The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Billdave2]

Right, time to put this ridiculous PNAC argument to bed.

Of course you, and everyone else could have found your answer in post #493; but you have chosen not to read it. I would advise you do so again, if you are interested in the truth.

But no worries. Because there is an even more elementary way to illustrate my point that a new PH was deemed propitious to the neo cons, as per RAD. It involves some pretty simple linguistic analysis. It has been on the tip of my tongue for ages, but havent bee able to enunciate it, until now. The answer is right in front of us. Let's look at the sentence in question again:



The part of this that gets the least attention is, of course the "even" clause. This is because the import of the sentence gets taken for granted by most people. Not here. But no worries. Lets look at this clause more closely, because it provides proof, and I mean that word, that a slow transformation was deemed bad, and thus a new PH was indeed deemed propitious by the neo cons who would go on to be in chanrge of running and protectiong the US on and up to 911.

So... what is this clause? Very simple. Its a modifying clause, that serves to create oppostion between itself, and the clause to which it is linked. I.e. the "even" clause will have a particular import (say, +ve), and the clause to which it relates will have the opposite import (i.e. -ve). This is a standard construction in english, and other languages too, and will apply to all sentences.

Let's see some examples:

That cake, even if it looks fattening, is actually only 50 calories

Here we have a clear opposition between the negative import of the fatty cake, and the truth of the matter that it is indeed, not fatty. Bad/-ve vs good/+ve (or vice versa in some cases). As stated b4, this will always be the case when an "even" clause comes into play. Let's look at some more examples:

That girl, even if she looks classy, is a slut

That bed, even if it looks comfy, will in fact screw up your back

This building work, even if it will take a long time, will eventually make your house look beautiful

Clear oppositions, facilitated by the use of an "even" clause:

-Looks classy (good); is slutty (bad)
- Looks comfy (good); will hurt you (bad)
- Will take ages (bad); will make your house look great (good)

Note that it doesnt matter if one particular clause is deemed good or bad, all that counts is that the next one will have the opposite import. I.e. maybe you dont like classy looking girls, and prefer sluts; the opposition still applies.

So what we can do, when there is debate as to the +ve/-ve import of a particular clause, is to gauge that of the uncontroversial clause, and the clause in question will, logically, assume the opposite import. This has been demonstrated very clearly above.

Now, let's apply this to RAD. That phrase again:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one

So, let's apply what now know. Since we are all aware that this "revolutionary change" is deemed to be +ve/good, we can therefore conclude, in all certainty and absent all controversy, that the import of the "long one" clause, is negative. Applying that same formula:

- Revolutionary change (good/+ve); will take a long time (bad/-ve)

Thus we conclude that the idea that this change will take a long time is a negative one, an event that would cause this change to happen sooner would be a positive one, thus such an event, i.e. a new Pearl Harbour, is deemed propitious to policy. Yeh!

********

Of course if anyone has any problems with this point, then do address them; regurgitation of past points is now even more worthless than it was before.

Just because the term "even" is used does not mean that it always references good vs. bad. In you own example of the cake, the fact that it "looks fattening" is not in and of itself bad. It is neutral to the issue of how many calories the cake has. You could even argue that since it looks fatteniong it is more appealing and therefore it is good all the way around. The statement in the PNAC you refer to,the even is refering to two different things altogether. It is simply used to show that no matter how big the change is it will not effect the time it take. It could have been written as "The process, even if it brings a small change, will likely be a long process" and the meaning is exactly the same but the by your arguement, small change=bad long process=good. The even in this statement is to show that the process will be long no matter the size of the change,ie the process time is the determining factor. It is the same as the professional logician states, "just because all of Alma Kogen is dead, not all dead people are Alma Kogen", likewise just because some statements using even show absolute diametric opposition does not mean all staements using even have to show opposition.

 

[nicepants]

So... what is this clause? Very simple. Its a modifying clause, that serves to create oppostion between itself, and the clause to which it is linked. I.e. the "even" clause will have a particular import (say, +ve), and the clause to which it relates will have the opposite import (i.e. -ve). This is a standard construction in english, and other languages too, and will apply to all sentences.

Let's see some examples:

That cake, even if it looks fattening, is actually only 50 calories

Here we have a clear opposition between the negative import of the fatty cake, and the truth of the matter that it is indeed, not fatty. Bad/-ve vs good/+ve (or vice versa in some cases). As stated b4, this will always be the case when an "even" clause comes into play. Let's look at some more examples:

That girl, even if she looks classy, is a slut

That bed, even if it looks comfy, will in fact screw up your back

This building work, even if it will take a long time, will eventually make your house look beautiful

Clear oppositions, facilitated by the use of an "even" clause:

-Looks classy (good); is slutty (bad)
- Looks comfy (good); will hurt you (bad)
- Will take ages (bad); will make your house look great (good)

Note that it doesnt matter if one particular clause is deemed good or bad, all that counts is that the next one will have the opposite import. I.e. maybe you dont like classy looking girls, and prefer sluts; the opposition still applies.

So what we can do, when there is debate as to the +ve/-ve import of a particular clause, is to gauge that of the uncontroversial clause, and the clause in question will, logically, assume the opposite import. This has been demonstrated very clearly above.

Now, let's apply this to RAD. That phrase again:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one

So, let's apply what now know. Since we are all aware that this "revolutionary change" is deemed to be +ve/good, we can therefore conclude, in all certainty and absent all controversy, that the import of the "long one" clause, is negative. Applying that same formula:

- Revolutionary change (good/+ve); will take a long time (bad/-ve)

Thus we conclude that the idea that this change will take a long time is a negative one, an event that would cause this change to happen sooner would be a positive one, thus such an event, i.e. a new Pearl Harbour, is deemed propitious to policy. Yeh!

In most cases, the "even" statement is used to contradict a person's assumptions about a situation:

Ex:

-The damage to my car is minor.
-For a major repair, it would take 4 days for this body shop to fix it.
-My damage is not major, therefore it will take less than 4 days. (Assumption)
-The body shop said that even though my repair is minor, the repair will take 4 days.

The "even though" statement only contradicts the person's ASSUMPTION. It is not a negative of the statement that follows it. If you believed that the repair would take 2 days, you bring the car in and they say 4 days, if your assumption that it would take 2 days is strong enough, you might question them. At that point they would respond: "Even though the repair is minor, the repair will take 4 days". Again this statement just contradicts any assumption you may have about the repair taking less than 4 days.

Another Example?

That laptop battery, even if you charge it all night, will die in 5 minutes.

Assumption: If I charge the laptop battery overnight, it will last longer than 5 minutes.

The "even" statement contradicts my ASSUMPTION that it would last longer than 5 minutes. Again, the statement can be made without the "even statement"

That laptop battery will die in 5 minutes.


Now on to your examples


That girl, even if she looks classy, is a slut

Even statement contradicts the assumption that she is not a slut based on the way she looks. LOOKS CLASSY is not the opposite of IS A SLUT

That bed, even if it looks comfy, will in fact screw up your back
This contradicts the assumption that the bed is comfy based on the way it looks.LOOKS COMFY is not the opposite of WILL SCREW UP YOUR BACK

This building work, even if it will take a long time, will eventually make your house look beautiful
This contradicts the assumption that the work may not make the house look beautiful if it takes a long time.WILL TAKE A LONG TIME is not the opposite of WILL MAKE YOUR HOUSE LOOK BEAUTIFUL

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one.

Assumption: The process of transformation will not take long if it brings revolutionary change.

The "even" statement contradicts an external assumption, and in no way makes a statement about whether a long transformation is good or bad. It simply clarifies to avoid anyone assuming that a transformation bringing revolutionary change will somehow happen faster.

 

[Billdave2]

In most cases, the "even" statement is used to contradict a person's assumptions about a situation:

(snip)

The "even" statement contradicts an external assumption, and in no way makes a statement about whether a long transformation is good or bad. It simply clarifies to avoid anyone assuming that a transformation bringing revolutionary change will somehow happen faster.

This is kind of what I was trying to say in my post above, only yours is much better written.

"Me fail English? Unpossible!"

 

[JonnyFive]

Linking to the same article over and over does not make your case stronger. It only reveals the paucity of your evidence.

Every time mjd does this without saying anything of substance, every time he does that stupid "as above" without adding a useful comment, and every time he uses abbreviated garbage words like "b4" and "u," my opinion of him drops a little lower.

Is it really that hard to type "you" and "before?"

 

[nicepants]

This is kind of what I was trying to say in my post above, only yours is much better written.

Thanks, although Augustine's example is my favorite:

Junior's vicious case of crabs will not go away, EVEN IF he lights his pubes on fire.

It sounds to me like MJD is confusing "even if" and "even though".

 

[mjd1982]

You're just arguing from ignorance. Unless you have evidence that they "would have done that," you can't use such a claim to advance your position. Do you have historical evidence that the Bush administration would rather systematically killed OBL than captured him?



What? What are you talking about? The sources you linked to all talked about trying to negotiate a handover, except for your Counterpunch article. I see you've dropped back to using that source exclusively, discarding the India Globe. The consensus of your own sources goes against your conclusions.



Except that the US has specific policies against using assassination.

There is no source about wanting a trial in "NY or nothing," and that makes no sense at all. Your sources have said either the US or a third-party, but not an Islamic court. I fail to see how that is unreasonable.



Drop the condescending crap. I read your articles, and I don't agree with you. I fail to see the corroboration for the "they handed his head on a silver platter" aspect.

You've also backed well away from your other sources, that all disagree with that aspect of the Counterpunch article. I find this telling. If your sources don't integrate, that means you have a discrepency to clear up, which you've failed to do as of yet.



Based on? The Counterpunch's source? Any corroboration?



My mistake, of course, I forgot the year.

In any case, OBL was still being sought in connection to it.



The world in which he wasn't actually being "offered to you on a platter." You're moving to goalposts around by shifting sources, but failing to corroborate the unique information from the new sources. What you have corroborated shows nothing with respect to a "head on a platter."

To be honest, I could care less if Osama is killed or brought to trial or dies of cancer in some God-forsaken rat hole. I want his organization to be rendered impotent and him to be somehow brought to justice. Given my druthers, I would prefer to see him brought on trial in international court and sentenced accordingly.



As which "above?"



a) How? You haven't yet explained this, but maybe you will in this post... let's see.

b) How can what be explained? This doesn't seem to connect to what I said.



So why even bring it up? You suggest that not taking OBL's "head on a platter" is somehow suggestive of government culpability in 9/11, yet you systematically fail to either prove the "head on a platter" part and outright suggest 9/11 might happen anyway. Is this really the best kind of evidence you have?



Actually, the rights they have are governed by treaties established between various global entities.



I said that there is a fine line between insurgency and terrorism. That line is generally one of targetting, but the two are drawn from the same ideological pool. It has to do with methodology and psychology, not semantic games.

The IRA or FARC are better comparisons for the American Revolution - the motivation was more similar. The Afghan resistance, along with HAMAS and their ilk, has more of a religious undertone to the organization, with the whole fatwa/Jihad deal. The simplistic comparison between events separated by over two hundred years is cute, but not particularly helpful to our current debate.



Proof of this? Do you have any cases in which the death of a leader of a cell-based terrorist group caused the group to be thrown into chaos?

If you mean the creation of new cells would be hampered, then I agree. But we're talking about a cell that was already in place and ready to go. They didn't need additional funding by early 2001, and they had their mission in place.



No, that is utterly at odds with the psychology displayed by extremist groups like AQ. To the contrary, the ideology is the glue that holds the group together, which is why they are able to survive over such long periods of time.

A group held together by a leader is something like, say, the Waco cult. Those groups tend to dissolve or weaken if their leader or leadership dies. On the other hand, ideological extremist groups are bonded by something that transcends one person or group of people.

If anything, the loss of a leader to the enemy is something that would bolster the resolve of the terrorist groups. Obviously this is speculation, as it never happened, but it is speculation more consistent with the psychology of the group, and the past behavior displayed by this and similar groups. Would you say, for example, that the death of key Al Qaeda personnel has stopped their operations in Afghanistan?



Well, if you really want to get anal about it, the term goes back a ways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror#Historical_usage_of_phrase

Your focus on the specific phrase used isn't very useful to you. It makes it sound like you're playing with semantics when the specific phrase is unimportant. What matters are the realities underlying it.

In this case, there are certainly ideologically motivated groups opposed to the political, military, and social aspects of the Western world. Those groups are willing to use terrorist tactics to harm the West. Ergo, there is a de facto "war with terrorism" whether we acknowledge it or not. This has been the case for decades, although general public awareness of the specifics is relatively recent.



Because it makes for nice sound bytes, and the term is a no-brainer. What would you prefer: "The war against anti-Western ideologically-motivated religious and quasi-religious fanatical groups that have their roots in a particularly militant branch of the Islamic religious community?"



"Imprimatur?" Good one, I like it. Much better than the plebian "sanction," or is this one of those words used more outside the US?

The existence of a "declared" war on terror is a meaningless mental construct, because the "war on terror" is not an actual, declared war. It is a phrase to describe a reality that exists regardless of what you call it.

Over time, I think the US has been getting a little bit better about supporting repulsive people to further our ends. If you think otherwise, you need to study history a little more.

You want to see some real nasty stuff, look back at the American expansion in the 1800's. Now that was brutal. Of course, every other expanding nation at the time did it, and some of them made the US look positively glowing by comparison.

Hell, we treated a large chunk of our own citizens like sub-human dirt fit only for oppression for a long time. The history of many nations is far from glowing.



How does this contradict what I said? Condor seems to more be a case of certain elements of the US government looking the other way more than anything else.

Besides which, I said "generally refrain." I have never claimed the US is a perfect angel that has never done anything wrong. Also, Condor took place from a period of nearly sixty to a period of nearly thirty years ago, and doesn't seem to have involved direct, sanctioned US terrorist action, which is what I actually said.



Recent terrorist Activity prior to 9/11/2001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut_barracks_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Military_activity_and_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings (Sorry, I got the '98 date from the Embassy Bombings, not the Cole)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_March_2001_BBC_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_August_2001_Ealing_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_city_bombing (Yes, domestic terrorism is still terrorism)

September 11th raised public awareness to a new level, mostly because it was the first large-scale attack the US had experienced. That doesn't mean that this sort of thing had never occurred in the past.



How so? What about when that person dies?



Nine months, actually. If you count from the date of invasion. US invaded on 3/20/2003, and Saddam was captured on 12/13/2003. That is almost exactly nine months.

Three weeks? Where do you get this stuff?



Bad luck, bad intelligence, lack of intelligence, lack of political cooperation, instability in the region, mountainous terrain, cave systems, lack of security and police in the region, limited US resources.

That's a pretty decent start. You really think the best possible explanation for not finding one person in a highly contested area is government collusion?

Yes, he was at the Battle of Tora Bora. So what? He escaped, and again you think the best explanation is government help? Do you have evidence of that, or is it just a guess?



I would really love to see how you got three weeks from nine months.



I think the one pointing to death is uncorroborate at this point, and that suggests it is much less likely to be true. I think the bulk of the sources you have actually cited to prove your point do precisely the opposite.

This is because there are multiple lines of reasoning that ultimately arrive at the conclusion that there was some negotiation for an OBL hand-over, but it was not likely that the Taliban was sincere, and it is possible they couldn't actually deliver him. In any case, the conditions imposed were unacceptable to the US, and very likely were imposed as political delaying tactics.

You're fallen back on the Counterpunch article because it is the only one that even remotely supports your current claims.

Ok. I'm sure you will appreciate this, as will I, if I just try and condense this exchange a little.

1. The point relating to which articles/sources I am using. I started with the India Globe stating that OBL was offered to Saudi. Some people had a problem with the credibility of this, and so in order to show that the US had no desire to deal with OBL in any concrete manner. This relates to either having him killed, or having him handed over. The 2 are not mutually exclusive; they both relate to the eventual vanquishing of OBL either through incarceration , or through death. Since people should be less prone to question CP's credibility, exchanges have been occurring regarding that more recently; but I am fine with addressing either, since, as I have stated, they both relate to the sam propensity.

2. In terms of what would have happened to 911 had OBL been killed. That is speculation, yes, but look at it this way for one second- why would you not accept OBL dead? It is inexplicable that such would happen, absent belief in the connivance of the US with regard to 911. Now, it should be accepted that were he to have been killed, pre 911, this would have rocked the boat to some degree. And, more to the point, in terms of the contrived nature of the whole sequence of events, it would have made the WOT much less effective, if it were to have been deprived of its most effective face, even before it had been begun.

Related, your points about the search for OBL can be explained much more simply, as I have stated- Bush does not care for finding him. These are his words, not mine. Can you explain this? My bad for the 3 weeks thing.

If I have missed something, let me know

 

[mjd1982]

Every time mjd does this without saying anything of substance, every time he does that stupid "as above" without adding a useful comment, and every time he uses abbreviated garbage words like "b4" and "u," my opinion of him drops a little lower.

Is it really that hard to type "you" and "before?"

Thats because I have the courtesy to reply to most everyone who posts here; I think I can be excused the odd abbreviation/avoidance of repetition.

 

[mjd1982]

This is standard practice for evaluating the credibility of a witness.

which is fine when you have answers. when you dont, it is speculating.

It is not "100% speculative"; we already know the answer to many of these questions,

such as?

and they call into question the credibility of Mohabbat. He is most definitely NOT independent. His story asks us to disbelieve the entire past record of Taliban responses to US demands, documented meetings,

No it doesnt. The Taliban were happy to have him tried in a court of 3 judges, with one selected by the US and another by Saudi, the US client state. This would have stacked the odds overwhelmingly in the favour of one result, and was proposed by the Taliban. Thus the assertion that they had made arrangements for his death is completely congruent.

and Afghani culture.

The fact that you do not know what pashtun-wali is or what pannah warkawel is does not surprise me. It seems there is a lot that you do not know. These concepts call into question Mohabbat's claims. They also call his trustworthiness into question. While I only have experience dealing with Iraqis, I have friends and colleagues with substantial experience dealing with Afghanis. Understand the culture.

Ok, good. So you are now arguing that we cannot trust this man since though he is an American, he has Afghan heritage, and as such cannot be trusted. Of course this is an argument from xenophobia, and racism, and as such while you may like to argue from it, it is generally inadmissible to any serious debate. Try again.

Linking to the same article over and over does not make your case stronger. It only reveals the paucity of your evidence.

No, it is symptomatic of your inabilty/refusal to confront the article in a coherent manner. I think your post here illustrates this nicely.

 

[mjd1982]

In most cases, the "even" statement is used to contradict a person's assumptions about a situation:

Ex:

-The damage to my car is minor.
-For a major repair, it would take 4 days for this body shop to fix it.
-My damage is not major, therefore it will take less than 4 days. (Assumption)
-The body shop said that even though my repair is minor, the repair will take 4 days.

The "even though" statement only contradicts the person's ASSUMPTION. It is not a negative of the statement that follows it. If you believed that the repair would take 2 days, you bring the car in and they say 4 days, if your assumption that it would take 2 days is strong enough, you might question them. At that point they would respond: "Even though the repair is minor, the repair will take 4 days". Again this statement just contradicts any assumption you may have about the repair taking less than 4 days.

Another Example?

That laptop battery, even if you charge it all night, will die in 5 minutes.

Assumption: If I charge the laptop battery overnight, it will last longer than 5 minutes.

The "even" statement contradicts my ASSUMPTION that it would last longer than 5 minutes. Again, the statement can be made without the "even statement"

That laptop battery will die in 5 minutes.


Now on to your examples


That girl, even if she looks classy, is a slut

Even statement contradicts the assumption that she is not a slut based on the way she looks. LOOKS CLASSY is not the opposite of IS A SLUT

That bed, even if it looks comfy, will in fact screw up your back
This contradicts the assumption that the bed is comfy based on the way it looks.LOOKS COMFY is not the opposite of WILL SCREW UP YOUR BACK

This building work, even if it will take a long time, will eventually make your house look beautiful
This contradicts the assumption that the work may not make the house look beautiful if it takes a long time.WILL TAKE A LONG TIME is not the opposite of WILL MAKE YOUR HOUSE LOOK BEAUTIFUL

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one.

Assumption: The process of transformation will not take long if it brings revolutionary change.

The "even" statement contradicts an external assumption, and in no way makes a statement about whether a long transformation is good or bad. It simply clarifies to avoid anyone assuming that a transformation bringing revolutionary change will somehow happen faster.

I was stating that the use of such a clause implied contrast from one to the other; good/bad was one example of such.

However, you are probably right, in that I have got "even if" and "even though" mixed up in this instance. My bad, and why I asked for people to point out an error if it was present. Thank you.

Nonetheless, this was the 4th point in defense of the PNAC doc; the other 3 remain, basically, unchallenged, after ~1200 posts. You know the formula; apply the same principle to those 3 as you did to the 4th, and see how you do.

 

[Augustine]

which is fine when you have answers. when you dont, it is speculating.

such as?

Just because you do not have the answers does not mean that others do not. As has been established many times in this thread, your research is woefully shallow. You find someone who says something you want to hear, then stop.

No it doesnt. The Taliban were happy to have him tried in a court of 3 judges, with one selected by the US and another by Saudi, the US client state. This would have stacked the odds overwhelmingly in the favour of one result, and was proposed by the Taliban. Thus the assertion that they had made arrangements for his death is completely congruent.

A claim, first of all. Second, there is a world of difference between the Saudi government and the Saudi clerics. They are not interchangeable. Given that bin Laden's fatwa supporting the use of nuclear weapons in a terrorist attack came from a Saudi cleric, your assertion that this hypothetical Islamic court would have "stacked the odds" is true, but not in the way that you imagine.

Ok, good. So you are now arguing that we cannot trust this man since though he is an American, he has Afghan heritage, and as such cannot be trusted. Of course this is an argument from xenophobia, and racism, and as such while you may like to argue from it, it is generally inadmissible to any serious debate. Try again.

How is this xenophobia? How is this racist? Your claims of the Taliban offer go against their cultural code. Research pashtun-wali and pannah warkawel and get back to me. This calls into question his original claim, and makes the Taliban's historical refusal to hand over bin Laden understandable in context. Secondly, the concept of "honesty" appears nowhere in the pashtun-wali (which, if you knew what Mohabbat's tribal affiliation was, you would be able to judge relevance). The concept of "telling the truth" is seen as far more malleable, even in Iraq, and definitely in Afghanistan. "Lying" or "shading the truth" is done widely, with little to no regret or even awareness. Again, understand the culture.

No, it is symptomatic of your inabilty/refusal to confront the article in a coherent manner. I think your post here illustrates this nicely.

I think the fact that at 40+ pages you are still straining to wrangle an interpretation out of the PNAC document illustrates the strength of your case quite nicely. I think the fact that there have been numerous instances throughout this thread where you have been shown to be completely oblivious to any larger context illustrates the depth of your thinking quite nicely.

 

[mjd1982]

[No message]

 

[Augustine]

Yes, but it is the Saudi gov who would be choosing the clerics.

Provide reference to support statement that "the Saudi gov would be choosing the clerics". Where is this supported?

Theyre not my claims, theyre Mohabbats.

Understand, you cannot make the argument that Mohabbat is to be disbelieved since Afghans are inherently dishonest.

Briefly, I have never made that argument. I have argued that Mohabbat's claims are questionable because:
- his claims go against all documentation of meetings, documentation done immediately following or soon afterwards, while his claims are years later,
- his claims go against the Taliban cultural code, and their historical record of refusal to turn over bin Laden,
- complete absence of any public statement by any Taliban official expressing any desire to turn over bin Laden,
- complete absence of any corroborating details,
- he is not independent, and his credibility as a witness bears examination, particularly in light of the nature of his claims with respect to above.

Nice try, Junior, but I think Chomsky and Cockburn are right about you...

 

[jab712]

Originally Posted by Augustine
Research pashtun-wali and pannah warkawel and get back to me. This calls into question his original claim, and makes the Taliban's historical refusal to hand over bin Laden understandable in context. Secondly, the concept of "honesty" appears nowhere in the pashtun-wali (which, if you knew what Mohabbat's tribal affiliation was, you would be able to judge relevance). The concept of "telling the truth" is seen as far more malleable, even in Iraq, and definitely in Afghanistan. "Lying" or "shading the truth" is done widely, with little to no regret or even awareness. Again, understand the culture.

Ha! This is priceless. How many Afghans do you know again? Understand, you cannot make the argument that Mohabbat is to be disbelieved since Afghans are inherently dishonest. This is a stupid, racist argument. Have some sense.

You know MJD, if you actually researched pashtunwali and pannah warkawel like Augustine asked, you would understand what he meant by the above post.

Since you couldn't be bothered to research and you just assumed you understood what he is saying, I went ahead and did some of your work for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali

Specifically

Hospitality - being hospitable to all, especially guests and strangers, and, at times, even the most hostile of enemies is a key teaching. The exception that makes the rule is when one has come to take advantage of Pashtunwali for their own corrupt ends, bringing harm to you in the pursuit of their aims.

http://www.joshuarey.com/index.pl?Action=ShowArticle&DoNotGoToFood=&ID=25

This link above gives good insight. I have included a passage from the link below...

To Western ears this sounds like a crazy code of honour. In some final judgement of value system against value system beyond the clouds, it may transpire that, in the eye of God, it is indeed crazy. But what it is not is a euphemism for something else. It is hard to explain how deep in the Afghan soul is this code of hospitality since we in the West now have very few non-negotiable values. To every value we apply the test 'what good does it do anyone?' The code of hospitality, for all that it may in the grand scheme of things have some survival value for the society that holds it, is often a very bad thing for all concerned in individual instances.

This is particularly so in the Osama case. Afghanistan gets no benefit from his staying there and is in sore need of all the economic contact it can obtain with the outside world, as well as development assistance. But Osama, having shown up with money and guns at a time when they needed both to fight the Soviet Union (a fight of which we are all beneficiaries, since their victory was a material cause of communism's collapse) has hung about long enough to undergo the metaphysical transformation into a guest. And once a man is a guest he can only cease to be guest by leaving of his own accord. Until he does that you have to protect him or... or nothing: it's not the kind of calculation we make, you just have to protect him and that's it.

This, I repeat, is a difficult thing for Westerners to understand. We would have made more sense of it in the Regency when duelling over matters of honour was a normal thing. I do not mean to commend either duelling or the Afghan's uncompromising code of hospitality. but I want to make it clear that they are real things, different from our everyday experience here.

Augustine is not saying that Afghans are inherently dishonest. Had you researched you would understand, because of their culture, they will lie or shade the truth as it pertains to what they believe. If the Afghans have an uncompromising code of hospitality, they will lie to keep within that code. Mind you, I only researched this for 20 minutes. I am only picking out the hospitality part. I am sure there is more going on here within the culture than the hospitality. This is a start though. Maybe you should research it more for further clarification. I have only provided two links, but do a google search, you will be amazed what you can find, all suggesting the same thing.

Furthermore, because of Mohabbat's tribal affiliation, don't you think HE would understand this? Brings his claims into question, don't you think?

Think! oh and read and research like people suggest.

 

[DGM]

Jab712:
I had just started researching this subject. Fascinating look into the culture and why they would allow themselves to destroyed over a guest.

 

[WildCat]

This isnt the "War on AQ"

It most certainly is. From S.J.Res.23:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.


(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

[JonnyFive]

It most certainly is. From S.J.Res.23:

Choose your answer:

1) Would you stop with all these facts? What do you think this is, the conspiracy facts thread?

2) It isn't technically a "war" because war was never officially declared on terrorism. You can't declare war on an abstract noun. Twenty-three equivocation skiddoo!

3) The JOOOZ, IT WAS THE JOOZ! WHY CAN'T YOU SEE IT WAS THE JOOOOZ?!!?!

 

[WildCat]

Secondly, the concept of "honesty" appears nowhere in the pashtun-wali (which, if you knew what Mohabbat's tribal affiliation was, you would be able to judge relevance). The concept of "telling the truth" is seen as far more malleable, even in Iraq, and definitely in Afghanistan. "Lying" or "shading the truth" is done widely, with little to no regret or even awareness. Again, understand the culture.

Too bad the British didn't know this in 1842, when they were assured by Afghan tribal chiefs that they would be given safe passage out of Afghanistan if they only gave up their arms...

 

[mjd1982]

I'll be back later, but since I couldnt resist...

Augustine is not saying that Afghans are inherently dishonest... they will lie or shade the truth as it pertains to what they believe... they will lie to keep within that code.

Think!

I think inherently bigoted would be a more appropriate slur here.

 

[Belz...]

1. The point relating to which articles/sources I am using. [...] The 2 are not mutually exclusive

Irrelevant. You're arguing from the argument, really.

2. In terms of what would have happened to 911 had OBL been killed. That is speculation, yes, but look at it this way for one second- why would you not accept OBL dead? It is inexplicable that such would happen, absent belief in the connivance of the US with regard to 911.

Are you saying that the fact that it would happen would be propitious to policy ?

Thats because I have the courtesy to reply to most everyone who posts here

Except mine, apparently. (Posts 1612, 1615, 1618 and 1619)

Nonetheless, this was the 4th point in defense of the PNAC doc; the other 3 remain, basically, unchallenged

Don't you find it annoying when every one of your claims is demolished ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but it is the Saudi gov who would be choosing the clerics. Think!

You think too much. You should stick to what we know, instead of continuing to speculate and interpolate.

I think inherently bigoted would be a more appropriate slur here.

That you absolutely refuse to verify their claims when they have given you pointers certainly speaks volumes about your intentions towards knowing the truth.