Responses to the 'anti-Islamist' video

[faye]

the u.s. doesn't need international obligations to go to war. they are wanting to rule the world and have no respect for anyone but their own selfish and obscene objectives.
are you trying to say that sweet little u.s. of a. is being led astray by the brits and the french barakzai? then explain their propaganda and long term aims against iraq, iran and their 'project for the new century' fantasies of controlling all the countries with oil.

[randolph85]

we are all pro war, we just choose whose war we want to support.

our friend soldat seems to be on the losing side of history everytime, from his communist ideology, western imperialism, and anti islamic rhetoric. not simply anti islamic, but anti muslim.

he claims to champion the cause of pashtuns, yet degrades and in fact, works against their religion and way of life. what has been for over 1000 years for us by us(FUBU, nigga), will not be undone by euro-atheist-bolshevik's.

[Ghundal]

we are all pro war, we just choose whose war we want to support.
.

Not really. A non-interventionists is not pro-war. There is no argument that proves that just because they are ok with nature taking its course in the internal affairs of a country, that they are somehow pro-war.

[randolph85]

i am not talking about just interventionalism. i am talking about any war, regardless of who started it and who ends it. the taliban waged war against the northern alliance in the 90s, the mujahadin waged war against the commies in the 80s. most non interventionalists supported those wars.

being anti war means being a pacifist.

[Ghundal]

The Northern Alliance waged a civil war, one which was not necessary, and they did this for ethnocentric reasons singly.

Anti-war is for instance being indifferent to the Northern Alliance not only losing, but having no ground at all which would happen when the current war is over.

Northern Alliance militia is full of criminal elements, and due to that, they no longer draw they same support they may have had, and that support in itself was restricted to Northern Afghanistan in Panjshir.

That hardly changes or determines who rules Afghanistan.

[randolph85]

ethnocentric? not really. it played a part but it certainly wasnt a war waged on the concept of ethnocentricism. that would mean people like sayaff and his group were nationalist tajiks because they sided with massoud.

i don't know what u are getting at here. the taliban waged a war against the northern alliance in the 90s which u and i support/ed. this is WAR, this is being pro war. we are for some wars and against others, based on what we perceive to be morally right or wrong.

i think u are missing the point here. having power illegitimately is no different than having it legitimately in that once u have it u can do as u please regardless of how u gained it. the northern alliance is not going to go away once and if the taliban return to mainstream politics in afghanistan.

[Ghundal]

ethnocentric? not really. it played a part but it certainly wasnt a war waged on the concept of ethnocentricism. that would mean people like sayaff and his group were nationalist tajiks because they sided with massoud.

i don't know what u are getting at here. the taliban waged a war against the northern alliance in the 90s which u and i support/ed. this is WAR, this is being pro war. we are for some wars and against others, based on what we perceive to be morally right or wrong.

i think u are missing the point here. having power illegitimately is no different than having it legitimately in that once u have it u can do as u please regardless of how u gained it. the northern alliance is not going to go away once and if the taliban return to mainstream politics in afghanistan.

I dont support war in any shape or form. Maybe you do.

But another interpretation to what you are saying is that the Northern Alliance along with other criminal elements were raping, murdering, and killing Afghans for ethnocentric objectives.

They draw from a group of criminals, and that is why they are not taken seriously at all.

That is why Amarulleh Saleh's /Abdullah Abdullah's threats of civil war fall on death's ears.


That is why Karzai is simply a non-factor

[randolph85]

of course i support war. the prophet supported war, the afghan mujahadin supported war, ahmad shah abdali supported war.

i don't know why u are trying to tip toe around the fact that u support the talibans wars against the US and the northern alliance by not calling or war or whatever.

even the quran tells us to support war, even if we may not like it.

[Ghundal]

I just watched the video

What an idiot

Why does a kafr like Soldat want to impose secularism upon Syria?

Syrians don't want srcularism, but Sharia

[Ghundal]

Randolph

Anti- war is anti-war. Anti-war does not equate to support for the Taliban

Secondly , you continued parroting of Pakistan is behind the Afghan insurgency is the same narrative pushed by Karzai/northern alliance which supports war

You also offer no sources to back up your claims that Pakistan supports Afghan insurgency

In an educated debate, you are supposed to offer sources

I am anti- war, and am opposed to the US war

[Ghundal]

Does anyone know if his parents/relatives/siblings/cousins know of these videos?

Where is he able to just sit his unwashed assss and open his filthy stinking mouth?

I hardly have ever used some of the words he is using. In fact, spewing this out is the sign of such an uneducated person

What world is he living in ? Assad is a murderer

You don't have to be an "Islamist" to know that

[tor_khan]

Salaam Barakzai Jan,

You wrote a long and detailed response, but the points I wanted to draw out further and respond to are shown. In particular, it is the points around 'partnership'.

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.

I agree.

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.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was actually speaking as someone who is trying to Moderate a balance of opinion on the forum rather than proposing political solutions for the continuing struggles in Afghanistan. On request and having reviewed the video, I deleted the original thread, but felt that your thoughtful rebuttal provided the counter balance required.

On the point, Barkakzai Jan, of the suggestion that I might be proposing solutions for Afghanistan. Put simply, I know my strengths and limitations - if the seasoned politicians, diplomats and elders living on the soil haven't figured long term political solutions to Afghanistan, it would be arrogant for me to chime in with my quick fixes.

I would say that whilst it is ideal, few countries can go it totally alone. Those in the past that supposedly did, often did it on the basis of human exploitation to build their might and economies. In the modern world, there are economic/ideological interdependencies. Whom we choose - in international politics - to establish partnerships with is the key matter. There is a lot of indication that for Afghanistan some past relationships have been disastrous and personally I would steer away from dead-end associations (the Brits or Americans, if you like, but some would point to others in addition).

You made a similar point of the Americans needing to let go, except I have understood that your perspective was that you didn't support US interventionism as an American because it brought more conflict back to the home patch.

Note the point that I made about second/third generation Pashtuns raised in the international diaspora . It comes as no surprise in their cases that they express new loyalties. The way I understand it, in Soldat's case, because of his ideological perspective he appears to be making an expression of loyalty to the foreign policy objectives of his adopted country (in order to achieve his ideological position).

As far apart as you both are ideologically, the similarity is that directly or indirectly it would appear that your loyalties are allied to your respective country's interests.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Salaam Barakzai Jan,

You wrote a long and detailed response, but the points I wanted to draw out further and respond to are shown. In particular, it is the points around 'partnership'.



I agree.



Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was actually speaking as someone who is trying to Moderate a balance of opinion on the forum rather than proposing political solutions for the continuing struggles in Afghanistan. On request and having reviewed the video, I deleted the original thread, but felt that your thoughtful rebuttal provided the counter balance required.

On the point, Barkakzai Jan, of the suggestion that I might be proposing solutions for Afghanistan. Put simply, I know my strengths and limitations - if the seasoned politicians, diplomats and elders living on the soil haven't figured long term political solutions to Afghanistan, it would be arrogant for me to chime in with my quick fixes.

I would say that whilst it is ideal, few countries can go it totally alone. Those in the past that supposedly did, often did it on the basis of human exploitation to build their might and economies. In the modern world, there are economic/ideological interdependencies. Whom we choose - in international politics - to establish partnerships with is the key matter. There is a lot of indication that for Afghanistan some past relationships have been disastrous and personally I would steer away from dead-end associations (the Brits or Americans, if you like, but some would point to others in addition).

You made a similar point of the Americans needing to let go, except I have understood that your perspective was that you didn't support US interventionism as an American because it brought more conflict back to the home patch.

Note the point that I made about second/third generation Pashtuns raised in the international diaspora . It comes as no surprise in their cases that they express new loyalties. The way I understand it, in Soldat's case, because of his ideological perspective he appears to be making an expression of loyalty to the foreign policy objectives of his adopted country (in order to achieve his ideological position).

As far apart as you both are ideologically, the similarity is that directly or indirectly it would appear that your loyalties are allied to your respective country's interests.

Salamoona wrorre

Yes I would say you are correct in that latter assessment. However, I think its to the extent that what I am suggesting appears to be

1. More in line with the American constitution itself

2. Better for groups of people in both places.

This means that the Pashtuns there benefit by having one less party involved in their affairs. The usual rebuttal from Toramana and "the gang" is that that throws off the counter weight to Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia etc etc. which I think is absurd. The ethics of that says that one has to promote interventionalism and blatant occupation to counter balance local groups that ought to work out their own problems.

Why should Americans die to solve the border problems between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the internicine tit for tat between the countries ongoing since 1947??? If these folks call themselves ethical humanists how do they justify this? Because they raise some specter of Brzenzski and say that if you broke it you gotta fix it???

I think Pape's work clearly shows the trend of increased suicide bombing with NATO presence in the south of Afghanistan and the Pashtun FATA regions as well.

Also I think Soldat is not professing loyalty to his country at all. Rather I think Soldat is serving as a sneaky shifty 5th column citizen that is intent on embroiling Prince Harry into a struggle that he ought to fight himself. And it goes beyond that, his strong professed expectation as per his own commentaries is that the US needs to do its best to lose soldiers, blood, treasure etc to sustain a rising shiite theocracy in Iraq.

Basically Soldat is serving as some sort of quasi Israel firster type individual but with much less finesse.

As I noted, what I am proposing as as Afghan Independent and pro Afghan as it is Pro American in that both groups of people would have no issue with eachother if the American Empire understood the Scheuer dictum: "They hate us for what we do in their countries not who we are." These values are much more in line with humanism. In the era of massive nuclear deterence there is no way that these groups of rag tag Korean era weaponry folks could threaten the national security of the US save in affecting access to oil. The latter forms a problem for all of humanity in terms of the lack of energy insufficiency.

[Ghundal]

Ad hominem attacks, and talks of loyalties

How pathetic and both cherishable at the same time

Soldat is not loyal to his home country (UK) when he wants them to fight his battles while he sits in Manchester. When he wants his fellow British citizens to die in Afghanistan ad he sips on coffee posting up stupid videos

Such a PRO WAR type and those alike should not be posting on this forum?

I mean they support war (however discrete they are) then what the %#*$ are they doing? Why don't they go and fight against the Taliban?

It should be of no news to you then why "your cause " is a non factor, why cheerleaders of if wars gone bad just become used tissue paper

Accept it. With you being PROWAR, the war you support is coming to an end.

Whereas as a moral person is happy, an immoral type us hopelessly holding on to something that has already been rubbished.

You do not speak for Afghanistans interests

People like Soldat say it themselves, and show the bad attitude they have towards Afghans.

Everything is up for debate