taliban,who only needs to hold a Quran in the air, and the firing will stop, the real danger is in Pakistan where most issues are controlled. Afghanistan and its people are very very untrustworthy and backward."
http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=26236

In one fowl swoop Soldat opened his big mouth and basically destroyed your years of effort at attempting to hide behind the protection the Quran offers you against takfirism. Ironic is it not?

For nearly 1 and half years now I have been warning my Pashtuns that you, he, and a few others are snakes in the grass. You have a severely low opinion of Afghans and that your ISI bashing was merely a substitute for what your opponents from the Panjab are supposedly equally guilty of: you see Afghanistan and Afghans as cannon fodder and expendable to be used for your grand experiments.

In their zest to shove off all responsibilities for leaving their country high and dry the ex pat ideologues were all to eager to see you and Soldat as brothers in arms, ready to validate their obnoxious inability to take responsibility for failing to defend their nation while the poor suffered and defeated a Red Russian onslaught.

The general charge against those that supported the native resistance movement forged, led, and bled for by Afghans for Afghans (who by the way do not harbor the same low opinion of their own people as Soldat does) were mocked and accused of playing fast and loose with the history of their people.

Thank goodness that Soldat has a hard time wiring shut that jaw of his. The more he says the more damage he does to your cause and his. Don't you understand that your bending of realities can never undo a basic reality? Afghanistan and Afghans, no matter where they hail from and no matter who they are have a basic affinity of some sort for Islam and for their autonomy.

You are like some comic book cut out, shouting for long lost days of the red menace to return.

Now, thanks to your company, and thanks to firm documented evidence, we have clear incontrovertible proof that you and your ilk have no other goal in mind except to intervene world wide to expunge Islam.

Have fun with that nearly impossible mission my failed colleague.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is the 'new' version of the original thread with the signature post going to BarakzaiAbdali.

First, of all, Barakzai Jan, thank you for a thoughtful rebuttal. I do believe it was appropriate. Even Soldat would admit that I have taken many raps for protecting his right to speak and keeping him within the body of our global Pashtun community. However, the original video thread was clearly a moment of frustration and it shows - both in the bad taste in the language that Soldat chooses to repeat over and over and the overall lack of objectivity. In short it wasn't one of Soldat's finest, and it should never have left his bedroom. The only reason it appears here in the new version of the thread is because it was quoted. That is all the reference that is required and truth be told, I am still divided about allowing it appearing in quote form. The rebuttal is why I have salvaged a new version of the original thread.

The point that I wanted to pick up with Barakzai was on the view that the US, in its own interests, should pursue a non-interventionist policy rather than being dragged into conflict and 'policing' the international community. My own thoughts centre on whether there is any probability of this given the nature of economics and international relations.

Soldat is an example on one end of the spectrum, but are there others who in expressing their loyalties to other persuasive influences do so under the banner of withdrawal. In the context of what happens 'at home' I think second and third generation Pashtuns will have very little influence as they are lost to varying forms of 'cultural drift'. It makes many of them susceptible to nostalgia and autofix solutions, and not the long-haul (or the carefully selected partnerships) that are essential for long term peace and stability.

I dont agree if the reference to carefully selected partnerships means that the British and the Americans ought to be afforded a permanent place with permanent bases to utilize as fixed "eyes" and "fists" through which they can see and power project against multiple enemies ranging from China, Iran, Central Asia, and Pakistan, not to mention Russia.

That was the basic jist of Karzai's foolish contrived loya jirga lion speech was it not? He was basically saying: Let me play the same game that Sardar Daud played.. let me assume that I can control and balance the super powers and the local game changers against each other. We saw where that got Afghanistan nearly decades later. *Just about now is where one of these local farsiwaan style loons will chime in and claim that it was not Daud's failures but somehow an ISI master contrived plan... Please save me the brain cells from having to read such idiotic remarks. If such is the case... what are permanent bases generally used for? Are they simply there as decorations Tor Khan? Bases, from the time of the Romans and before to now mean one thing... power projection. A country that spends 5% of its GDP ONLY on defense will not have a problem power projecting. And the response of the players in the game will not be to simply simmer down and not perpetuate and counter balance these aims. Assuming that is like spitting straight on into a strong head wind.

Also the proposed solution that you appear to be floating, as you leave blank who these long term alliance are with.. and currently no other party is seeking to forge long term lop sided alliance so much as the leading hand of NATO does not mesh with history. It assigns responsibility to those that ought to have none. It basically gaurantees a welfare state and situation and another anchor baby onto America. The idea is that Afghanistan ought to accomodate, as Japan did, a presence to advance and take off. As I noted elsewhere, Afghanistan is not Japan and the Marshall Plan and Germany worked for specific reasons that CATO and others have played out in simulations and have shown will not work for Afghanistan.

Basically such a strategic pact ensure that a group of losers, sycophants, and other folks that left their own people high and dry in their time of need stay in power as sock puppets with a mighty red white and blue fist in their stooling cavity.

Tell me, how exactly has Pax Americana operated in such strategic guises for the benefit of its own people and for the people chosen for such endeavors? Has it salvaged the native will of the people and left the locals autonomous? I think the Japanese in Okinawa can express their frustrations about this to you. Have they ever put in place leaders that would benefit the natives without paying a hefty price for looting national treasures? Thats not how super powers that consume a huge portion of the world's resources operate my friend.

Take a more refined and knowledgable folk like the British (I use those terms loosely as the British Empire backers singlehandidly remarked the globe in such a snake like fashion that the last 70 years since their empires contraction have left many a native people in shambles. Would we not be able to say that the same game was proposed by Kuli Khan Khattak and the Arbabs across the durand line? They preferred strongly to keep the British present to "develop" those Pashtun regions? And when they contracted out of there suddenly Kuli threw his royal medals into the trash and donned the cape of a feudal protector of Pakistan.

So then shall we distill down the advocacy of American presence as a counter balancer (the same role the British supposedly served in the past great game) as the goal of creating a more corrupt Pakistan next door to Pakistan? Is that ironic for a nationalist advocacy goal???

Quiet the contrary, I think the data does not support, in any way what you are proposing, which is that Soldat holds the reigns of one end of teh spectrum, being a stealth anti Jihadist... and there are others on the other end manipulating policy in a polar opposite way.

Lets take your theory and put it to the test. To date, the two people that have studied, in a scientific pattern, the words and deeds of the native and restless Muslim populaces and the leaders of the global jihadist movement have found one thing and one thing alone: there is no way to arrange the overwhelming proportion of words of these people and make them say that global caliphate is their offensive war tactic goal. Rather, their statements all appear to express gripes related to occupation, backing autocrats, and misusing resources via the latter.

Regarding international economics... one of the reasons James Baker and his ilk had major problems with OBL and his gang were the potential cost of oil per barrell should such folks every gain power and observe the nation's right to sell its commodity at market value and not below it to a super friend with special benefits. Where are we now? I think that the events of the past 15 years have take James Baker's foolish goals and turned them on its head. Cost of oil is not where Baker and co wanted it and energy self sufficiency is not being encouraged as a viable field. Its like giving the junky his fix without noting that eventually he is going to suffer real withdrawal pangs at some point.

Such policy has basically ensured that if
1) Oil supply is threatened in Nigeria for real, we go to war
2) If the Gulf of Guniea is threatened we go to war

How is that a modernized and far sighted economic policy?

International relations? Isn't that exactly what the critics of Paul, (seemingly the only candidate to grasp the problem with the Keynesian economic system and whimsical status the federal reserve continues to bestow on the dollar) have echoed?

What sort of international relation obligates the US to go to war? Is it a playful international relation where the allies all pertend to oppose an Iraq war yet sign on to it? Or is it the fact that France and Britian are now apart of the shrill voices leading America into yet another conflict, but this time a conflageration without any national security benefit for the US, in Iran? Sheesh, with friends like that who needs allies?

So no Tor Khan, I believe that countries sink and swim on their own hard work and ability to defend themselves.

Moreover, even if there were the supposed stealth "jihadists" the data and literature all shows that these disparate groups all have one common goal: oust the US from their region and remove its enforce autocratic rule. These groups have a proven record of going after each other the minute a common enemy is removed from the mix. How is it safe strategy for the US to be the unifying factor and the tried and tested best friend of rulers that prove to the unradicalized that the radicalized's warnings regarding autonomy are proven true time and time again? You have a google exec, of Egyptian origin, who participated in a secular portion of the rise against Mubarak commenting, at Harvard that the US has no right to sustain the Pakistani equivalent Military Junta that is subverting the will of the Egyptian people. WHere does that lead us? Well it leads to a powder keg situation where the "militants" words echoes Dr. Geuvara's in that revolutions without guns do not work. The bottom line is that recent history shows there is no better killer of Muslims than other Muslims. For the US to enter as the common enemy of these groups does little to enhance its world standing.

[Ghundal]

“History is written by the victors.”- Winston Churchill

[Ghundal]

Maybe Im a little perplexed here, and maybe I am overreading, but are PRO-WAR people actually pinning their hopes futilely in the US-Taliban talks in Qatar?

I have a high imagination, but thats how it appears to me.

If even for perhaps a slight moment, it is assumed that the talks will result in a solution which includes acceptance of a limited US presence (partnership), then as the saying goes fool me twice, shame one me. Im sure seasoned diplomats like MK Bhadrakumar can figure this much out themselves

For the PRO-WAR camp, the reaction to the US-Taliban talks should mirror the hysterical reaction of Hamid Karzai/Northern Alliance/ANP nexus, meaning it should be clearly understood that the so-called "end-game" is proceeding (talks and what not as it happened with in the 80s). Does anyone want to talk with this above group of people?

Furthermore, I am Anti-War, and I am not pro-Taliban. I simply am confident and happy to see that the US war/occupation of Afghanistan is coming to a close, and Afghanistan finally be left to determine its own fate in whatever manner it goes towards, regardless of government. If the Afghans want Sharia, and nature leads them there, so be it. If the Afghans do not want Sharia, then so be it too.

If a pro-war person such as Soldat is pining their hopes on the US-Taliban talks in Qatar, then oh my, what a sorry state of affairs for "your cause."