Taleban commander stoned to death

[Alchemist]

What a moron...

he says he doesn't spam and just respond for the sake of responding ..but in that response he just did that ...

and then he claims to be "rational" and devoid of "emotional outbursts" when he writes hahahaha and posts a youtube to capture his own emotions


PSYCHO!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

yeah and anyone can say "you're losing to"....just because people respond to me with illogical arguments with false premises doesn't mean I'm "losing" it .

Apparently you think someone responding back means someone lost.

How can I be proven wrong when I caught one of the debaters being wrong about the location they wee speaking about?

Salamoona

Regarding location, let my clarify. I spent 3 month sojourns every few years, in Kandahar Province next door where my ancestory hails from.

The point I was trying to make was based on this: 23 minutes 42 seconds into this front line special watch what happened:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kill-capture/

They killed, per the Afghan Analysts Network, Zabad Amanullah, a governmental friendly elder that had no links to Taliban, but he was called a Talib commander (28 minutes in). The US had routinely been mistaken about identities and locations. I was questioning whether they had mixed up locations again and mistook Nawa

This is the sort of personality/location mistakes being made by the US Special Forces and they even did not correctly identify a prominent Afghan Governmental friendly personality when they accidently killed him.

My concern was that the article was confusing Nawa district Ghazni as being located in Helmand (per the fact that in the written word they did not write out fully Nawa Barakzai).

If you look at my original post I said that there is Nawai Barakzai and there is Nawa. My error was that I did not go into further detail and point out what you did when you said that Nawa district is in Ghazni. That is why in my second response I reiterated that you got the message and you confirmed Trikh Zabur is in Nawai Barakzai. I have never been to Trikh Zabur, Nad Ali or Marjah.

My original point that I was attempting to make is that I had heard of Nawa Barakzai district there (called Nawa by locals but in writing, referred to as Nawa Barakzai)...

My travels to Helmand have been via Chaman, past Spin Boldak, past mandaay saar, toward Kandahar City, and my father's village lays not too far from Karz itself. I have never traveled farther west where the village in question is. This area, is to the West of our village, quiet a ways.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I can't understand how mocking someone's emotional outbursts become an emotional outburst

grasping much?

[ScimitarXEdge]

you can say whatever you want now. Your the fool.

oh god this is too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Well you said yourself Taliban have infiltrated, and I'm not here defending the Government, I know they are corrupt. But this only reinforces the corrupt network of the Taliban if anything. Since they claim control

If it is Taliban propaganda, you admit they're as bad liars as you claim the government are. Hence it becomes infinite regression and you end up committing a logical fallacy.



We're talking about Helmand 2011, not their entire history.



Actually my point stressed two things

a.) Villagers didnt have firearms; if any were taken it was probably confiscated, why would Taliban want armed villagers who can rise up as a mass and revot?

b.) since Taliban punish people by stoning and this was done for revenge, and since they don't have firearms, the stoning seems to be consistent with a "tit for tat" approach to Taliban tactics.



there is no clause that says you need to have attained sainthood to not butcher and tyrannize your own people to "fight the enemy"

get real.



It also shows based on this information that using the Vietnamese scapegoat as you usually do loses merit ad shows only its ilegitimacy, even if fighting american imperialism is legitimate, it doesn't make people who massacre their own less evil than American imperialists.



We're talking about Massacreing YOUR OWN PEOPLE WHO YOU CLAIM TO BE liberating.

This is simply a logic issue now; you don't liberate your own people by oppressing them.



Wikileaks is whistle blower and even the U.S. confirmed its documents, and hence why they want to silence it. If that isn't a testimony of credibility, nothing is.

The Chinese analogy is wrong , for reasons already mentioned in previous posts which I wont reiterate

and Cambodia analogy maybe "spot on" but after revealing that Vietkong butchered their own ...the legitimacy issue is tossed out the window.



These aren't the times of Nabi(saw) where you need to have identities of individuas and know who said what, there is something called reconissance now.

no need to peddle horse doodee and tell us it is roses.




your analogies are weak, if the isnad was weak Pakistan wouldn't be all angstful about it.

weak isnads dont get such adamant responses



These aren't the days of Nabi(saw) where you need chains of narrations; intelligence reports that are secretive are there for a reason, they'e hidden...because they have direct access to this information.



That's Afghanistan's intelligence, a little less up to date and sophisticated in technology. so such a point is red herring.




It doen't take that many chapatis and pakoras to take a trip to Waziristan.



You haven't debunked the evidence ...you have "denied" it ....please understand the distinction; ANYONE can deny something. As you are.

you have given no solid practicable evidence it's false. There's plenty it is real

PLUS if wiileaks was reliable; the Taliban wouldn't have thanked wikileaks for exposing the "callaborators".

nice try; what you're doing is what they call scapegoating.


5. "Your holes were generally logically fallacious/red herrings. Even if they're from U.S. sources, they're sources which aren't meant for public consumption, thus there would be no legitimate argument of propaganda. It's the real deal"



because you say so? Come on ....that's not a meritable rebuttal; you're charting AshrafGhaljay level of intellectual incompetence here.



If they were, why would they be claimed as fiction by Hamid Gul?




but you fail to understand the diplomatic cables are intelligence controlled by military as well; hence the unnamed soldier you're referring to is facing a court martial.

]

Case closed my friend. The Central Taliban is one of many legitimate armed resistances.

there's no Nawa that's apart of the district; you were just wrong that. they just shortened Nawa i barakzai into Nawa, they weren;t talking about Nawa in Ghazni because they have referred to it in other news if you google Nawa Helmand.[/QUOTE]

Too many red herrings... in the debate, Im not going to let you spread me thin so I am going to force you to discuss one point at at time or bust.

You missed the point entirely: the "isnad" is KNOWN

So let the discussion shift to diplomatic cables, the wikileaks if you may. You focused on verbage and nounage and not on the substane I was attacking your argument on. This is to distract the issue. I care not about the Nabi or the biographies... and source quality is not restricted to the Nabi's time. Reporters like Woodward and others are expected to vet sources as well. They are not rasuls or nabis either... but credibility of sources is paramount.

Isnad was just a choice of words. Leave that be. It meant that the cable itself, and you are welcomed to access it via the wikileaks website sets up the following, notes the following:

NDS says that Hamid Gul traveled to Waziristan to bark orders to the Taliban shuraa. So by extension either Hamid Gul was dumb enough to tell the NDS "hey guys who hate me and Pakistan, I went to Waziristan and barked some orders" or NDS has a man on the inside feeding them info. Let us assume that the second scenario is more likely... why can NDS then not locate Mullah Omar or any of the other Quetta Shura members? Mullah Baradar was caught by Central Intelligence NOT NDS.

So then you are telling me that the same NDS, headed by the inept Saleh, that could not stop Ahmad Wali Karzai from being taken out... that has not demonstrated an ability to save the lives of that child molester commander Jan, etc had DIRECT evidence that Hamid Gul was directing the insurgency and failed to have any recorded evidence or provide that info to the CIA that could do something about it?

What is NDS a side lined organization that simply generates stupid theories? Seems that way to me. I know Yama Karzai and went to his wedding in Virginia. He is about as dumb as they come... NDS has a way to go if they are relying on uneducated folks like him who somehow went straight from no schooling in Quetta, being dependent on his family... to a security studies degree from Georgetown?

Moreover, I think the CIA has proven it is far more capable than NDS... do you honestly think the CIA, if it suspected Hamid Gul of being an active participant in such matters, would not have the all seeing eye on him?

You commented that trips to Waziristan are easy for outsiders??? Yet they were not easy for Khalid Khwajaa and the Colonol (two good friends of Mr. Gul). These two are confired ISI operatives that Taliban friendly people. They sure did not come out alive.

Then, the NDS fed this information to US diplomats in Kabul, who wrote it down.

Your original link actually goes to the wiki document itself. Here is the summary that confirms that info came from NDS;

http://worldmeets.us/outlookafghanis...#axzz1XOc7zakp

"In July and August 2008, the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) passed information to the U.S. that three Pakistan-trained militants, plotting to kill President Karzai, had been groomed by a named officer of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and had trained at a camp in Zarb-i-Momin outside Karachi. The attackers, Palestinians and Arabs, intended to strike during a Kabul mosque visit by Karzai, or during a visit to the luxury Serena Hotel.

And this same NDS made a hooplah about 2 months ago claiming Omar was dead.

So now, a nonexistent Omar becomes a dead Omar by NDS standards???

The wikileaks are reliable in that they carefully document a paper trail written by diplomats. They were classified as secret. There were things in those cables about world leaders doing hanky panky.

The Economist expounds on this:

http://www.economist.com/node/17633606

"Individually, the disclosures are trivial: some would be barely newsworthy if published legally."

Here is a clear example of that:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...837377104.html

Look at who writes the cables:

"The text of cables, especially in smaller missions such as Sierra Leone or Guinea-Bissau, is often written by a junior staffer and approved by the head of the mission, Shaikh said."

Or take their stance on US enemy Hugo Chavez:

"he cable also mentioned that French and German attachés believed that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "intentionally wants Venezuela to become a 'narco-state' in order to invoke martial law and extraordinary powers."

So now, because you accept all that is in the cables as gospel truth... the Venezualans should rise up and take out Chavez simply because some US diplomats ascribed some views to him.

Regarding the Taliban scouring the cables for names of informants... how does that mean anything at all when I showed clearly that the US mistook a government friendly official (per the Frontline reference) for a Taliban Quetta Shuraa member???

Relinked here for your viewing pleasure:

"The point I was trying to make was based on this: 23 minutes 42 seconds into this front line special watch what happened:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kill-capture/

They killed, per the Afghan Analysts Network, Zabad Amanullah, a governmental friendly elder that had no links to Taliban, but he was called a Talib commander (28 minutes in). The US had routinely been mistaken about identities and locations. I was questioning whether they had mixed up locations again and mistook Nawa

This is the sort of personality/location mistakes being made by the US Special Forces and they even did not correctly identify a prominent Afghan Governmental friendly personality when they accidently killed him."

All it means is that the US diplomats were dumb enough to write down the names of people telling them stuff... not that the info is 100% accurate.

Bottom line: every name on the list from the NDS to the diplomat has an agenda when it comes to the ISI and has proven an inability to provide accurate info when it suits their purposes...

For that exact reason, the Taliban are actually smart to scour these records... they (the US) are lackadaisical enough to write down who their friends or potential informants are... this is another reason why the US fears the release of the cables, to address your second question of why the US wants to keep them secret...it certainly doesnt want any potentially accurate informants to not come forward because its worried that the super power cannot protect the informant's secrecy.

Its a credibility issue for the US... as a world power the US should be worried about how other intelligence agencies view its inability to keep important things secret.

I look forward to your response.

[unknownprince]

as always, Barakzai refutes Scimitar

[ScimitarXEdge]

Too many red herrings... in the debate, Im not going to let you spread me thin so I am going to force you to discuss one point at at time or bust.

Sorry this demonstrates that you didn't know what you were assessing; that is very pertinent and not a red herring at all.

You missed the point entirely: the "isnad" is KNOWN

So let the discussion shift to diplomatic cables, the wikileaks if you may. You focused on verbage and nounage and not on the substane I was attacking your argument on. This is to distract the issue. I care not about the Nabi or the biographies... and source quality is not restricted to the Nabi's time. Reporters like Woodward and others are expected to vet sources as well. They are not rasuls or nabis either... but credibility of sources is paramount.

This is a logical fallacy however; while credibility is paramount how that credibility is defined is based on the veracity of the material; not the source itself.


Your argument is just circumstantial ad-hominem

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

your reasoning is simply a scapegoat that is logically fallacious; very unbecoming of someone with your academic background

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms

Isnad was just a choice of words. Leave that be. It meant that the cable itself, and you are welcomed to access it via the wikileaks website sets up the following, notes the following:

NDS says that Hamid Gul traveled to Waziristan to bark orders to the Taliban shuraa. So by extension either Hamid Gul was dumb enough to tell the NDS "hey guys who hate me and Pakistan, I went to Waziristan and barked some orders" or NDS has a man on the inside feeding them info. Let us assume that the second scenario is more likely... why can NDS then not locate Mullah Omar or any of the other Quetta Shura members? Mullah Baradar was caught by Central Intelligence NOT NDS.

That's a red herring, it would be like saying why can't the Taliban kill the chief of the ISI if they're so against Pakistan, and they KNOW where he is.

So then you are telling me that the same NDS, headed by the inept Saleh, that could not stop Ahmad Wali Karzai from being taken out... that has not demonstrated an ability to save the lives of that child molester commander Jan, etc had DIRECT evidence that Hamid Gul was directing the insurgency and failed to have any recorded evidence or provide that info to the CIA that could do something about it?

Which has nothing to do with anything, you're on a tangent again.

What is NDS a side lined organization that simply generates stupid theories? Seems that way to me. I know Yama Karzai and went to his wedding in Virginia. He is about as dumb as they come... NDS has a way to go if they are relying on uneducated folks like him who somehow went straight from no schooling in Quetta, being dependent on his family... to a security studies degree from Georgetown?

You have yet to show any evidence their "theories" as YOU put it are lacking credibility; you're only showing why YOU don't believe them. Where is your evidence which supports this.

You know nebulous appeals wont work on me; I'm not AshrafGhaljay who gets easily impressed by any speculative assertion which can be used to explain stuff away.

People like Ashrafghaljay and GraveyardofEmpires are uneducated dimwits; deny evidence which doesn't follow their own predefined ideas.

Moreover, I think the CIA has proven it is far more capable than NDS... do you honestly think the CIA, if it suspected Hamid Gul of being an active participant in such matters, would not have the all seeing eye on him?

Who says they don't? who says they're even at odds?

You commented that trips to Waziristan are easy for outsiders??? Yet they were not easy for Khalid Khwajaa and the Colonol (two good friends of Mr. Gul). These two are confired ISI operatives that Taliban friendly people. They sure did not come out alive.

No I said it is easy for Hamid Gul, he's already been there in the past. ISI has been involved there for years.

Then, the NDS fed this information to US diplomats in Kabul, who wrote it down.

Which again isn't a refutation.

And this same NDS made a hooplah about 2 months ago claiming Omar was dead.

You're being intellectually dishonest that isn't ALL the NDS said
Taliban Leader Mullah Omar Killed in Pakistan: NDS

Taliban Leader Mullah Mohmmad Omar has been found and killed in Pakistan, a source in the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) told TOLOnews on the condition of anonymity.

Mullah Omar was shot dead as he was being moved from Quetta to North Waziristan by former ISI chief Gen. Hamid Gul, the source said.

According to the source, Mullah Omar has been killed two days ago.

Foreign sources have not yet confirmed the death.

But NDS spokesman Lutfullah Mashal told TOLOnews he confirms that Mullah Omar was moved from Quetta to Waziristan two days ago, but cannot yet confirm the death.

They openly admit they can't confirm it.

The wikileaks are reliable in that they carefully document a paper trail written by diplomats. They were classified as secret. There were things in those cables about world leaders doing hanky panky.

Yeah but your argument here is based on a fallacious premise to begin with which I just revealed

The Economist expounds on this:

http://www.economist.com/node/17633606

"Individually, the disclosures are trivial: some would be barely newsworthy if published legally."

The language here is very pregnant in what it says SOME are barely newsworthy; BUT that means SOME are also relevant. It doesn't discredit the validity of the wikileaks sources and merit of some of their exposed cables. Just that NOT all of it is.

Hamid Gul trying to kill Karzai and dictating the Taliban is BIG news. Trying to downplay it by diverting attention to the less serious stuff on Wikileaks is a smokescreen

Regarding the Taliban scouring the cables for names of informants... how does that mean anything at all when I showed clearly that the US mistook a government friendly official (per the Frontline reference) for a Taliban Quetta Shuraa member???

A lot when you consider that the Taliban are THANKING them and have claiming they will act on the material within. Not exactly trivial if Talibs will act on it.

They killed, per the Afghan Analysts Network, Zabad Amanullah, a governmental friendly elder that had no links to Taliban, but he was called a Talib commander (28 minutes in). The US had routinely been mistaken about identities and locations. I was questioning whether they had mixed up locations again and mistook Nawa

The argument strategy here is hilariously irrelevant; so if someone gets an error on a Math test it means they're going to fail their English test? This Yo're using a Nonsequitur.

Non sequitur - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
:

an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequence

Bottom line: every name on the list from the NDS to the diplomat has an agenda when it comes to the ISI and has proven an inability to provide accurate info when it suits their purposes...

You're trying to disprove something based on an mutually exclusive instance which had no impact on the instance described. This is called False Association.
Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

For that exact reason, the Taliban are actually smart to scour these records... they (the US) are lackadaisical enough to write down who their friends or potential informants are... this is another reason why the US fears the release of the cables, to address your second question of why the US wants to keep them secret...it certainly doesnt want any potentially accurate informants to not come forward because its worried that the super power cannot protect the informant's secrecy.

Which contradicts what you were saying earlier about the triviality of the Wikilkeaks cables.

Its a credibility issue for the US... as a world power the US should be worried about how other intelligence agencies view its inability to keep important things secret.

Exactly and similarly this would be a credibility issue for U.S. the U.S. is in league with Pakistan who direct the Taliban, make the U.S. look incompetent

[ScimitarXEdge]

as always, Barakzai refutes Scimitar

of course a Pakistani slave would cheer something that protects their cover.

[khushal]

but according to the Taliban supporters the U.S./Non-Afghan/Non-Taliban sources are lying which means Taliban supporters must accept the Taliban control these areas.

If the Taliban didn't control the areas they claim to control; they're not an effective government and they provide very little to society at large and thus lack merit in their resistance. If the Taliban claim control and have control then they commit murders which means they're against Muslims and are equally enemies of Muslims and Afghans most specifically. If they don't that means their claims of winning the war are false and they're not an effective resistance.

So either the Taliban are losing and thus not committing such murders, or they're winning and committing Murder and tyranny against Muslims just as the Imperialists are. Since we know from numerous sources Taliban are winning against the U.S; this means that the Taliban are also tyrannizing and murdering Muslims in Afghanistan'". IN effect this story is factual.

I think you are getting a little desperate here. Your redefining Truth according to your conspiracy theory. Since Obama claims to represent freedom in the world, and we know from multiple sources that obama does represent freedom, in effect it must be factual.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I didn't make a conspiracy theory, I reasoned things out, the Taliban cllaim to be winning and foreign sources claim to be winning

winning = control and control= responsibility

Time to finally admit Taliban re as murderous and treacherous as the Imperalists they claim to be fighting

I believe the posts Randolph provided regarding how the Taliban are threatening to murder children is a perfect example of their true face.

[faye]

khushal, i hope you are being sarcastic when you say that obama represents freedom:-0
taliban are like all groups everywhere. from reports of people living under their rule, some are ok, some are not.
the people who join up with the taliban, because of injustices against them by invaders, are not necessarily taliban but are classified as such.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Sorry this demonstrates that you didn't know what you were assessing; that is very pertinent and not a red herring at all.

You missed the point entirely: the "isnad" is KNOWN



This is a logical fallacy however; while credibility is paramount how that credibility is defined is based on the veracity of the material; not the source itself.

Not true, point in case the Strauss Kahn case. For all we know Strauss Kahn may or may not have done the dirty deed. The lawyers proved that in other circumstances, the maid had a credibility gap. The reliability of witnesses matters, even in Islamic law. You simply saying that the material provided is what determines credibility is a self made rule.

Your argument is just circumstantial ad-hominem

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

your reasoning is simply a scapegoat that is logically fallacious; very unbecoming of someone with your academic background

I am sorry you feel this way, but I think that source quality and examining any report is of the utmost importance. This is academic quality, a method utilized by Bukhari, Eric Topol, and every evidence based individual in between.

Isnad was just a choice of words. Leave that be. It meant that the cable itself, and you are welcomed to access it via the wikileaks website sets up the following, notes the following:



That's a red herring, it would be like saying why can't the Taliban kill the chief of the ISI if they're so against Pakistan, and they KNOW where he is.

Supposedly they killed the Colonel and Khalid Khwaja... once again proving that had another Pakistani official of repute (say Hamid Gul) fallen into their hands and walked into Waziristan they would have.

Which has nothing to do with anything, you're on a tangent again.

Prove its a tangent. Its relevant to the argument.

You have yet to show any evidence their "theories" as YOU put it are lacking credibility; you're only showing why YOU don't believe them. Where is your evidence which supports this.

You did not quote the rest of the article from Tolo... not only did NDS and CIA coordinate a rumor about Omar's death to deflate the insurgency (by the way by your standards if the wikileaks veracity is proven by the fact the US wants to expunge them then I would say the ferocity with which the US wants to take out Omar, by your logic, shows hes the real deal... Obama did say, after all, that they absolutely will conduct an Abbatabod style raid if they find out Omar's location).

Here is what a key part of that article says:

"We confirm that Gen. Hamid Gul moved him from Quetta to North Waziristan two days ago, but we cannot confirm his death right now," said Mr Mashal"

This is laughable... now, not only is Hamid Gul organizing the assassination of Karzai, but he is leading caravans between Waziristan and Quetta under the all seeing eye.

Then... he makes back to Rawalpindi in time to say:

"I'm alive, I'm here in Pindi. It's diabolical nonsense. I don't know why they are spreading such rumours. I would simply laugh over it," he said"

So SXE lets set the chain of events in motion:
May 21st Omar is rumored to be killed (by NDS no less)
yet they cannot confirm this...
In the least Hamid Gul moved him to Quetta
By May 23rd Hamid Gul is back in Pindi (with the roving drone eyes not having caught him)

Yet the wikileaks about the Karzai assassination was LEAKED in 2010...

So the same CIA that took such painstaking efforts to track down OBL is letting Hamid Gul go with impunity to do what???? To shuttle Omar around on tours of Pakistan???

Come on, this is Zaid Hamid conspricy hour now.

You know nebulous appeals wont work on me; I'm not AshrafGhaljay who gets easily impressed by any speculative assertion which can be used to explain stuff away.

People like Ashrafghaljay and GraveyardofEmpires are uneducated dimwits; deny evidence which doesn't follow their own predefined ideas.

I cannot speak for them.


Who says they don't? who says they're even at odds?

Your theory makes no sense here. The US has a goal of occupying Afghanistan... lets take your question above 1 step further... lets say they are not at odds and that they are both focused on keeping Mullah Omar alive... why??? for what purposes. Pakistan benefits perhaps by continuing to receive military aid and $$$ but the US would and will take him out if they find him. They have no reason not to. Occam's razor.

No I said it is easy for Hamid Gul, he's already been there in the past. ISI has been involved there for years.

The Colonel and Khalid Khwaja had been there in the past as well. Doesnt mean anything.

Which again isn't a refutation.





You're being intellectually dishonest that isn't ALL the NDS said
Taliban Leader Mullah Omar Killed in Pakistan: NDS


They openly admit they can't confirm it.

You did not search deeper. Its part of a coordinate effort to disenchant fighters and destroy their morale.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76J0K820110720

Taliban sites were hacked as well and the NDS complex executed a psyops that backfired, because, as I said, the NDS is incompetent.




Yeah but your argument here is based on a fallacious premise to begin with which I just revealed

Where?


The language here is very pregnant in what it says SOME are barely newsworthy; BUT that means SOME are also relevant. It doesn't discredit the validity of the wikileaks sources and merit of some of their exposed cables. Just that NOT all of it is.

No but NDS claiming that Hamid Gul was in transporting Mullah Omar from Waziristan to Quetta and then him being in Pindi shows how retarded they are. Yet other reports indicate Hamid Gul told the media he was in Muree. Has Hamid Gul acquired the powers of the archangel Gabriel now, being in many places all at once???

One, name Amrullah Saleh, is enough to mention to uttery destroy the credibility of the NDS. Its a joker organization on par with Wayne and Garth.

Hamid Gul trying to kill Karzai and dictating the Taliban is BIG news. Trying to downplay it by diverting attention to the less serious stuff on Wikileaks is a smokescreen

Once again, its an accusation you make, but your sole witness is the NDS. The US was not even bold enough to claim a CIA mole or source for this.


A lot when you consider that the Taliban are THANKING them and have claiming they will act on the material within. Not exactly trivial if Talibs will act on it.


Unrelated reports... its like comparing apples and oranges. There are wikileaks that Ghaddafi was doing haramthope with nurses... the particular nurse in question turned out to be married and the other nurses jumped to her defense. By your standards, the quality of the wikileaks is so great that it would trump the required 4 witnesses... right?


The argument strategy here is hilariously irrelevant; so if someone gets an error on a Math test it means they're going to fail their English test? This Yo're using a Nonsequitur.

Non sequitur - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
:

Thats what you are doing my friend when you say that the Taliban are scouring the records for informant names (its rather easy to be an informant and give people info for money) and that ipso facto makes the information about Hamid Gul backpacking around Waziristan, Murry, and the Panjab simultaneously reliable.



You're trying to disprove something based on an mutually exclusive instance which had no impact on the instance described. This is called False Association.
Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Witnesses should be reliable, NDS is an unreliable witness with an agenda. I would treat and do treat Taliban commentary about their various accomplishments with the same suspicion. The Taliban has also a proven track record of generating propaganda (Refsdahl himself said he never witnessed Commander Dauran hit a convoy in his stunning documentary).

Which contradicts what you were saying earlier about the triviality of the Wikilkeaks cables.

They certainly are not trivial as they reveal the machinations and the machinery of the American embassy and its potential intelligence gathering role (albeit bad intelligence gathering). The wikileaks are not in and of themselves horrible evil manipulating works of Satan or Israel as conspiracy theorists would allege... they are diplomatic cables describing conversations and penned by juniour staffers... no more, no less. They have a low specificity measure for making a diagnosis.

Take for example what the leaks allege about Turkish President Erdogan:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6B407420101205

"A 2004 dated cable by then-U.S. ambassador Eric Edelman said: "We have heard from two contacts that Erdogan has eight accounts in Swiss banks; his explanations that his wealth comes from the wedding presents guests gave his son and that a Turkish businessman is paying the educational expenses of all four Erdogan children in the U.S. purely altruistically are lame."
Erdogan has denied he has any money in Swiss bank accounts and threatened to file a lawsuit over the charges."

Calling this a logic fallacy will not undo the massive blow this strikes to your argument. Here is why:

1) You are saying that wikileaks must reliable in the case of Hamid gul... I ask you to prove this... you say its because of the hooplah that Pakistan threw subsequently and that then proves its true.
2) You have not addressed source control... unreliable witnesses (NDS) are just that... unreliable... commenting on issues being unrelated doesnt undo the damage to the theory.
3) By extension... Erdogan is mad... he has threatened to sue... so therefore, the wikileaks about him must be true by your logic... and no I cannot accept your argument that they are unrelated events and so we cannot judge the wikileak you want to be true but cannot prove to be true as independent from the Erdogan wikileak.

Exactly and similarly this would be a credibility issue for U.S. the U.S. is in league with Pakistan who direct the Taliban, make the U.S. look incompetent

Brother, I am not saying that ISI or the CIA or the Taliban or Karzai are angelic or demonic as all have an agenda here. My point is that just because the Taliban say something... for example if they allege they took out 5 tanks... doesnt make it true. That information standard should be applied across all accusations including NDS based information. You have not provided sufficient evidence to buttress the claim and we have shown above independent NDS accusations that make it look aloof and foolish and unreliable.

[randolph85]

if u are doubting the talibans legitimacy when it comes to their outrageous claims, u are an uncle tom according to the likes of grave and ashraf.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

if u are doubting the talibans legitimacy when it comes to their outrageous claims, u are an uncle tom according to the likes of grave and ashraf.

I am not saying I doubt Omar's sincerity... afterall that is what this whole argument is about at its base. Graveyard, Ashraf, and I all see the Afghan Taliban as more indigenous and having a greater right than the occupier forces. I am sure Graveyard and Ashraf also are old enough and smart enough to understand that the Prophet Muhammad (S) himself understood that warfare propaganda is a facet of warfare. I think where they take issue is when folks easily believe any and all things that make the government look good and Taliban out to be the devil's tail. There qualm is that folks are willing to tout Afghan governmental developments despite how transient they are, that folks are all too willing to tout women's progress (despite the various mysogynistic factions in the current government), that folks are willing to ascribe all Taliban momentum and motivation as Pakistani driven and dependent (an absurd allegation).

The Taliban propagandizing about 5 convoys being hit etc does not outweight the battle field assessments by folks like Scheuer and the America's own military commanders that the collective insurgency (whatever you want to call it)... is fighting an effective war of attrition and causing the US to hemorrhage $$$.

[khushal]

I didn't make a conspiracy theory, I reasoned things out, the Taliban cllaim to be winning and foreign sources claim to be winning

winning = control and control= responsibility

Time to finally admit Taliban re as murderous and treacherous as the Imperalists they claim to be fighting

I believe the posts Randolph provided regarding how the Taliban are threatening to murder children is a perfect example of their true face.

You keep changing goal posts, did you forget our initial argument.

winning does not equal control. once you have won then you have control. But this war is not a military war, it is a political war. America has already won the military aspect of war, where they are failing is the political aspect of this war. The Taliban does not have the capacity to challenge NATO head on, there is no frontline where the Taliban can force NATO to withdraw from their frontline. The Taliban ambush and and when the heat is on them, they disappear and pop up somewhere else. Their strategy is to make the war expensive for NATO and make a headache for NATO to hold on to ground.
No one entity really has control of Helmand. Helmand is in a state of chaos. There is only one entity that is happy in a chaotic state and that is the criminal element.

You have failed in proving why we shouldnt doubt the Afghan official story about how a man with one friend and one bullet is labeled as a Taliban commander who didnt have any men to command and couldnt afford more than one bullet were killed by a group of villagers.
It is time for you to admit that your conspiracy theory is as valid as the Afghan government.