Taleban commander stoned to death

[khushal]

he said she said is not evidence

there you go I just proved your evidence is false becasue it wasnt evidence to begin with

[ScimitarXEdge]

Official documentation is evidence


You're in denial and inventing your own goal posts as evidence

so as the records stands, you haven't debunked the evidence.

[khushal]

Official documentation is evidence


You're in denial and inventing your own goal posts as evidence

so as the records stands, you haven't debunked the evidence.

I didnt see the word official stamped on it

[ScimitarXEdge]

well the fact it says "officials" is sort of implicit of it being Official.


anywaaaay

[graveyardofempires]

this si extremely funny
first we have an article based on lies posted is this thread.

now scimitaredge is telling us that ttp killed col.imam because he was going to expose pakisatan? lol

now dear scimitar needs to forward the evidence to that theory.

[khushal]

this si extremely funny
first we have an article based on lies posted is this thread.

now scimitaredge is telling us that ttp killed col.imam because he was going to expose pakisatan? lol

now dear scimitar needs to forward the evidence to that theory.

This man is always talking about logic when in fact he believes in fairy tales. All those other attacks the ttp did was also becuase there was evidence of pakistan being exposed. The US killed Osama also because he was about to expose the US and their special friendship. lol

[graveyardofempires]

This man is always talking about logic when in fact he believes in fairy tales. All those other attacks the ttp did was also becuase there was evidence of pakistan being exposed. The US killed Osama also because he was about to expose the US and their special friendship. lol

well thats what you get when you lie.
like the indian saying goes : when you lie once you have to lie a thousand times to cover that lie.

so now he is doing al he can to prove himself right.

he also believes that Afghanistan was creation of the british empire and here is his so called proof,a book written by this guy

Professor Amin Saikal (born 2 December 1950 in Kabul, Afghanistan) is Director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (The Middle East Central Asia) and Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University. Professor Saikal has specialised in the politics, history, political economy and international relations of the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the Institute of Development Studies (University of Sussex), as well as a Rockefeller Foundation Fellow in International Relations (1983-1988). He is a member of many national and international academic organisations. He is also a frequent commentator on radio and television.


here is the name of his book
Modern Afghanistan: a history of struggle and survival

Ravan_Farhadi

Kirill Nourzhanov - the name should be enough to know what kind of basatard he is.

So all of these people are non Pashtuns and have traces of anti Pashtun behaviour like khalid husseini.

ANOTHER TYPICAL KHALID HUSSEINI TYPE OF PERSON MAYBE EVEN WORSE>

so bottom line is scimitar is helping expose th aanti Afghan propaganidists since he is so much into believing into anti afghan propaganada.

[ScimitarXEdge]

this si extremely funny
first we have an article based on lies posted is this thread.

now scimitaredge is telling us that ttp killed col.imam because he was going to expose pakisatan? lol

now dear scimitar needs to forward the evidence to that theory.

if it is based on lies why h their been no evidence exposing fallacies

well if that wasn't the reason; why would they kill Col. Imam when he would have been an asset to exposing Pakistan.

[ScimitarXEdge]

well thats what you get when you lie.
like the indian saying goes : when you lie once you have to lie a thousand times to cover that lie.

so now he is doing al he can to prove himself right.

he also believes that Afghanistan was creation of the british empire and here is his so called proof,a book written by this guy

Professor Amin Saikal (born 2 December 1950 in Kabul, Afghanistan) is Director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (The Middle East Central Asia) and Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University. Professor Saikal has specialised in the politics, history, political economy and international relations of the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the Institute of Development Studies (University of Sussex), as well as a Rockefeller Foundation Fellow in International Relations (1983-1988). He is a member of many national and international academic organisations. He is also a frequent commentator on radio and television.


here is the name of his book
Modern Afghanistan: a history of struggle and survival

Ravan_Farhadi

Kirill Nourzhanov - the name should be enough to know what kind of basatard he is.

So all of these people are non Pashtuns and have traces of anti Pashtun behaviour like khalid husseini.

ANOTHER TYPICAL KHALID HUSSEINI TYPE OF PERSON MAYBE EVEN WORSE>

so bottom line is scimitar is helping expose th aanti Afghan propaganidists since he is so much into believing into anti afghan propaganada.

are you serious?!??!?! You're saying it is propaganda because WHAT HIS LAST NAME IS?????

lol you're a complete idiot, someone's last name has nothing to do with whether or not their claims are falsified.


This is just you utter Pro Pakistani propaganda; you expose yourself by using such childish logical fallacies.

[ScimitarXEdge]

This man is always talking about logic when in fact he believes in fairy tales. All those other attacks the ttp did was also becuase there was evidence of pakistan being exposed. The US killed Osama also because he was about to expose the US and their special friendship. lol

Your argument is circular ...you still haven't shown the article as false

and you haven't given a sufficient explanation as to why the Taliban would kill a man who would expose Pakistan.

My logic is fine ....it's just you can't negate any of it

[BarakzaiAbdali]

You just pulled a Graveyard by commenting WITHIN my quote instead of quoting each individual point; try not to do that because it makes it hard for me to do point by point reply back since it erases anything within my quote boxes.

This is more efficient... unless you can hook me up with a rapid way to not have to separate out the quotes manually...

Anyways





It is true, it is actually a principle of Logical fallacy.

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

You're making a false analogy when you introduce the comparison between Islamic Legal Procedures. Firstly the fact they use FOUR witnesses who are trustworthy instead of 1 (in cases of adultery) demonstrates that being trust worthiness isn't enough, they need rigorous confirmation from different sources. rigorous evidence, the issue of trustworthiness is not confirmation of proof but discrediting individuals who might claim bias. This is of course in legal cases where penal code is applied. Much different contextually; and not ironically, there's no Islamic requirement of witnesses for Journalistic endeavors. So your claim of witness character as determination for the credibility of their claims is not even applicable in this instance.

Wrong. The Quranic text clearly tells the reader to take witnesses of good repute and who are trustworthy in multiple set ups in life, including business.

You missed the point, it was your logical fallacy, that needs no special label, to claim that the wikileaks are reputable and accurate in all cases until proven false in situations that support your premise.

If such were the case, then President Erdogan has quiet a bit of explaining to do and is assumed to be guilty by YOUR standard, not mine. Your standard, in the initial pages was to say that the wikileaks are ipso facto true because if they are denied by major governments it is solely because they have something to hide... (completely ruling out the possibility that it might also be because they are wrong). The Turkish opposition would take no qualm at proving Erdogan to be a corrupt plutocrat... make no mistake about it. Its not apples and oranges at all... they are ALL wikileaks.

Let me state again, wikileaks is a valuable source of information because juniour staffers have written up diplomatic cables. They are not CIA red cell memos. The information, in each situation, needs to be vetted.

Your original statement that they must all be true because Bradley Manning is being trialed makes no sense. Releasing any classified document is considered a federal crime worthy of trial in the US.

You're not Bukhari and you fail to realize, that Bukharis methodology was different than yours. He had gradations and a system of determining and evaluating things beyond merely trustworthiness. Even an UNTRUSTWORTHY source can be accepted in Bukharis system if their statements are Mutawatir.
If trustworthiness was their primary basis for determining isnad of ahadith, then ahadith critics would be right in their denial of ahadith. Because such things are highly subjective.

Need not be addressed as this is not a mutawatir report and the lone tribal elder from nawa (a district of 180,000 people) is not evidence to be linked to the village. Its like saying a Shooting happened in Detroit... and Eminem said "One day the people of detroit are certainly going to do a bang up job on the Detroit Police" and then assuming Eminem knows the folks that are shot. There is no, absolutely no proof form the article, that the elder knows the folks involved or even witnessed it.

But the cases are not analagous; Wikileaks is trying to be expunged because of INFORMATION that the U.S. wants hidden. U.S. wanting to expunge Omar is debatable. If they truly wanted Omar gone, they wouldn't be paying Pakistan millions to keep him alive in Quetta.

Once again, this is your central thesis and premise... but you have not proven it so we cannot take it as fact simply because you say it. The US is paying Pakistan to shuttle NATO devices across its soil. You must produce the evidence that there is a conspiracy to support the man that is advocating the killing of their own soldiers across the Afghan border.

The issue of NDS and CIA is absurd, since they said that the claims could not be corroborated. If they actually wanted to coordinate a rumor they'd have said there is a definitive body of information.

Because NDS is inept. Just because they tried to do something doesnt mean that they did it well. There are many instances of their neglect, including when they mistook a Quetta shop owner for a Quetta shura member and flew him luxury style to Kabul to get within feet of the Afghan President.

Their coordinated statement and this effort, of which they were obviously incapable shows clear CIA/NDS collusion:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat...omar_is_de.php

This might give added clarity as to why Pakistani Taliban executed Col. Imam and Khwaja Khalid

Ex-spy held by militants demands help – The Express Tribune



Interesting so they killed Col. Imam after he threatened to expose Pakistan.....I think we've found a smoking gun wouldn't you?

Answered elsewhere.

Also strangely enough Imam and Khwaja were killed by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Non-Pakhtun, ISI created Militant Group; in an incarnation called Asian Tigers.

Your case is diminishing wrora.

Not per the very elegent discussion by Rahim Yusufzai. You can look into his credentials... they speak for themselves.

Because wrora It's a Fallacy of Association.



There are airplanes and helicopters, all at the ISI's disposal, it's not as if they can't be used. You act like people being able to move distance of 500 KM in a few hours is unheard of.


Certainly, they can be used, but you have to prove they were... but it is fascinating that the NDS can trace Gul to a remote Waziri village but cannot follow him to where the trail ends and find their man. Equally fascinating is that the US's main reason for being in Afghanistan was to initally kill OBL (their bigger emphasis was hear - which they accomplished) and to decapitate and destroy the Taliban... So why not keep OBL alive and kill off Mullah Omar if all they want is a pretext to stay???

Occums razor my friend... occums razor cuts close to the skin... its simply because both men represented threats to the US interest and both are, per US goals, worth pursuing.

Zaid Hamid is PRO-Pakistan, I seriously doubt he'd argue such a point. You're trying to basicaly argue

"my brain has the inability to comprehend how things like traveling short distances in relatively short time" and "how could America let Hamid Gul go even though it pumps billions into Pakistan after knowing its relationship to the Taliban"




well then please don't pass arguments based on their level of comprehension.

Its not that the argument is not comprehensible... its merely that the argument lacks basis and merit.

America made Saddam killed him now have access to Iraqi oil and resources, America developed AQaeda, killed Bin Laden, legitimize their hegemonic revivalism in the post cold war era in the name of fighting terrorism. It is about hegemony. Imperialism, it doesn't care how it is done, just as long as it is done. Pakistani elite don't really care for its citizens, they just want to continue living well.

Wrong; the historical record does not agree with you... Scheuer emphasized that when he tried to recruit OBL the man refused to meet him. You can allege that he was saying it as a part of a grand conspiracy or as a part of a simple denial to cover his tracks... but neither proposal makes sense. This is well documented in Through Our Enemies Eyes.

Hamid Gul wasn't threatening to expose Pakistan. Col. Imam was.

Answered elsewhere.


again fallacy of association is not a good reason.

Not at all... as a simple example... if I told you I had a colleague and that he was such a "good" cardiologist that he sliced through people's heart vessels when he attempted to open them and you confirmed that the guy had, on multiple occasions demonstrated procedural incompetence but had on some occasions been successfull... versus a zorro of stenting being available to you... would you put your mother or father in Zorro's hands... or would we take your view on it an say that the first chap is worthy of stenting your beloved parent's vessels??? We could say that it is false to assume he will be demonstrate his poor acumen just because he has done so on multiple occasions... we can call it a fallacy of logic.

Plain and simple... agenda + incompetence = mistrust.

You just contradicted yourself; you said you'd look at Taliban claims with scrutiny but you're here taking the Taliban on their word.

Im not taking the Taliban at their word. I am noting that the source of the information, and the references quoted do not add up to definitive proof of something happening. I am noting that the 1 bullet hypothesis is absurd. I am noting that the CIA Red Cell Memo that your same wikileaks sources released indicate that the propaganda war began full tempo:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/31-3

The Time Magazine picture is also untracable to a true Taliban commander having committed the act. An American feminist leader, the article above comes to the same common sense conclusion that Time Magazine ought to be investigated for potentially acting according to Red Cell Memo guidelines:

"Whether it is possible that Time published this piece as a concerted part of a government public relations effort is not clear and I'm not suggesting that it was, although it should certainly be investigated."

so what is clear is you have an INTRINSIC Bias for the Taliban and will favor whatever they claim.

I don't have a bias for the NDS or CIA, I think they're faces of Imperialism. But that doesn't mean they don't reveal interesting things about themselves.

In my opinion your approach to the war itself is impractical. The sole practicality of your approach is that you recognize an insurgencies fuel... its very life blood is the support and the good grace of the population that shelters it. I agree with this portion of your analysis. I disagree with your view that the insurgency needs to be split up and that the guy in your video, running for an election, is a viable insurgency alternative... or that the NATO backed constitution offers mechanisms through which the insurgency or any opposition can accomplish there goals. If Karzai cannot even stop them from bombing his country, and NATO made this crystal clear per there reference to the fact that their military actions are NOT bound by his word... then this is a meant to fail approach. As I stated before, this is a war that is even more assymetric then the Russian Afghan war. This is a war between enemies that can fly drones into the stratosphere versus a group of guys with Lee Enfield rifles. The great equalizer between the two has been PROVEN to be the IED despite its low resolution accuracy. It has been the principle mode of death for NATO soldiers.

IF ANYTHING ....this would only lend credence to the theory of CIA-ISI-TALIBAN associations.. How else would the CIA get access to Zabiullah Mujahid ad Qari Ahmad Yousuf's text messages, they would have to kno everything from where abouts and locations.

You did not read the article... there are cellular providers in Afghanistan proper and the agencies acted through their own networks.


When you were talking about their Wikileaks releases having little consequence or weight. I highlighted the Taliban are using it for their intelligence.

The Taliban, where they to act on the wikileaks solely, also be committing an unjust act. If villager X talks to Soldier Y about the Taliban and his goal was to make sure that the Alizai clan got a 2 ton bomb dropped on it .. as opposed to an effort to take out the shura or whatever... then the Taliban has also made an assumption about the documents. If the Taliban are able to say "well, golly, Villager X is mentined here... and we told him about 3 days before we went to Spin Boldak that we were going there... and there were these big white guys with guns there to greet us exactly at the house that we told him we were going to... and gadzooks, Villager X is mentioned as an informant here..." then they might be on to something.



You're painting your own portrayal of the sources; this is called interpolation and is inconsequential.

No, its called using common sense. If someone tells me that SXE is actually a member of a CIA outfit to discredit the Taliban... I would correlate that with all your other statements... note that it does not mesh with your general modus operandi and say that the evidence is very very lacking to support such a claim.

That's a Faux Pas on your part, the Onus is on you to prove it's unreliable or forged. Your reasoning as to why they couldn't be true has so far been that you can't imagine Hamid Gul going to Waziristan to dictate to the Talibs when Col. Imam was there But the fact that Col Imam was killed AFTER he threatened Pakistan's strategic interests, and Hamid Gul works specifically for Pakistan's strategic interests. confirms the Taliban-ISI connection vis'a vis Gul. The fact they didn't kill ISI agent Gul who loves Pakistan but Col . Imam who threatens to expose Pakistan. demonstrates their connection.

Handled elsewhere. The burden of proof is on you to show that Colonol Imam was about to shout into the hills that Pakistan had created the Mullah Omar myth and this was all a ruse.

I have, your contention is a logical fallacy, you can say it 100 times, it still won't be admissible.

Well brother, I am glad you are not heading up the PF court. Simply saying it is not admissable does not make it so.

You're trying to prove it wrong by "proxy"; Which even if in this case weren't true HYPOTHETICALLY, wouldn't disprove the other material in Wikileaks. But just because it exposes other Major Leaders, doesn't dent its credibility.

Its not an issue with wikileaks credibility. Its an issue that each wikileaks has to be investigated and stands alone. It might for instance, be easier to get Burlusconi's friends to talk about his escapades with underage females than to get an Afghan or pakistani source to divulge info accurately. Bundeling the wikileaks into one huuuge sample size of N = 1 must be a logical fallacy of some sort. You appear to be more in tune with the names for logical fallacies... so I will let you educate me on what that sort of error is called.

This is precisely what I mean hen I say you're on a tangent


You'll have to actually work and find evidential reasons, not theorized opinions about the nature of the sources, to dispell their claims.

Otherwise you're being futile here

Its all futile because you are being contrarian and non evidence based in an attempt to collect data to support your view as opposed to letting the data speak for itself!

[ScimitarXEdge]

It''s not efficient for me and it seems you dont usually do that I will respond back later ...when I sort through your quotes.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

It''s not efficient for me and it seems you dont usually do that I will respond back later ...when I sort through your quotes.

Before, for sake of organization, I manually initiated a quote and then ended it using the standard HTML

QUOTE=ScimitarXEdge;515593] xxxxx .[/QUOTE

but it proved cumbersome with the lengthier responses... if you have a more efficient way you can show me then give me a heads up.

[khushal]

Before, for sake of organization, I manually initiated a quote and then ended it using the standard HTML

QUOTE=ScimitarXEdge;515593] xxxxx .[/QUOTE

but it proved cumbersome with the lengthier responses... if you have a more efficient way you can show me then give me a heads up.

of the the person your responding to you have to type the word "quote" between the brackets"[]" and then at the end of the persons quote you are responding to type "/quote" between the brackets "[]" If you do it manually a couple of times, you ll get used to it and it becomes second nature

Otherwise just erase the last "/quote" between the bracket "[]" and that way its easier for the person to respond to you

[ScimitarXEdge]

well since barakzai refuses to do a point by point which he usually does

I'll just give a general reply

and ignore whatever I feel are extraneous or irrelevant

firstly I mentioned specifically the instance of four witnesses , this didn't mean there weren't witnesses i other categories. In Business the burden of proof, and needless to say it only pertains to business. Furthermore the instance you mention stipulates nothing except THE GENDER of the witnesses

O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.

no other stipulation is required; which debunks your claim of an absolute character based requirement for all legal processes Even less so for journalism.


If Erdogan is a corrupt politician; what of it? It's a red herring to Wikileaks; wikileaks just revealed the material, it's up to those who have this information to determine its significance. If Erdogan isn't corrupt he can exonerate himself and explain the inconsistencies this is no discredit to wikileaks. Wikileaks doesn't forge propaganda, they just reveal documents. Hence the material they have is authentic. It doesn't have to be CIA red cell memos ....it just has to be exchanged between the sources themselves, they don't make up these memos to propagandize each other. That is absurd.


everything else you're claiming is scapegoating.

A Tribal elder from Nawa is exactly proof by the very argument you're submiting, he's an elder because of his reputation and status. and thus his credibility is Islamically valid (even though you're special pleading when to apply Islamic standards selectively). This is your argument not mine. You're debunking yourself

Rahimullh Yusufizais credentials arent what's on debate here; his statements hold no relevancy. What does is Col. Imam's ; he has the most credibiility in light of the subject. Are you saying Rahimullah better understands Col. Imam better than Col. Imam? LOL



Airplanes, helicopters etc. I don't have to prove they were. you have to prove they weren't. Your argument was that it would have been impossible for Hamid Gul to go to Waiziristan in Two days. which is absurd. You made the claim the onus is on you. Prove it is impossible

By the way you're using Occam's Razor completely wrong; I didn't want to mention it because I didn't want to embarass you

Occam's razor
Ockham's razor (philosophy) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349). Like many Franciscans, William was a minimalist in this life, idealizing a life of poverty, and like St. Francis himself, battling with the Pope over the issue. William was excommunicated by Pope John XXII. He responded by writing a treatise demonstrating that Pope John was a heretic.

Your elaborate conspiracy theory violates Occam's Razor; the blade falls back on you.

fallacy of association would be like me claiming because your friend is a bad surgeon that medicine is wrong. or that you're a bad surgeon because he is.

If the Taliban are wrong for relying on wikileaks; this means their own credibility is nullified; which in turn incriminates their denial of ISI involvement as well. It's catch 22, either they accept wikileaks and accepts ISI connection is valid, or they deny wikileaks and in effect verify their denials are false and thus are servants of the ISI.


The Proof is the Taliban killed Col. Imam who was threatening to expose Pakistan, no reason to do that unless they're trying to silence him.

the PF court is made of conspiracy nuts and uneducated drones; I doubt that would measure anything regarding credibility.

It's not that there is no evidence ..you just DENY ITALL ..and based on scapegoats not even counter evidence; even when you quote col. Imam it doesn't negate his final statements. You're simply making excuses