Michael Scheuer: Critical appraisal, analysis and discussion

[Entropy]

SiiNii

It is superb to see an American soldier comment here to prove a case in point.

Lol

[Badlun]

You want to bring up ending 'evil' regimes? Why don't we invade North Korea first? How about supporting the rebels in Myanmar against the junta? Or taking down the numerous maniacs in sub-saharan Africa?



I'm glad to see you stopped hiding behind the message of peace and tolerance, that you really believe the US should run the entire world according to the interests of it's elites, punishing disobedience with murder, displacement and chaos.


Physical cowards like you always like to say that 'it takes a few eggs to make an omelette', but never risk their own shells being cracked on the pan.

You don't address any of the arguments laid out by anyone else, instead you argue like a woman.

So Badlun is a male coward with a woman's mind.

Now I see why Barakzai always calls you a Kooney.

US has sanctioned regimes like in North Korea, Myanmar but as they are not direct threats to US or its US citizens, so far there are no strikes. Every thing ha sits time. Al Qaeda is the worst enemy of US and humanity at large because it does not have a solid entity like the states of North Korea or Myanmar.

The real coward /Kooney is the one who runs away from battle field and joins a civilian work and betrays his/her pattern army organization or has psychological disorders. If one is so coward then why joins army where one has to fight for both just and unjust wars because military is to obey the command.

[Badlun]

@BarakzaiAbdali

@Badlun made a statement about the human damages of interventionism that was challenged by @SiNii. I would agree with the latter from a purely humanitarian point of view. Afghanistan has suffered enough without our folk being seen as expendable, but I am also aware that view sometimes comes from the luxury of being raised in a conflict-free environment where I haven't been forced to take sides. Afghans, I note, have a much more pragmatic view of life/death even when the lines within the war are blurred.

From our contributors here, I can understand why you might conclude that nationalism and secularism are regularly conflated with interventionism. However, where do you draw the line for interventionism? Are there degrees on interventionism that are acceptable or inevitable?

If US interventionism in Afghanistan is a mistake, presumably we can extend that to include Russian, Pakistani, Iranian and Indian intervention, correct? Putting to a side (for now) the discussion around the US intervention in Syria, if we argue that the US and the UK have no place in Afghanistan because they are physically removed, would this argument also be true for the Russians? Or do we exclude the Russians and India despite their neighbourhood influences on the basis of religion?

Muslims think of a the universality of the global ummah and do not recognise colonial boundaries. In that case Pakistan is an example where lines begin to blur somewhat as both Pakistan and Afghanistan are dealing with restive a Pashtun populace. However, if Pakistan (or Iran) have little right to intervene in Afghanistan because of their previous track, then is that not the argument that a nationalist (secularist) would make?

In short, can you argue the case for a sovereign Afghanistan if you view the Ummah as a global community? Should Pashtuns accept the dominance of other better educated and organised Muslims? Would such a view present the least nationalistic (and thereby secularist/interventionist) approach?

Religious pundits, Islamists, extremists, wahabbis, Salafis, Ikhwanis will very easily absorb the intervention of the Arabs of Makkah and Madina in the whole Middle east, Africa , Asia and Europe but will curse intervention of a modern democratic country for its own national interest and for the larger interest of the humanity.

This is the crux of the matter. Every one ha sits own prism and spectrum. For them Jihad was holy war and that is why acceptable or even a duty and for us removal of menace of Al Qaeda is the duty of every human with a little bit of conscience.

Even today Saudi, Iran, Pakistan even Turkey are directly intervening in Afghanistan but no hue and cry because they are Muslims. USA being a non Muslim country fighting the war of humanity is seen with the prejudiced eye.

[Badlun]

This coming from a militant secularist who thought Najibushaytaan was the messiah of Pashtuns LOLOL.

Lets see the differences between Osho/Badulunian expertise and Scheuer's approach:

1. Badlun generally has the worst references to date. See the Ahmad Shah Dorani thread and his attempts to attack Soldier Matthew Hoh.
1 prime: Scheuer references powerful academic work like the University of Maryland studies on the Muslim world:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Apr07_rpt.pdf

The Pew data:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

And finally, the Arizona University studies on Quranic viewpoints amongst Muslims:
http://csc.asu.edu/wp-content/upload...ran-verses.pdf

2. Badlun's agenda is that of militant secularism which is a parasitic agenda that relies on the strength of others to fight its struggles.
2 prime: Scheuer is a part of the very super power apparatus Badlun claimed to worship and respect. His goal is simply to serve his nation and destroy its enemies.

3. Badlun relies on arguments that are juvenile when he is on the verge of a loss: e.g. when discussing Shah Waliullah he simply says "I have studied him" to somehow prove a point when it proves nothing
3 prime: Scheuer actually has studied these people and the literature and is able to cite specific sections and references with great ease.

4. Badlun misinterprets Scheuer
4 prime: Scheuer interprets Badlun and his ilk perfectly and accurately.

5. Badlun is generally abnormal and follows a criminal guru who tried to use feces to poison the denizens of the state of Oregan.
5 prime: Scheuer is for the most part a normal human being who is not as socially or mentally unstable as Badlun.

6. Badlun is agenda laced - he admits that his upbringing was in the context of a family life centered around religion. Therefore, he is experiencing the psychiatric defense mechanism of reaction formation.
6 prime: the only thing scheuer has reaction formation against is some of the changing mores and culture of the US, but for the most part evidences guides scheuer not vice versa.

To end the discussion, we can say Peter Bergen's recent excellent article proves Scheuer's thesis beautifully:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/opinio...zawahiri-egypt

"

A recent Harvard Kennedy School

study of 131 terrorist groups

that have gone out of business found that they averaged 14 years of existence.

Al Qaeda has already shown an ability to survive well beyond the life of an average terrorist group. The big question is whether Zawahiri can successfully lead the al Qaeda network so it can thrive in today's chaotic conditions in the Middle East and can last another 25 years.

"

So for now, doyen Peter Bergen and the points above tend to show Scheuer is the winner and Badlun/Osho remains a propagandistic militant secularist.

Why CIA, Congress, White house, Pentagon etc do not listen to Scheuer or you think all these persons representing all these august institutions are stupids and only Barakzai and Scheuer are wise?

[SiiNii]

The real coward /Kooney is the one who runs away from battle field and joins a civilian work and betrays his/her pattern army organization or has psychological disorders. If one is so coward then why joins army where one has to fight for both just and unjust wars because military is to obey the command.

You mean like your friend and current warhawk John Kerry? The man who returned from Vietnam, joined the anti-war groups and accused US soldiers of false war crimes, the man who is now advocating a war America doesn't need.

http://watchdog.org/103764/john-kerry-1971-vs-2013/

[SiiNii]

Why CIA, Congress, White house, Pentagon etc do not listen to Scheuer or you think all these persons representing all these august institutions are stupids and only Barakzai and Scheuer are wise?

Might be our own personal experiences with members of these institutions and also the testimony from current and former members of the same.

US has sanctioned regimes like in North Korea, Myanmar but as they are not direct threats to US or its US citizens, so far there are no strikes. Every thing ha sits time. Al Qaeda is the worst enemy of US and humanity at large because it does not have a solid entity like the states of North Korea or Myanmar.

Neither are any of the factions fighting in Syria a danger to the US. If Al Qaeda is the 'worst enemy of humanity', to use your Hollywood/Saturday morning cartoon terminology, then why is the US government assisting them with funding and equipment?!

[SiiNii]

Lets turn the thread into a positive and discuss Mike's recent Syria articles. We can accomplish this by pretty much ignoring Badlun's posts which are sort of polished turds at best and filler at worst.

It might be easier to start a new Syria focused thread, but that kind thread must already be on some Syrian Forum with actual Syrians from both sides giving input.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

It might be easier to start a new Syria focused thread, but that kind thread must already be on some Syrian Forum with actual Syrians from both sides giving input.

Both sides? I know dozens of Syrians. They are more divided than we are.

It is a mistake to assume there are pro and anti assad groups only.