Drones, Civilian Deaths and The New York Times

[JAMALUDEEN]

But you're not disregarding weak evidence you're disregarding evidence because you invented some excuse, for example made up some claim that these Taliban commanders are foot soldiers or low level. That wasn't in the text.


Neither side being legit, doesn't mean that everything can be just disregarded as propaganda I said that in some of my earlier posts to you. And thirdly even


I'm being honest; you're just selectively reading; Hard to reason when Individuals like YOURSELF are deliberately being irrational

What you're doing is committing a Straw Man argument, which is Misrepresenting the actual position of your opponent.

Otherwise show direct quotes where I made any of the claims you insist I did.

here is your quote

Propaganda happens from both sides obviously, this is a fact. The problem is, neither side are legit

I'm not pulling a straw man buddy.....this is your own quote from page 4.

so let me ask you the same thing again, if you believe both sides are not legit, then how could you say that information acquired from them is legit?

[JAMALUDEEN]

All her scholarly work and research have culminated into a book that was very recently published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, an academic publisher. The book isn't an opinion-piece but an academic endeavor to discover the truth.

Home - Cambridge Scholars Publishing




You can download a sample here.

cheers

Is it possible for you to find me her research paper where she interviewed the 2000 people? or maybe just scan those pages from the book relating to the research?

I'd appreciate it before i actually went and buy the book.

[ScimitarXEdge]

here is your quote



I'm not pulling a straw man buddy.....this is your own quote from page 4.

so let me ask you the same thing again, if you believe both sides are not legit, then how could you say that information acquired from them is legit?

ok but see nowhere do I say , that EVERYTHING is propaganda see?

Because BY LOGIC, something not being legit doesn't make something automatically untrue

If Two men, Person A and Person B stand next to each other, and Person A says Person B always tells the Truth, but Person B says Person A always lies, then is Person A a Liar or is Person B Telling the Truth?


Point being illegitimacy doesn't make everything automatically a lie, it "could be" a lie, but when people lie they lie for things in their favor, this wouldn't serve America or Pakistan's agenda, since America is in close association with Pakistan and Taliban being directed by Pakkstan, would delegitimize them as local Pashtun resistance. So this Taliban's statements would have to be true

This is how a court of law would deduce things.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Hence you were pulling straw man, Jamaluddin, because I would never claim that illegitimacy automatically means 100% propaganda. That was YOUR OWN interpolation


learn the rules of Logic , then debate.

[کیش]

Scimitar

From your posts it seems you are anti-any Afghan resistance. I asked you several weeks ago what you think about the Libyan terrorist rebels, The Houti in Yemen, Chechnya and the other Arab movements. You answered you only support the ones who are just. So what is your views on the Arabs and Checnyans? If I didn't know anyy better it seems you are only anti-Pashtun movements.

Hope all is well

[ScimitarXEdge]

It seems that way to you because you make selective reading.

I support any resistance that doesn't commit ANY attacks against Non-combatant Muslims or administrative/infrastructural workers just doing their job.. Uses techniques which avoid collateral damage. If that resistance actually exists in Afghanistan, I'm all for it. If it doesn't I'm 100% against it.

[کیش]

It seems that way to you because you make selective reading.

I support any resistance that doesn't commit ANY attacks against Non-combatant Muslims or administrative/infrastructural workers just doing their job.. Uses techniques which avoid collateral damage. If that resistance actually exists in Afghanistan, I'm all for it. If it doesn't I'm 100% against it.

Has that ever existed?

Perhaps you support NATO as they go to war in other countries where their civilians cannot be harmed.

Which cause is just, in the Muslim world? And don't worry about those Pizza vans outside your driveway. Every Muslims has to deal with them some time or another.

[ScimitarXEdge]

yes during the Mujahideen era of the 80's it existed, ever heard of Muhammad Khalis? or Muhammad Nabi Muhammadi? Such men could do such things. Even Ismail Khan did such things.

We're talking about resistance NOT Invasion right? So bringing up NATO's motives is not a legitimacy of the Taliban.

It's sort of like the saying, Two Wrongs don't make a right. NATO being wrong doesn't make the Taliban automatically right

Perhaps there is no just cause in the Muslim world; perhaps we should start seeing what we're doing wrong, instead of always looking for scapegoats?

[کیش]

yes during the Mujahideen era of the 80's it existed, ever heard of Muhammad Khalis? or Muhammad Nabi Muhammadi? Such men could do such things. Even Ismail Khan did such things.

We're talking about resistance NOT Invasion right? So bringing up NATO's motives is not a legitimacy of the Taliban.

It's sort of like the saying, Two Wrongs don't make a right. NATO being wrong doesn't make the Taliban automatically right

Perhaps there is no just cause in the Muslim world; perhaps we should start seeing what we're doing wrong, instead of always looking for scapegoats?

The Muj in the 80's were heavily financed by the Pakistani's/US/Israel, so they did not have to go to extreme measures as they are doing today. Why need IED's when they had powerful mortar rounds! Why need martyrdom bombers when you have stingers?

[ScimitarXEdge]

If you look at the situation in context, Muhammad Nabi Muhammadi and Khalis Sahib, never started butchering Musliim Afghans, even in he sense of collateral damage. So while we may say they were heavily financed by U.S (don't know where you got Israel from), they were also financed by Saudi Arabia.

They also had POPULAR local support, meaning the overwhelming majority of Afghans supported them almost unanimously, the same can't be said of the Taliban

The Mujahideen, with certain exceptions such as Massoud, were also not collaborating with the same Organizations or Nation States which they're claiming to be against or fighting. Taliban happily collaborate with Pakistan, while knowing full well Pakistan helps enable NATO's assaults on Afghanistan. If such a thing isn't legitimate for Massoud how can it be for the Taliban?

[JAMALUDEEN]

ok but see nowhere do I say , that EVERYTHING is propaganda see?

Because BY LOGIC, something not being legit doesn't make something automatically untrue

Point being illegitimacy doesn't make everything automatically a lie, it "could be" a lie, but when people lie they lie for things in their favor, this wouldn't serve America or Pakistan's agenda, since America is in close association with Pakistan and Taliban being directed by Pakkstan, would delegitimize them as local Pashtun resistance. So this Taliban's statements would have to be true

This is how a court of law would deduce things.

This is a contradictory statement. So what you are saying is that the taliban and the US are not legit, but that doesn't automatically make everything a lie?

but then that automatically makes them legit if they are not a lie..

The same can be said about the US. If you think they are not legit, and since you already said that .. that does not automatically make it a lie..

then that automatically makes them legit?

This is irrelevant to the point you are making above. Try making real examples.

If Two men, Person A and Person B stand next to each other, and Person A says Person B always tells the Truth, but Person B says Person A always lies, then is Person A a Liar or is Person B Telling the Truth?

[کیش]

If you look at the situation in context, Muhammad Nabi Muhammadi and Khalis Sahib, never started butchering Musliim Afghans, even in he sense of collateral damage. So while we may say they were heavily financed by U.S (don't know where you got Israel from), they were also financed by Saudi Arabia.

They also had POPULAR local support, meaning the overwhelming majority of Afghans supported them almost unanimously, the same can't be said of the Taliban

The Mujahideen, with certain exceptions such as Massoud, were also not collaborating with the same Organizations or Nation States which they're claiming to be against or fighting. Taliban happily collaborate with Pakistan, while knowing full well Pakistan helps enable NATO's assaults on Afghanistan. If such a thing isn't legitimate for Massoud how can it be for the Taliban?

The same Pakistani's who were helping them in the 80's? It wasn't a problem then, but IF their helping them now it is?

This is the same Muj, who were also busy killing one and another in the 90's and even in the 80's. If you want you can find fault in everything.

[JAMALUDEEN]

ScimitarXEdge...following your logic, something that is legit doesn't automatically makes it the truth.

[ScimitarXEdge]

This is a contradictory statement. So what you are saying is that the taliban and the US are not legit, but that doesn't automatically make everything a lie?

but then that automatically makes them legit if they are not a lie..

The same can be said about the US. If you think they are not legit, and since you already said that .. that does not automatically make it a lie..

then that automatically makes them legit?

This is irrelevant to the point you are making above. Try making real examples.

That's not a contradictory statement in Logic.

e relevant example; if a Politician said I lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, does this mean this statement is also false? In a court of Law Confessions to a crime are legitimate; so if the source is not legitimate because of criminal or fallacious behavior, a confession wouldn't have been admissible.

The point I made is very relevant, since it shows that illegitimacy doesn't mean everything is a lie but that NOT everything is the truth.. It's called Converse Disequivalency Principle in Logic.


So the problem here isn't that I made such a claim; you have hard time understanding the distinctions between conditionals and converses in logical argument.

[ScimitarXEdge]

ScimitarXEdge...following your logic, something that is legit doesn't automatically makes it the truth.

This is actually a form of Converse Fallacy, so wrong; the converse does not become true if the conditional is true.