Why Taliban do what they do and Why Scimitar is an intellectual fraud

[ScimitarXEdge]

Let's say they're fighting to defend their land, which is false, but let's assume it is true, they don't have the right to kill Muslims to do it, do you agree with this?

[Alchemist]

So Americans have the right to kill Muslims. is that your point?


You make it sound like it is their mission statement to kill muslims...

meanwhile americans, who could very well be your neighbours, are getting awarded medals for killing muslims ... and proud of it.

Really...did you ever sit to think for what purpose Afghans would kill fellow afghans for?

I mean ... you do realize that the Afghan National Army is getting training by Americans to kill Muslims....You realize this right? They are pitting Muslims against Muslims...and you don't have a problem with that?

So what are you saying? that if one of these fighters get shot at by a puppet regime's army soldier...they should not shoot back? they shoot eat the bullet because it comes from a fellow "muslims" gun?


You don't make sense bro...

You are an idiot! Period.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I'm asking you a question answer it


; I've already condemned Imperialism as evil, so you can't make such claims on me, your argument thus is a red herring

and about Americans you realize Canada is involved too? Many of your neighbors are getting medals as well.

So I will repeat it again

Let's say they're fighting to defend their land, which is false, but let's assume it is true, they don't have the right to kill Muslims to do it, do you agree with this?

[retro]

Let's say they're fighting to defend their land, which is false, but let's assume it is true, they don't have the right to kill Muslims to do it, do you agree with this?

How are the Taliban suppose to guarantee that they won't kill Muslim civilians? No one can guarantee such a thing during war and nor are they even obliged to. It's against the articles of war to deliberately target civilians. However it's perfectly legal to kill them indirectly.

In order to believe the Talibans line however you have to believe that NATO and the Pakis somehow gain by targeting Afghan civilians. As either the Taliban are bombing places, killing Afghan civilians and then denying that they are doing it or these are somehow covert state sponcered actions.

The Taliban are desperately trying to convey the impression that the country is out of control. However thats about all they can do at this point. As they are badly outnumbered and outgunned.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Retro your conclusion has false assumptions, your construct of legality is self servingly arbitrary. When an ice cream truck runs over school children willingly, just to get to a group of kids on the other side to get ice cream too, this person has still murdered, since the person deliberately chose to end the lives of bystanders just to accomplish another goal.

It's not legal, but has been made legal; there are plenty of ways not to fight i civilian areas, wait till. NATO don't patrol a civilian populated district make sure civilians are cleared away. Many many things.

You should probably read Wikileaks, and the UN reports; the deaths are not merely Taliban; it's NATO as well. And the UN using the excuse of Taliban is false, since they could similarly wait till the target is out of situation where civilians could be harmed. Trying to beat the enemy disregarding the lives of civilians= deliberate murder of civilians

[kakargirl]

[QUOTE=Alchemist;525825]What has changed is the enemy. The Anglos have been succeeded by the Americans, and they have learned from their failures in the past. They now know how to effectively counter guerilla style fighters. A part of the reason why the current resistance group is accepted as Mujahideen as the previous generation was so easily identified is because the US was the one who gave the original mujahideen of the 70s and 80s their legitimacy - "charlie wilson's war" so to say. In my opinion the CIA, and other covert black ops, and even mercenaries are carrying out horrendous terrorist actions in public places and falsely attributing the incident to some "talibans" without any proofs...

for example:
Foreign soldier, six civilians killed in Afghanistan - Monsters and Critics

Here we are given incomplete information and expected to "fill in the blanks."[QUOTE]Thanks wror for the explanation yeah i understand now and the only real media operating in south is USA media so obviously.

[kakargirl]

Afghan students run out of the Nangarhar University as they shout anti U.S. and Afghan government slogans in Jalalabad, Afghanistan Thursday, Oct. 6, 2011. Friday marks the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan.

[ډګروال]

So basically there is no natural resistance because there is no occupation?


Or there is an occupation but the natural resistance, unnaturally became unressisstent ...


OK ..

i wonder what happend to brother Alchemist.

[torkham]

What drove you to write 3 or 4 detailed time consuming pages of what appears like a purgatory after a sabbatical of inner-vision against one person, steeped in sanguine bitterness? Can you keep your response short and clean?

[ډګروال]

What drove you to write 3 or 4 detailed time consuming pages of what appears like a purgatory after a sabbatical of inner-vision against one person, steeped in sanguine bitterness? Can you keep your response short and clean?

he isnt on PF anymore.
there is a history to why it came to this.

[ډګروال]

example is here. First he says that Talibs are killing more Afghan than "NATO."

This is false, and can not be proven by UN reports which are a tool of US.

But note how he says NATO, and not US. It is like US is not there.

He keeps saying NATO instead of US. US propaganda

exactly mr charlie

[RevolutionThroughReason]

bread-mold is dredging up the past in hopes of drawing inspiration from this; he's hoping for a miracle a savor, someone who can write pointless meandering posts in defense of the Taliban to give bread-mold the illusion that the Taliban cause is valid; regardless of the actual merit of the content of course.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

exactly mr charlie

don't you think it's odd to reply to yourself?

[ډګروال]

****mitardulledge got served LOL

[ډګروال]

don't you think it's odd to reply to yourself?

if you werent stupid you would knwo who he is
your buddy Randolph even mentions his name on this thread