Every Palestinian is worth 100 Afghans

[Observer]

the only problem with Afghans is war, most of which is what Afghans brought upon themselves.

The is a fair point, Muslims have killed far more Muslims themselves than Israel ever has.

My point is that Palestinians even within the Arab world are put put on a semi divine pedestool as if their cause is somehow nobler than all others and their casue is a divine duty to support. Just look at Syria and Israel, Israel kills 140 gazans 40,000 Muslims die in Syria. there were minor local protests in certain muslims countries, there were enormous global huge global protests, political and media condemnation of Israel for killing a fraction of of a fraction of the amount killed in Syria. Muslims are being killed by the thousand in the Yemen and that never gets any coverage. Muslims are being killed by Russia in the Caucus, Xinjang in China, Black African Muslims are being killed by the truckload in the Ivory Coast, Darfur, Mali, Somalia etc yet they never get a mere mention.

So all those other 100,000s of Muslims killing each other or being killed by Russians, Black Africans or Chinese or Americans are worth less than 140 Palestineans killed by the Jews in terms of media coverage, global protests and political condemnation.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

My point is that Israel has not killed a single Pashtun an Arabs have killed thousands. My point also is the the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan has had a far higher casualty rate that the Israeli-Arab conflict. My point is that the world does not erupt into flames every time 100 Pashtuns are bombe by the Americans in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but it does erupt in a huge outrage if say 3 Palestinians were killed.

read this article http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/br...tion-on-earth/

He points out that Britain, America an France have killed far more people than Israel yet the European Left/Liberals have the audacity to lecture Israel.

That's really only because of circumstance, not because they wouldn't do it if there was an opportunity.

Here's a fact ...more Pashtuns have been killed by Pashtuns than anyone else.

[Observer]

That's really only because of circumstance, not because they wouldn't do it if there was an opportunity.

Here's a fact ...more Pashtuns have been killed by Pashtuns than anyone else.

Yes that is true. And More far more Arabs have been killed by other Arabs in Syria,Iraq, Yemen. Libya etc yet they somehow when A Israeli or an American kills a Muslim it is somehow worse that if a Muslim kills a Muslim. why is that?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The is a fair point, Muslims have killed far more Muslims themselves than Israel ever has.

My point is that Palestinians even within the Arab world are put put on a semi divine pedestool as if their cause is somehow nobler than all others and their casue is a divine duty to support. Just look at Syria and Israel, Israel kills 140 gazans 40,000 Muslims die in Syria. there were minor local protests in certain muslims countries, there were enormous global huge global protests, political and media condemnation of Israel for killing a fraction of of a fraction of the amount killed in Syria. Muslims are being killed by the thousand in the Yemen and that never gets any coverage. Muslims are being killed by Russia in the Caucus, Xinjang in China, Black African Muslims are being killed by the truckload in the Ivory Coast, Darfur, Mali, Somalia etc yet they never get a mere mention.

So all those other 100,000s of Muslims killing each other or being killed by Russians, Black Africans or Chinese or Americans are worth less than 140 Palestineans killed by the Jews in terms of media coverage, global protests and political condemnation.

To an extent, I agree with a portion of your premise but would ask you to consider confounders.

I myself find it troubling in my small sample size that the imams constantly pray for the people of "Egypt and Philistine and Iraq" but neglect to send to God the name of the one people that have sacrificed time and time again for the Muslim world.

I myself find it paradoxical that Pakistan's military strategists said directly that Afghans would be on the frontlines of a war of attrition, unwilling to risk their own national security.

But the confounders are as follows:

1) Jerusalem. The world will forever remain fixated on this city and its environs because it is were The Christ preached, where the Holy Prophet Muhammad ascended to heavan from, and where King David issued edicts. It is, in a sense a religious pivot of the world.

It is like saying that there is more computer science related news that comes out of Silicon Valley than Banglor. The former continues to rest in the economic bastion of the world and the latter is just arising.

2) The Palestinians themselves have never made this statement. They have been mistreated in Jordan and are ridiculed in Egypt and abandoned to the wolves by their own brethren in the Peninsula.

Human life is human life. Sudan is also quiet often in the news thanks to Nick Kristol, George Cloony, and Angelina Jolie.... does that mean that the life of a Sudanese is worth more than others as well?

3) The Palestenian plight goes back to beginning of the last century and there are hundreds of scholars that have argued and written books on the subject from Benny Morris to Norman Finkelstein. The subject matter has found traction in Academia itself even amongst Jews.

A reason for this might very well be that the Jewish diaspora is well represented due to their hard work, intelligence, and proclivity for academia. So of course this subject is important to them.

Afghans have about 3 or 4 academics such as Miraki that highlight their plight. Others take a very dispassionate approach to the matter.

Yet others such as AIRRA officials have a political motive and are not based in America or Europe.

4) You have your history wrong.
You define your starting point for the troubles of the Afghans as the mid 1970s.

If you were to resurrect Amanullah, a rather secular leader, would he tell you that Arabs and Arab spring were the problematic folks of his era???

What if you resurrected Abdurrahman? How many Arabs did he have issues with???

So you decided to define our starting point for the troubles of the Pashtuns as the 1970s era struggles.

Yet you allow the Western powers the get out of jail free card with this approach by saying that they were innoculated there solely due to Arab interventions in the Pashtun lands.

Really??? What about the leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India willingly parceling off their independence to the world powers even before a single Arab stepped foot into Afghanistan?

Each of these leaders thought they could take the easy way out of the development of country by playing a find tuned game of strategic balancing to disasterous effects.

5)
Representative Alan West also liked to play this game with his "Gates of Vienna" speech. His goal was encapsulate all Muslims into a single entity intent on incursions into Europe and beyond with their arsenal of Korean War Era weaponry.

Think very hard before you put your money on this argument.

I agree 110% with ScimitarXEdge when he says that Eastern peoples, Muslim, Atheist-Muslim, and Secular-Muslim alike need to do a heck of a lot of thinking about how it all came to this. People take advantage of fools because they CAN. That is the way of the world, always has been and always will be. It doesnt matter if you are Turkish, American, Arab, Pashtun, or whatever you are; this is reality.

6) With 5 in mind, where then is the proper time to deliniate time point 0?

Ah the Arabs. Who, how, what, where did the decline of a people in the modern era begin? And what resulted in their interventions and incursions in Afghanistan?

This is all based on historical fact and available in Encyclopedia Britannica and CIA publications:

In the the earlier part of the last century the Ottomon empire was divided up by the Colonial powers (Britain, France, Italy, Germany, etc). The local people chafed under their rule and occupation of these nations were becoming a costly endeavor for them. These lands were resource laden and still very valuable though. The new post Industrial revolution West relied in resources from these areas to maintain their status and rate of development. Before they left, they installed locals who were amenable to their will. This happened in Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Pakistan, and by subterfuge even in Afghanistan, and of course they felt fine with Ataturkian Turkey.

Eventually with enough friction the Iranians gained a modicum of independence and elected a reasonably secular liberal leader named Mossadegh. Whether Mossadegh was a good man or bad man does not concern us here because what we do know is that the Iranians backed him.

Operation Ajax commenced and Mossadegh was removed by force via the efforts of the US and UK. They installed the Brutal Shah of Iran who developed the Savak. He is eventually overthrown by the Iranians of all backgrounds and the Ayatollahs assume power.

Over in the Arab states, a thug named Saddam Hussein, a Baathist, rises in the ranks and also establishes communications with the CIA. Eventually Saddam reached the pinnacle of his power.

Saddam is coaxed, by his handlers, into a bitter and bloody war with Iran which he loses. Saddam in the meanwhile, per the Wikileaks released Glaspie memo, acknowledges discussions to enter Kuwait.

The US utilizes the fool to establish bases in the Peninsula. While all of the above was going on, the Saudi monarchy established itself with the help of bedouins that it massacred when the bedouins rose up against outside institutions developing Arabian oil resources.

Hints of insurrection are seen again in the Faisal era and the Mecca rebellion. Carter had promulgated his doctrine with respect to intervening in the area.

When bases were established in the Peninsula, according to not just Eastern sources, but Western intelligence sources, this was the equivalent of if Turks occupied the Vatican.

Jim Baker and others refused to negotiate with folks in the Muslim world that wanted him out and instead the US policy became to further intervene in these environs.

Further interventions in Africa would lead to the "Arab-Afghans" landing, with permission from Rabbani, Mossoud, Sayyaf etc in Afghanistan.

---------------------------------------

Bottom line observer, you do humanity a disservice when you try to dessiminate false information that is not considered carefully in the light of history replete with nuances and confounders. Our duty in the West is to be nonviolent and convey information to those in our nation states that want to understand what their blood and treasure are being wasted for.

We must break past the disinformation of The Kite Runner and Kabul hairdresser propaganda and inform the populace of the reality on the ground now and historically.

Samuel Huntington predicted a clash of civilizations, and we are not there yet but are approaching that precipice due to misinformation and unfounded historical assumptions.

Take one last example: Alan West's whole tirade against the Arab peoples is founded in his belief that the West, its 12th century crusades, and the modern era issues all relate to The Prophet Muhammad's notion of taking the whole world over.

The reality for those that have studied history is entirely different. Persian and Muslim literature document how 2 empires, the Byzantines and the Persians had both made incurions into what is now known as Saudi Arabia in the lifetime of Muhammad himself.

A Persian set of gaurds were sent to arrest the Holy Prophet after he sent an epistle to Khosrow and they claimed that Mecca was itself, property of the Persians.

The first clash between Christianity and Islam on super power level actually took place in the life of the Prophet himself at the Battle of Muta. What we know for sure is that it was not the Prophet who had outposts in Byzantine lands but instead the Byzantines who had outposts in the Peninsula.

Many eyes were on the Peninsula nearly a millenia before the Prophet was even born. Alexander, before his death, had his eyes set on Arabia.

Therefore, the first series of "punches" were not thrown by Arabs by by everyone BUT the Arabs. In the dog eat dog world that we live in, in which might makes right to this day, no Muslim should ever apologise for the era of the Prophet, and the consolidations of the 4 caliphs.

And thus, your historical revisionism of imperial Arabs loses some of its vigor.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Yes that is true. And More far more Arabs have been killed by other Arabs in Syria,Iraq, Yemen. Libya etc yet they somehow when A Israeli or an American kills a Muslim it is somehow worse that if a Muslim kills a Muslim. why is that?

same reason why you're more upset that Arabs kill Pashtuns but don't make a big deal when Pashtuns do it to other Pashtuns

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Yes that is true. And More far more Arabs have been killed by other Arabs in Syria,Iraq, Yemen. Libya etc yet they somehow when A Israeli or an American kills a Muslim it is somehow worse that if a Muslim kills a Muslim. why is that?

A non starter argument. Its basic human emotion. Anyone who has a family or is part of one understands that people in that family have far more verbal leverage with eachother than outsiders. What one sees very often in Afghan families is that the dysfunctionality temporarily disappears the moment an outside person pokes his nose into the family's business.

The same think could be said of any peoples amongst the human species. Presidents make rash decisions and send people off to die in foreign lands and Peter King can support the IRA (Irish people and British people killing eachother) but he holds many more meetings on Islamist violence in congress and has not had a single meeting about American involvement and support for the UK in its occupation of Ireland.

For the matter, in the US South, white people kill white people all the time but if a black man kills a white woman or if a white kills a black (blacks kill blacks all the time) riots break out. Cincinnati Ohio had to be curfewed in the early 2000s exactly because of that issue. The LA riots is a very pertinent example, when Rodney King's mishandling (despite his own issues) resulted in massive outrage and death.

So spare us the malarchy. If you went to Veitnam in the era of the occupations of the French and the Americans you would find the exact same behavior of Veitnemese farmers more likely to blame Saigon than Ho Chi.

[Shah-i-Kot]

The fact of the matter is is that Arabs/Persians/Indians supported the British to break up the Caliphate

The British repaid them by creating Israel

Arabs factually have been servants of the West.

These governments do not care for Palestinians or Afghans or any other being in the world

Just watch them kisss a-s-ss-s all the time.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The fact of the matter is is that Arabs/Persians/Indians supported the British to break up the Caliphate

The British repaid them by creating Israel

Arabs factually have been servants of the West.

These governments do not care for Palestinians or Afghans or any other being in the world

Just watch them kisss a-s-ss-s all the time.

Not all, for instance, Jauhar in India, one of the key fathers of Muslim indian independence raised many of the masses in support of the Caliph.

Sadly, there were some renowned Indian Muslims like Abdullah Yusuf Ali who did support the crown and actually wrote propaganda against the Caliph.

Also, recall that one of the men that the Israelis hate the most to this day is the former Mofti of Al Aqsa who in his day supported the Germans and Turks.

[khushal]

The is a fair point, Muslims have killed far more Muslims themselves than Israel ever has.
.

This is true but you could say that about any society in the world. More Americans have been killed by fellow americans than by others. more Europeans have been killed by fellow Europeans than by others. more Chinese have been killed more by fellow chinese than by others and so on and so on.