Egyptians Hoping Israel Will Destroy Hamas

[BarakzaiAbdali]

source lion!

Here, let me teach you how to find a source that works for your argument.

Process:

1) Read widely, even with sources you disagree with and read their sub reference and sub sources if possible. It is like a medical dissection anatomy lab. Keep chasing each reference and subreference until you reach the original source.

2) Weigh whether the argument makes any sense and see if the evidence chain backs up the central argument.

3) Substantiate with numbers and hard data from reliable vetted organizations.

4) Also vet those same organizations yourself. See if they have criticism coming their way and for what so as to see if they are truly reliable or just reliable because the mass media says they are.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

source lion!

Here is a gift you can post in the politics section:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/was-camp-bucca-pressure-cooker-extremism

This is an example of a source that is considered to have somewhat of a left-wing agenda but is nonetheless considered reliable and has reporters that work on an evidence basis.

Note that their arguments are not retarded or outlandish. Rather, using common sense and the narration in the article one can see how Baghdadi really came into being.

[jankhan]

So toramana, badlun and karachi support israeli occupation and expansion. How pathetic and ill thinkinng.
Great work Barakzai.

[Khostai]

I don't know why Barakzai is so fired up about the Snowden case, like he is some pro ISIS extremist, I tought you were gainst them? Or you are only against secular extremists, the rest can do what ever they like?

And by the way he himself posted here a few vague sources, like the one on Ghani were some guy claimed that he was not even Pashtun, and a source about that if US will go away Afghanistan economy will become totaly zero.....

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I don't know why Barakzai is so fired up about the Snowden case, like he is some pro ISIS extremist, I tought you were gainst them? Or you are only against secular extremists, the rest can do what ever they like?

And by the way he himself posted here a few vague sources, like the one on Ghani were some guy claimed that he was not even Pashtun, and a source about that if US will go away Afghanistan economy will become totaly zero.....

Brother to clarify:

My issue is not the criticism of ISIS, its the evidence based criticism of ISIS. For instance, I posted this article for Hallo above:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...oker-extremism

I think you will find it offers some useful information.

Why is the truth important? Its because to end the cycle of violence we have to understand who perpetrators are and who victims are.

These stupid and fantastic articles that people post that make claims like:
King Abdullah is a secret mossad jew ---> Abdullah of Saudi goes and does face time with Mullah Omar and Baghdadi ---> They all are in cahoots with the US

rely on unsubstantiated claims, false evidences, or just wholesale fabrications.

When one read the article from Mother Jones, with stronger references, including US Generals we see a different picture emerge. Blame is placed correctly and squarely where it ought to be instead of deflecting it and making it seem that every sunni in the sunni triangle is some gangster jew or that every Afghan opposing Karzai is some gangster Pakistani.

My issue with the militant secularists is that they feign victimhood and pertend to be an enlightened majority, yet know that they are an esoteric minority. Case in point would be folks in other places like Michael Aflaq, the Christian that founded the Baath party. They seek to implement minority viewpoints by force onto the population and then when they stoke violent conflicts they invite others to do their dirty work for them.

In this instance, the picture that emerges is that many people in Camp Bucca were the victims and were radicalized and it may very well have been the birthing camp for what would become the original ISIS.

So then we have to talk about evidences and go back to the historical chain of events.

In Iraq, the Baath Party (a secular minded Arab party) took Iraq into the devastating Iraq and Iran war under secular militant Saddam Hussein. Yet ironically the other half of the Baath party provided the support to destroy Iraq in Gulf War 1. So twice over the Iraqi people were humiliated and destroyed over stupid decisions made not by religionists or Saudis but by their own Baath leaders. Saddam's decisions and discussions with Ambassador Glaspie would lead to his doing what they wanted to justify pounding him (alongside prodding from Kuwait).

So now years of war and the US invasion (unjustified and stupid as well) led to further radicalization of the Camp Bucca people and that was the nidus for ISIS.

So I vew these radicals and Afghan fighters as the victims in a war imposed on them. They are not the disease itself, but the symptom of it.

Your prior argument was that militant secularism is a response to prior religiosity. I don't see any historical evidence to validate that viewpoint when we march backwards through the reigns of the Kings. The flash point Amanullah has been discussed thoroughly, but before him there was not this militant secularist desire to destroy rural religious values or to crush the people.

Regarding the Ghani article, it was written by Dr. Hanifi, an Afghan Pashtun historian who heavily criticises the Taliban as well:
http://zeroanthropology.net/2013/09/...n-afghanistan/

The thing Abassin says again and again is "white western sources mean nothing and you have no Afghan sources." So this man is an Afghan source who knew Ghani.

He was former elected head of the Department of Anthropology in University of Illinois (meaning he was not some random google source).

That being said, I agree some of his assertions are off, but some are on the mark. For instance, there are many Pashtuns named Bahram in history - just because it is a Persian word does not mean its not something Pashtuns would use. In my original post, I stated the same things.

So in summary Khostai, my view is that the truth must be pursued aggressively or else the true perpetrators of violence and mischief are let off the hook with excuses and the true root cause of radicalism and militantism is answered with more violence which is a vicious cycle that further breeds more of the same. It is like instead of using an antibiotic for a septic patient, injecting more bacteria into his blood and then making excuses for malpractice.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I don't know why Barakzai is so fired up about the Snowden case, like he is some pro ISIS extremist, I tought you were gainst them? Or you are only against secular extremists, the rest can do what ever they like?

And by the way he himself posted here a few vague sources, like the one on Ghani were some guy claimed that he was not even Pashtun, and a source about that if US will go away Afghanistan economy will become totaly zero.....

Also, I dont think it is fair to Edward Snowden, who has said he is a patriot to his nation, to attribute things to him that he did not do. He made it clear that he did not want to harm his home country but that he wanted the fourth amendment of the US constitution honored. These sorts of lies put out by Fars would be like me making up some article saying "Khostai says Ashraf Ghani to welcome Mullah Omar into cabinet." There is no way you said something like that and to put it in your mouth is to do you a disservice.

[Khostai]

Brother to clarify:

My issue is not the criticism of ISIS, its the evidence based criticism of ISIS. For instance, I posted this article for Hallo above:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...oker-extremism

I think you will find it offers some useful information.

Why is the truth important? Its because to end the cycle of violence we have to understand who perpetrators are and who victims are.

These stupid and fantastic articles that people post that make claims like:
King Abdullah is a secret mossad jew ---> Abdullah of Saudi goes and does face time with Mullah Omar and Baghdadi ---> They all are in cahoots with the US

rely on unsubstantiated claims, false evidences, or just wholesale fabrications.

When one read the article from Mother Jones, with stronger references, including US Generals we see a different picture emerge. Blame is placed correctly and squarely where it ought to be instead of deflecting it and making it seem that every sunni in the sunni triangle is some gangster jew or that every Afghan opposing Karzai is some gangster Pakistani.

My issue with the militant secularists is that they feign victimhood and pertend to be an enlightened majority, yet know that they are an esoteric minority. Case in point would be folks in other places like Michael Aflaq, the Christian that founded the Baath party. They seek to implement minority viewpoints by force onto the population and then when they stoke violent conflicts they invite others to do their dirty work for them.

In this instance, the picture that emerges is that many people in Camp Bucca were the victims and were radicalized and it may very well have been the birthing camp for what would become the original ISIS.

So then we have to talk about evidences and go back to the historical chain of events.

In Iraq, the Baath Party (a secular minded Arab party) took Iraq into the devastating Iraq and Iran war under secular militant Saddam Hussein. Yet ironically the other half of the Baath party provided the support to destroy Iraq in Gulf War 1. So twice over the Iraqi people were humiliated and destroyed over stupid decisions made not by religionists or Saudis but by their own Baath leaders. Saddam's decisions and discussions with Ambassador Glaspie would lead to his doing what they wanted to justify pounding him (alongside prodding from Kuwait).

So now years of war and the US invasion (unjustified and stupid as well) led to further radicalization of the Camp Bucca people and that was the nidus for ISIS.

So I vew these radicals and Afghan fighters as the victims in a war imposed on them. They are not the disease itself, but the symptom of it.

Your prior argument was that militant secularism is a response to prior religiosity. I don't see any historical evidence to validate that viewpoint when we march backwards through the reigns of the Kings. The flash point Amanullah has been discussed thoroughly, but before him there was not this militant secularist desire to destroy rural religious values or to crush the people.

Regarding the Ghani article, it was written by Dr. Hanifi, an Afghan Pashtun historian who heavily criticises the Taliban as well:
http://zeroanthropology.net/2013/09/...n-afghanistan/

The thing Abassin says again and again is "white western sources mean nothing and you have no Afghan sources." So this man is an Afghan source who knew Ghani.

He was former elected head of the Department of Anthropology in University of Illinois (meaning he was not some random google source).

That being said, I agree some of his assertions are off, but some are on the mark. For instance, there are many Pashtuns named Bahram in history - just because it is a Persian word does not mean its not something Pashtuns would use. In my original post, I stated the same things.

So in summary Khostai, my view is that the truth must be pursued aggressively or else the true perpetrators of violence and mischief are let off the hook with excuses and the true root cause of radicalism and militantism is answered with more violence which is a vicious cycle that further breeds more of the same. It is like instead of using an antibiotic for a septic patient, injecting more bacteria into his blood and then making excuses for malpractice.

I also think that the truth must be spoken, but you only critisice those sources who atack taliban, ISIS or some other extremist group, I bet if this was about some communist or secularist group and altough it was filled with nonsence you would be quite about it. I find your off place reaction about this cases weird, you always claim to be for reason and evidence and peace, but it doesn;t seem like it, you are only angry when jihadist or some other fundametal Islamic group is atacked...
No wonder people here call you extremist mullah and what not.

[Khostai]

Also, I dont think it is fair to Edward Snowden, who has said he is a patriot to his nation, to attribute things to him that he did not do. He made it clear that he did not want to harm his home country but that he wanted the fourth amendment of the US constitution honored. These sorts of lies put out by Fars would be like me making up some article saying "Khostai says Ashraf Ghani to welcome Mullah Omar into cabinet." There is no way you said something like that and to put it in your mouth is to do you a disservice.

Snowden is a traitor to his nation. He should be inpressoned for his treasson.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Snowden is a traitor to his nation. He should be inpressoned for his treasson.

Daniel Ellsberg would disagree and he was the Pentagon Papers leaker of fame. He is a whistle blower.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-stasi-america

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I also think that the truth must be spoken, but you only critisice those sources who atack taliban, ISIS or some other extremist group,

I cannot help it if Hallo, Taj Andersen, and others do a piss poor job of providing evidence based criticism. My attacks, for instance even here, were not on the criticism of ISIS but the idiotic posting generating a false story and therefore detracting from a meaningful discussion. If you were to read the Mother Jones article you would see what I posted does far more damage to ISIS's narrative then this idiotic post by Hallo.

I bet if this was about some communist or secularist group and altough it was filled with nonsence you would be quite about it.

That is your opinion, but there is no evidence for this. If you can find an article here of this caliber of stupidity (i.e. posting either a John Bolton hit piece as Toramana did or this fake Fars article as Hallo did) then so be it.

More often the "critical" articles here attempt to assert these communists or secularists as compromising with Islamists or some other absurdity to somehow make them palatable to their adversary.

I find your off place reaction about this cases weird, you always claim to be for reason and evidence and peace, but it doesn;t seem like it, you are only angry when jihadist or some other fundametal Islamic group is atacked...

Well, that's an opinion. I would venture to say that a sunni in Mosul who has no care for ISIS but was tired of Maliki (and we have tons of evidence for this) would disagree with you and say that the truth is not mullahthope.

No wonder people here call you extremist mullah and what not.

Well they are entitled to that opinion, but in our short tenure here we have exposed Farhat Taj Andersen's blatant disregard for representative data collection and shown the links of these sorts of dubious characters to one another (e.g. Toramana's latest post from Kahar Zalmay is yet another AIRRA Taj Andersenite). If exposing their minority driven agenda with evidence, and demanding evidence of people like you is what gets one labeled a mullah then so be it.

And I would say to date you have yet to prove your key argument. You previously admitted that religious rebellions and militantism is a reaction to these people's policies but claimed that the religionists started it way back in history. When asked for the history or evidence you never answered.

[Karachi]

So toramana, badlun and karachi support israeli occupation and expansion. How pathetic and ill thinkinng.
Great work Barakzai.

I will never support Israeli occupation, they are a brutal people who laugh and enjoy at the deaths of Palestinians, how can any sane human being support that?

My point was that Hamas or other militants in the region and muslim world, haven't done anything positive for the cause. Terrorism/extremism can never solve anything, only make the situation worse. Muslim world needs to come out of the extremist mindset. I am seeing that mindset change in the Arab world to an extent

[jankhan]

I will never support Israeli occupation, they are a brutal people who laugh and enjoy at the deaths of Palestinians, how can any sane human being support that?

My point was that Hamas or other militants in the region and muslim world, haven't done anything positive for the cause. Terrorism/extremism can never solve anything, only make the situation worse. Muslim world needs to come out of the extremist mindset. I am seeing that mindset change in the Arab world to an extent

So you mean fighting for their own freedom is extremism and terrorism ?

[Karachi]

So you mean fighting for their own freedom is extremism and terrorism ?

Hamas is a political organization with it's own goals and objectives, they have done no good for the Palestinian cause, only brought more misery for them. This is why even most arabs have given up on Hamas

As for other terrorists and extremists in the muslim world, do I have to really spell that out for you? how have they done any good for the muslim world?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Hamas is a political organization with it's own goals and objectives, they have done no good for the Palestinian cause, only brought more misery for them. This is why even most arabs have given up on Hamas

As for other terrorists and extremists in the muslim world, do I have to really spell that out for you? how have they done any good for the muslim world?

The issue is causality Karachi. That is, do the extremists exist in a vacuum? Where do they come from? Have you read the biographies or background of how these people came into being?

The issue you is you act as if they many of them just got up one day and said "Hey mom, guess what I am an extremist! Now, bring me all my CDs and let me break them... I'll pretend to avoid women and not look at them but hypocritically watch them on TV when no one is looking"

There is just no evidence to show that such a mindset exists in the first place.

For that matter, why did the Tamil Tigers exist? Did they just out of nowhere decide that they were going to create a group for fun? Or for that matter, The Shiv Sena folks in India... do they exist in isolation or are they basing their view and cause on some historical reason?

Do conditions themselves lend to extremism?

For instance, leave aside the Iran you see today and think back to Khomenei who the world called an extremist in his time. What created that government? It was the fact that a brutal dictator Shah of Iran had been forced onto a people after they democratically elected a government.

Now go to Egypt. The Brotherhood had denounced violence for nearly a half century. They were elected in fair and free elections in multiple rounds of voting and the party that came in second was the Salafists. So now, we see extremism on the rise in Egypt AFTER the coup. Former CIA officials note that it might have been better to let Morsi fail on his own instead of implicitly backing Sisi because now, the former brotherhood youngsters took a look at reality and said to themselves:

1) We tried democracy
2) When we did 1) look where it got us.

And this has led to further radicalization.

In other environments like Afghanistan and Pakistan, have you seen the refugee camps and talked to the people about what they endured? Do you realize that a whole society, its traditions, its tribal structure was smashed in a clash of two super powers? People who were already poor but had family and clan were now much more desperate and left without even family at times.

And regarding working and not working... what you are talking about? Where has democracy worked out so well in the Muslim world so as to say that when the people's wishes and aspirations are realized that democracy by the rules and dictums of secular fascists has guaranteed progress?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally what have you to say about the fact that Hamas won the elections in 2006 ---> Israel and Egypt blockaded Gaza to try and starve the government into submission --->

Just yesterday NPR noted that CONTRARY to what you allege, if there was another intifada today, Palestinians would oust Mahmud Abbas and not Hamas. They interviewed a liberal college educated female Palestinian well known writer:

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/14/331298...t-bank-outrage

[QUOTE]
INSKEEP: So, you're saying if there were another Intifada, another uprising on the West Bank, one possible way that could go would be against the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas?

SHIBLI: Definitely. This is what you hear, this is what the students are saying. On the other hand you have also depression in the sense of being lost because if this is a political leadership, you also thinking what are the alternatives, are there any other leadership available and there isn't.

SHIBLI: People see Hamas as the only party that is not accepting to live under occupation. You don't see the Israeli Army inside Ramallah but it is around Ramallah, so people cannot move freely. And you have the check point still there, building the wall, confiscating land to build settlements and then they see, OK, they cannot resist that or their political leadership is not managing to resist that. While Hamas is saying, Ok we don't accept this policy.

INSKEEP: Are you saying and of course we're not thing about a scientific poll, just the people that you talk with, friends, family, students and so forth. People are not saying that Hamas is responsible for bringing down all this Israeli force on them?

SHIBLI: (Unintelligible) the occupation was there before Hamas, so Hamas is an outcome of occupation. Of course, I mean they're also saying here that what the Israeli government is doing - it's not because of kidnapping these three teenager settlers but because they want the unit government to fail.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://www.thesusijnagency.com/AdaniaShibli.htm

Above is Adnia Shibli, hardly an islamist or a militant or a radical Karachi. Those words are hers, not mine. As I note she being there on the ground, disagrees with your assessment of the situation and what people feel and see. I think you need to not let popular opinion and brash judgments influence your assessment on why people act the way they do in warzones or with respect to this worldwide conflict.

And with respect to your question... what good have they done? It appears Shibli is answering you - they give people the voice of resistance. Its common sensical that when you are occupied or have a foreign entity controlling your government, there are people, in Shibli's view who keep their eye on the prize - which is autonomy and dignity. Apparently, they disagree with you over who has bought more or less of that, Hamas or Abbas.