Why all terrorists are Pashtuns?

[Baygham]

You said see color. It turns out that the retinal design may be able to accomodate that.

You need a wired brain for that, check achromatopsia. Thats why a child does not regain sight if vision is not restored early. Your robo retina cannot restore that. Central connection once not formed cannot be formed. So please leave this one alone.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I have met with american indian chiefs. I have not seen or heard of a single american indian up in arms against washington. I have never seen one express such sentiment. I have heard more whites wishing for nazi's to come back than I have heard or seen american indians voicing seperatist views.

Corruption is different than constitutional disenfranchisement. Billions are defrauded from medicare, used predominantly by the majority whites, is that anti white. Non sense.

When you compare things compare with equal. Dont compare women rights in saudia with female rights in chimpanzee groups. Tell us how the tor kafar were protected by kabul. Or how the still alive sur kafar in hunza will be protected when taliban encircle hunza in the not so near future. Tell us about that.

And if one hates america and it is so rotten, one should pack up and catch a flight to kandahar, help the needed there. Fight the americans and join the salafis.

There you again with the whole religion thing, refer to the SCEdge Appreciation thread.

Its you that assumed I am suddenly anti American. I am a voting, Tax paying, son of a military/state department official. I am however, ardently against stupid policy.

For example, if tomorrow there were a Khilaafath and the Khalifaath had a nuclear arm and he said hey Barakzai... gung ho we are going to take on the American Superpower. Id tell him that he can go fly a kite and just sit content and ride out the mutually assured destruction concept to kingdom come.

If the American tells me... hey Bosnian Muslims are dieing... we need to save them. Ill tell him "Saibaa pa kalaar shena. His kaar dhey neshtaa althaa" Serbians and Bosnians have their own crap to sort out.

Im doing just fine here, minding my own business, living with my khanum, and just casting my useless votes in republican primary after republican primary for Ron Paul.

As i said, my difference with you stems from what I believe is your lack of reality: I just dont see the evidence that the majority of pashtuns endorse your mode of thinking and that they want a superpower enforced secular state on their head, with the figurehead a pompous, effeminate, and unpopular individual that left his country in the lurch when it fought Russia. If I see that becoming the case Ill wholeheartedly say, hey let em dance bangra and bag dandeeaa sticks till time remits.

And, if by some twist of fate that turned out to be case, I still do not endorse a single dollar going there.

I cannot wait to see how you somehow throw the Quran at me in this one.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

You need a wired brain for that, check achromatopsia. Thats why a child does not regain sight if vision is not restored early. Your robo retina cannot restore that. Central connection once not formed cannot be formed. So please leave this one alone.

May be the case... Im far from my neuro block in medical school so Ill trust you on this one. But because of your unreliability in other issues Ill have to check it out in my spare time.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

initially i commented, after you were giving the reason why some pastoons are blind and have a quandry in their 'little heads' because you failed to mention how the reality of so-called democratic behaviour over this planet, may also be an influence. these negative behaviours would be mind- boggling to people trying to make decisions about the future of their country re; democracy or anything connected to the invaders.
no, i don't have a solution, because, at the moment i just see the whole invasion set up as a facade created by the government behind the government, in america and elsewhere. i believe america will stay in afghanistan for strategic and pillage purposes, under all sorts of illusive excuses.
baygham, i believe you have the best intent in mind, for your people, from what i have seen so far.

Faye, dont listen to the detractors, you have a wonderful brain on your shoulders and are actually pretty consistent with the information you have access to. Im just waiting to see how they accuse you of being a Salafi. You know, I just recently, after reading up on ibn Tamiyaah etc actually learned what the heck the word salaf meant in the first place.

[faye]

i don't see any detractors yet, we're just shooting the breeze. but if you think i should get my 'defense shield' activated i shall put it on 'alert'.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Here you go Osho, add Pat Buchanon to the list of folks that oppose strategy and nation building:

Afghanistan, the Unwinnable War
by Patrick J. Buchanan, August 14, 2009
Email This | Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum

"Taliban Are Winning: U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Warns of Rising Casualties." Thus ran the startling headline on the front-page of The Wall Street Journal. The lead paragraph ran thus:
"The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency’s spiritual home."
Source for the story: Gen. Stanley McChrystal himself.
The general’s spokesman in Kabul was swift to separate him from that headline and lead. They "go too far," he said: The general does not believe the Taliban are winning or "gaining the upper hand."
Nevertheless, in the eighth year of America’s war, the newly arrived field commander concedes that U.S. casualties, now at record levels, will continue to be high or go higher, and that our primary mission is no longer to run down and kill Taliban but to defend the Afghan population.
What went wrong?
Though U.S. force levels are higher than ever, the U.S. military situation is worse than ever. Though President Karzai is expected to win re-election, he is regarded as the ineffectual head of a corrupt regime. Though we have trained an Afghan army and police force of 220,000, twice that number are now needed. The Taliban are operating not only in the east, but in the north and west, and are taking control of the capital of the south, Kandahar.
NATO’s response to Obama’s request for more troops has been pathetic.
Europeans want to draw down the troops already sent. And Western opinion has soured on the war.
A poll commissioned by The Independent found 52 percent of Britons wanting to pull out and 58 percent believing the war is "unwinnable."
U.S. polls, too, have turned upside down.
A CBS-New York Times survey in late July found 33 percent saying the war was going well and 57 percent saying it was going badly or very badly. In a CNN poll in early August, Americans, by 54 percent to 41 percent, said they oppose the Afghan war that almost all Americans favored after 9-11 and Obama said in 2008 was the right war for America to fight.
The president is now approaching a decision that may prove as fateful for him and his country as was the one made by Lyndon Johnson to send the Marines ashore at Da Nang in December 1965.
Obama confronts a two-part question:
If, after eight years of fighting, the Taliban is stronger, more capable and closer to victory than it has ever been, what will it cost in additional U.S. troops, casualties, years and billions to turn this around? And what is so vital to us in that wilderness land worth another eight years of fighting, bleeding and dying, other than averting the humiliation of another American defeat?
From Secretary Gates to Gen. Petraeus, U.S. military and political leaders have been unanimous that the Afghan war does not lend itself to a military victory. Unfortunately, the Taliban does seem to believe in a military victory and triumphal return to power, and imposing upon the United States the same kind of defeat their fathers imposed upon the Soviet Union.
Whatever we may say of them, Taliban fighters have shown a greater willingness to die for a country free of us Americans than our Afghan allies have shown to die for the future we Americans envision for them.
In days, McChrystal is to provide the president with an assessment of what will be required for America to prevail.
Almost surely, the general’s answer will be that success will require thousands more U.S. troops, billions more dollars, many more years of casualties. And if Obama yet believes this is a war of necessity we cannot lose, and he must soldier on, his decision will sunder his party and country, and put at risk his presidency.
If he refuses to deepen the U.S. commitment, it is hard to see how the United States can avoid what is at best a bloody stalemate.
But if he chooses to cut America’s losses and get out, Obama risks a strategic debacle that will have our enemies rejoicing and open him up to the charge that he, the first African-American president, lost the war that America began as retribution for 9/11 and fought to prevent a second 9/11.
Had we gone into Afghanistan in 2001, knocked over the Taliban, driven out al-Qaeda and departed, we would not be facing what we do today.
But we were seduced by the prospect of converting a backward tribal nation of 25 million, which has resisted every empire to set foot on its inhospitable soil, into a shining new democracy that would be a model for the Islamic world.
Now, whatever Obama decides, we shall pay a hellish price for the hubris of the nation-builders.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

And a followup to that piece:

If the aphorism holds —the guerrilla wins if he does not lose — the Taliban are winning and America is losing the war in Afghanistan. Well into the eighth year of war, the Taliban are more numerous than ever, inflicting more casualties than ever, operating in more provinces than ever and controlling more territory than ever. And their tactics are more sophisticated.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the situation "serious." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullen calls it "serious" and "deteriorating." President Obama thus faces a decision that may decide the fate of his presidency. For if the situation is grave and deteriorating, he cannot do nothing. Inaction invites, if it does not assure, defeat.
Does he cut U.S. losses, write off Afghanistan as not worth any more American blood and treasure, and execute a strategic retreat? Or does he become the war president who sends McChrystal the scores of thousands of U.S. troops necessary to stave off a defeat for all the years needed to conscript and train an Afghan army that can and will defend the Kabul regime and pacify the country?
Afghanistan is being called Obama's Vietnam. It could become that, and bring down his presidency as Vietnam brought down Lyndon Johnson's. But Afghanistan is not yet Vietnam in terms either of troops committed or casualties taken.
The 68,000 Americans who will be in Afghanistan at year's end are an eighth of the forces in Vietnam when Richard Nixon began to bring them home. Vietnam cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. The Afghan war has cost fewer than 1,000. U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are as yet only a fifth of the U.S. losses in the Philippine Insurrection of 1899-1902.
If we compare Afghanistan to Vietnam, we are about in 1964, when the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed and the bombing of the North began, or December 1965, when the Marines came ashore at Danang.
Obama can still choose not to fight this war. But should he so choose, he will be charged by Republicans and neoconservatives with a loss of nerve, with having cut and run, with having lost what he himself has repeatedly called a "war of necessity," with having abandoned the noble cause for which many of America's best and bravest have already paid the ultimate price.

And it needs be said: The consequences of a U.S. withdrawal today would be far greater than if we had never gone in, or had gone in, knocked over the Taliban, run al-Qaida out of the country, gotten out and gone home. Instead, we brought NATO in, put tens of thousands of troops in and declared our determination to build an Afghan democracy that would be a model for the Islamic world, where women's rights were protected.
After inviting the world to observe how the superpower succeeds in taking down a tyranny and creating a democracy, we will have failed, and we will be perceived by the whole world to have failed. While there was no vital U.S. interest in Afghanistan before we went in, we have invested so much blood, money and prestige that withdrawal now — which would entail a Taliban takeover of Kabul and the Pashtun south and east —would be a strategic debacle unprecedented since the fall of Saigon.
But what if Obama approves McChrystal's request and puts another 20,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops into the war? Certainly, that would stave off any defeat. But what is the assurance it would bring enduring victory closer? The Taliban have matched us escalation for escalation and are now militarily stronger than at any time since the Northern Alliance, with U.S. air support, ran them out of Kabul.
About the political consequences of escalation, there is no doubt. Obama would divide his party and country. His support would steadily sink as the roll call of U.S. dead and wounded inexorably rose. He would watch as the NATO allies moved toward the exit and America was left alone to fight alongside the Afghans in a seemingly endless war.
Consider. If there were no Americans in Afghanistan today, and the Taliban were on the verge of victory, how many of us would demand the dispatch of 68,000 troops to fight to prevent it? Few, if any, one imagines. What that answer suggests is that the principal reason for fighting on is not that Afghanistan is vital, but that we cannot accept the American defeat and humiliation that withdrawal would mean.
Thus Obama's dilemma: Accept a longer, bloodier war with little hope of ultimate victory, a decision that could cost him his presidency. Or order a U.S. withdrawal and accept defeat, a decision that could cost him his presidency.
In such situations, presidents often decide not to decide.Harry Truman could not decide in Korea. LBJ could not decide in Vietnam. Both lost their presidencies. Ike and Nixon came in, cut U.S. losses and got out. The country rewarded both with second terms.

[faye]

but they still haven't 'knocked over the taliban' nor 'chased them all out', so what's he talking about, as though that was done ages ago and they're just still there, polishing up the new democracy.

[Jezail]

It is because Pashtuns live under "Enduring Freedom" we can't endure it so we fight back, Pashtuns do not live with the oppression doled out by Uncle Sam, even some Canadian soldiers can't take this freedom, this oppression longer:

The Rape of the Afghan Boys by Kelley B. Vlahos -- Antiwar.com

The Rape of the Afghan Boys
by Kelley B. Vlahos, April 13, 2010
Email This | Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum
We talk about the possibility of losing the war in Afghanistan, but what if we lose our soul in Afghanistan?
Indirectly, Frontline will be asking that very question on April 20 with an underground report on the resurgence of bacha bazi or "boy play" among the wealthiest and most powerful men in northern Afghanistan. It’s the pustule threatening to burst all over the righteousness of our humanitarian effort there, and just the tip of the sick fact of how poor Afghan children are systematically used, abused, and tossed away by the ruling elite and even Afghan soldiers living, training, and fighting alongside our own.
Bacha bazi is an old Afghan tradition of taking young boys, dressing them up like girls, and making them perform for older men in tea rooms, weddings, and other private venues. The boys are "owned" by single or married men who trade or keep the boys as concubines. According to reports, the boys’ ages range from eight to 19, when they "age out" of the practice and are released.
"The bacha dancers are often abused children whose families have rejected them," saidthe Guardian’s Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who wrote about the practice in September. He described one boy who was sexually assaulted by a mechanic in his town. The boy’s family blamed him and turned him out. He was forced to live with the man who attacked him. "Now I am with someone else, and he taught me how to dance," the boy, now 16 years old, said.
Other reports describe bacha bazi as an increasingly lucrative business, in which the boy slaves are seen as important status symbols of the elite. "Everyone tries to have the best, most handsome, and good-looking boy," a former mujahedin commander told Reuters back in 2007.
A 42-year-old landowner in Baghlan province named Enayatullah told Reuters, "I was married to a woman 20 years ago, she left me because of my boy. … I was playing with my boy every night and was away from home, eventually my wife decided to leave me. I am happy with my decision because I am used to sleeping and entertaining with my young boy."
The boys, who often know no other life but as chattel, call the men "my lord." Attempting escape could result in severe physical punishment, or even death. The family of a dead 15-year-old boy told Frontline that a policeman was eventually thrown in jail in connection with his murder. But they believed the boy’s former owner, a wealthy drug baron whom he was escaping, bribed local officials to set the policeman free after only "a few months" of jail time.
"If only these people were punished, this kind of thing wouldn’t happen," the boy’s mother said. "Whoever commits these crimes doesn’t get punished. Power is power."

I remember the first time I ever heard of bacha bazi. A soldier friend of mine who had been in Kabul told me of a disconcerting evening when he stumbled into a tea room in which a group of well-dressed Afghan men were gathering. His Afghan interpreter yanked him by the arm and out of the place, warning of danger. That was bacha bazi, he explained, in which young boys are forced to dance for men. He had better move on and forget.
He moved on, but he never forgot. Like me, my friend had grown up in a working class New England town, and these were horrors that men were beaten and even killed for in prison. We call it pedophilia, and most here would say is worth an eternity of damnation for its perpetrators, not a high social rank and adulation among the town’s elite.
"It’s gotten limited attention," admitted Rachel Reid of Human Rights Watch. "There’s been some Afghan investigative journalists who have tackled it, though in areas where the perpetrators are also local ‘commanders’ whether official or unofficial, there will always be fear of reprisals."
Approaching the issue as Americans we are flummoxed, as if it occurs on another planet. Reprisals for exposing the sexual abuse of children? The Catholic Church spent more than a half-century hiding its abusive priests because it feared that reprisals from the outside might destroy the institution. Here, we have authority figures – former commanders and warlords – flaunting their dancing slave boys, practically daring interference from outside.

(ABC/Four Corners)
"What was so unnerving about the men I had met was not just their lack of concern for the damage their abuse was doing to the boys," said Najibullah Quraishi, the Afghan journalist who was escorted through the underground by one of the bacha bazi pimps for six months. His harrowing footage and reporting was broadcast by Australia’s Four Corners in February and will make its American debut via Frontline. "It was also their casualness with which they operated and the pride with which they show me their boys, their friends, their world. They clearly believed that nothing they were doing was wrong."
The behavior of these modern slave owners belies an endemic problem that human rights advocates and even NATO military personnel operating in Afghanistan have observed for some time now, according to reports. (The U.S. State Department included the rape, abuse, and exploitation of Afghan children in its 2009 annual human rights report, released in March).
But observers say the age-old ritual of man-boy predatory sex, which is obliquely condoned throughout Afghanistan because of a pervasive fear or indifference about prosecuting it on any serious level, according to numerous reports, has proliferated after decades of poverty, corruption, and a lack of enduring social institutions. All reports indicate that while bacha bazi and the abuse is illegal, perpetrators rarely pay for their crimes. Meanwhile, poor families sell their children, and orphans are snatched off the street. They are the meekest, preyed upon by the strongest – the kind of wealthy, powerful men who have benefited most from the Western occupation and generous foreign aid.
This has put us in a moral and ethical quandary too painful and perhaps too shameful to contemplate more openly.
Take the military, for example. First, there seems to be a tacit acknowledgment on the part of Western soldiers that Afghans they serve with in the field are engaging in homosexual activity (no irony there, of course). Many have written about how the strict segregation of Afghan men and women (who are also treated as property in traditional Afghan society) before marriage prevents the course of natural physical and emotional relationships between the sexes, and as one Afghan historian told me, "Straight guys find that their sexuality is flexible in these sorts of situations … soon [sex between men is] widely accepted with a wink and a nudge."
But it is when Afghan soldiers move beyond consensual "man-love Thursdays" with each other to procuring young boys in broad daylight that the flood of revulsion, resentment, and awkward questions comes to bear. Do they have the right to discipline? Would there be reprisals if they complained?
In 2008, apparently fed up, Canadian soldiers and chaplains did begin to complain.
In June that year the Toronto Star reported that a Canadian soldier said he witnessed in 2006 injuries sustained by a boy he had heard was raped by an Afghan soldier at one of the Canadian outposts in Kandahar. These injuries included the boy’s intestines falling out of his body, a "sign of trauma from anal rape." The Canadian’s testimony, in addition to other complaints, including an eyewitness account of the rape of a boy by two Afghan military personnel at Canada’s Forward Operating Base Wilson in 2006, formed the basis of an official investigation into whether the brass were ignoring complaints about systematic abuse up through 2007.
According to the press, an initial military investigation concluded in 2008 that the allegations were unfounded. Another investigation, launched by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Services (CFNIS), concluded in May 2009 that Canadian Forces Military Police in Afghanistan "did not receive any complaints on the alleged sexual abuse of Afghan male children." It did not answer the question of whether there had been any abuse, and it curiously noted that "the CFNIS has no jurisdiction over Afghan National Army or locally contracted interpreters in Afghanistan."
Nevertheless, subsequent testimony from Canadian personnel and newly released documents shed light on an utterly confusing landscape of conflicting official statements and reports, and they raise the question of who knew what and when, and whether the chain of command was listening or passing the buck. There are more than a few official/unofficial acknowledgments that Afghan police and military members were "having anal sex with young boys," plus disturbing allegations that the Canadian brass were told about the rapes and pressed soldiers to ignore them.
A new board of inquiry was opened last year, but what will it conclude? Is the military so afraid of overstepping cultural and political boundaries that it is paralyzed from doing the right thing?
The Ottawa Citizen described the soldier who had witnessed the intestines falling out of the boy’s body as now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. If anecdotal evidence now surfacing that our own troops are witnessing similar things is true, we can only imagine the kind of moral and ethical hell they can be living out every day they risk their lives for this still largely undefined mission.
In writing about the rape of boys and its implications on the sustained Western alliance with the Afghan government and military in the Long War, journalist Patrick Cockburn commented in September, "one reason Afghan villagers prefer to deal with the Taliban rather than the government security forces is that the latter have a habit of seizing their sons at checkpoints and sodomizing them."
The Taliban reportedly banned these practices when it was in power. Today, clerics we would consider radical openly and regularly condemn bacha bazi and sex with children. "Under Islamic law, those who practice this would be stoned to death," Mawllawi Mohammaed Sadiq Sadiqyar, a prayer leader and scholar in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, told Reuters.
Nothing is ever black and white, and Taliban soldiers certainly don’t always "practice what they preach," as one source pointed out to me. But the Western mission sure gets complicated under these conditions. As usual, there are more questions than answers.
If the U.S. mission is to kneecap the Taliban, a radical religious movement that at one point managed to ostensibly restrain the cruel and morally abominable activities of creepy pimps/masters who liked to dominate and play with boys when they weren’t warring with one another and shaking down the weakest among them, what in the end, does it all mean for the Afghans whom President Obama has vowed to uplift? If Hamid Karzai sits on the top of this worm-infested confection without one word about prosecuting these crimes or protecting the children of his country, what does it say about the billions of dollars we have poured into his government to assist him?
What do we really know about the former mujahedin commanders we view as allies against the Taliban? What do they do at night while their wives wait patiently at home? Does it turn your stomach to think that American money went to train the police who now stand shoulder-to-shoulder each night with Afghan men gaping at underage boys dancing in silk with bells on their feet?
Are we the world’s biggest chumps or the world’s biggest enablers?
Cockburn made a practical point about what turning a blind eye may mean for Western soldiers in the long term:
"[T]he fact that male rape is common practice in the Afghan armed forces has, unfortunately, a great deal to do with the fate of British soldiers.
"There was a horrified reaction across Britain last week when a 25-year-old policeman called Gulbuddin working in a police station in the Nad Ali district of Helmand killed five British soldiers when he opened fire with a machine gun on them. But the reason he did so, according to Christina Lamb in The Sunday Times, citing two Afghans who knew Gulbuddin, was that he had been brutally beaten, sodomized, and sexually molested by a senior Afghan officer whom he regarded as being protected by the British.
"The slaughter at Nad Ali is a microcosm of what is happening across Afghanistan."
If winning the war against the "evildoers" means ignoring evil among our allies, then we have truly lost our soul. Cockburn argued that our governments should not put another Western soldier into Afghanistan while there is such obvious corruption snaking through the Afghan security services, not to mention the Karzai government. Too late. The U.S. military is set to expand its footprint of 100,000 by the end of the summer. Complaints within the ranks about Afghan military’s worthiness in the field will continue to simmer, while most of this stuff about debauchery, man-love Thursdays, sexual abuse, and the like will be left to percolate on the milblogs and in the tales soldiers bring home. Forget the State Department reports and the undercover investigative journalism; until the military (which is, like it or not, the face of America in Afghanistan) starts publicly condemning bacha bazi and the abuse of Afghan children with all the force and authority it can muster, then we might as well be putting our red scrawl on a pact with the devil.
No doubt the military cannot and will not seriously envisage withdrawing from that country now, but it should nonetheless consider this: take a long look at the boys shackled in the prisons, the orphans in the streets, the blank resignation of the victims of rape – they will no doubt be history’s next mujahedin, and they will be coming for the devil’s consorts.
Read more by Kelley B. Vlahos

• Giving Thanks to Outgoing Sen. Feingold – November 22nd, 2010
• How Veterans Day Became a Farce – November 15th, 2010
• 2012: Exploiting Islamophobia to Win Big – November 8th, 2010
• Anatomy of a Pentagon Lie – November 1st, 2010

[faye]

i saw this documentery. it was disturbing to see how the men flaunted their activities, even though married to women.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I have met with american indian chiefs. I have not seen or heard of a single american indian up in arms against washington. I have never seen one express such sentiment. I have heard more whites wishing for nazi's to come back than I have heard or seen american indians voicing seperatist views.

that's because there's practically any left, their people are so downtrodden with birth defects and alcoholism , something imposed on them by their white invaders, that they wouldn't have much left to go back to.

And if one hates america and it is so rotten, one should pack up and catch a flight to kandahar, help the needed there. Fight the americans and join the salafis[.

got a better idea, learn Applied Math and cryptology, crash stock markets, cause a few pink faced northern europoid baboons to jump to their deaths. Save the world.

[faye]

baygham...

Has there ever been a power in the history of the world that has been content with what they had and not exercised power, if they had it.

I agree no one likes a bully. I dont and cant expect anyone else to either. The question is not if america is a bully, the question is who isnt.

With all that in mind and the extreme week position of the pashtoons when considering military might, we need collaboration of least exploitation.

Do you have any other options in mind for pashtoons.

you were talking about evolving the other day, i think you stated that we had 'evolved'. you don't think it conceivible that we can evolve from what has always been? the misuse of power.
me, i can personally see no proof that we have 'evovled', when i see what inhumane methods are being developed and used in warfare. materially we may have moved on but we sure need to do more work on the heart and mind of humanity because look how many people are NOT complaining about the evil deeds being done.

[IamDZJ]

i blame gravity.

[gadoonwal]

First of all pakhtuns are not terrorists.Not a single pashtun is convicted terrorist.
This so called CIA dirty war imposed on pashtuns.
The key players are CIA and ISI.

[divide_et_impera]

It makes me so sad to see that such a large number of smart and well educated Pashtuns seem to lack one key ability which is to put oneself for a second in the position of his fellow Pashtun.
.
How else would you follow my thoughts?
.
Apart from that, the thread shows that many of the debaters seem to have diametrically different views on the following questions. And unfortunately I have experienced that few of us seem to stick stubbornly to their rigid thought patterns.
.
In my view, as long as we haven't reached a minimum consensus at least on some of the following and some other questions, we are nothing more than a disoriented, chaotic huddle and waste of talents.
.

1. Which was first Jihadi movement or Soviet invasion?
2. Pashtunwali = Islam, is this equation universally valid?
3. Secularism = threat to Islam, i.e. does secularism restrict religious freedom?
4. Do we have to obey a standard, binding, global definition of Islam, a doctrine?
5. Do we have to tolerate AlQaida & Taliban temporarily as a means to return to power?
6. If so, have we met any arrangements not to revert to Jihadist or Taliban eras?
7. Do Pashtuns play a key role in the region?
8. If so, what efforts have we made to benefit from that? What's our political agenda?
9. Why are Saudis involved in supporting our Jihad only, why not also at their home?
10. Who makes our young Pashtuns firmly believe in apocalyptic tales like Afghanistan being the ultimate battle field for the struggle between good and evil?