Drones, Civilian Deaths and The New York Times

[JAMALUDEEN]

The Taliban were not a Pakistani creation but, very soon after their inception, they became allied with the ISI, who provided logistical and political support to them. Ultimately, the Taliban regime became a vassal to the ISI because of their financial dependency. President Ghulam Ishaq of Pakistan openly referred to as the Taliban's Afghanistan as Pakistan's fifth province and a provincial budget was set aside for them just as the budgets for Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan was decided. During the Taliban regime, Kabul never raised the Durrand Line issue, not even once. In fact, the Taliban allowed Pakistani agents to set up training camps for Kashmiri militant groups in Afghanistan, where training was provided to Punjabis, Arabs, Chechens and just about anyone else who wanted to blow stuff up. It is no wonder that Colonel Imam and General Hamid Gul went to the Taliban leadership and the pictures of their honeymoon can be found readily on the internets.

Do you want evidence for all these claims? This is all common knowledge now and no one disputes this but give me the criterea of your "evidence" and I will provide it for every claim that I've made in my post.

Hahahahahaha! lol..

That made me lol IRL.

Sure, Hard Evidence as in, documents, interviews, which can be verified.

BTW, my debate with smiterxedge started on the basis of whether the US demonize the taliban or not. It is an assumption on their side, that I support them, and since I do not accept his evidence due to the source coming from a side, whom he finds to be not legit. Therefore, you discussing this issue with me becomes irrelavnt. But do show us some of those pictures, documents, videos, etc. Doesn't hurt to learn.. knowledge always comes handy.

[sanman]

But you're not neutral - you're taking the other side, while pretending to be "neutral".

So equal burden of proof is on you. Nobody should be running around jumping through hoops for you, while you declare yourself the "neutral" judge.

[ScimitarXEdge]

So since the taliban are not legit, the confessions those taliban members made in those videos and article that you shared cannot be admissable to court as evidence.

false; in a court of law, confessions are admissible if they're voluntary and meet due process regarding arraignment. There was no evidence of coercion hence this is legitimate.

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=wmrval&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CC0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1062%2526context%253Dwmrval%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dvoluntary%2520confessions%2520are%2520%2520admissible%26ei%3D6fybTpOPKeP00gGUi6ivBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHYJKOiveCfaIOhro5U26HtSQ4neQ#search=%22voluntary%20confessions%20admissible%22

Admissibility of a
confession is a question for the trial court to determine, rather
than the jury.' The trial court, through the evidence offered by the
Commonwealth, must find the confession to be voluntary before admitting it in evidence

prove to us otherwise.



[

Well, since illegitimacy doesn't mean everything is a lie but that not everything is the truth either, then that makes everything neutral, therefore the taliban and the US are both feeding of neutral information..which makes them equally right.

illegitimacy means anything that tries to work in the favor of the party is suspect


if it doesn't, logic dictates that it would be unlikely to be a lie about such a thing. It doesn't make them equally right. context make them right and wrong

Now you're simply defying logical standards to excuse the Taliban.

[sanman]

Defying logic? He's just being "neutral" again

[ScimitarXEdge]

[COLOR="Teal"][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Teal"]Sure, Hard Evidence as in, documents, interviews, which can be verified.

there you go

Pakistan - Taliban vs Aman Lashkar - 1/2 - YouTube

Pakistan - Taliban vs Aman Lashkar - 2/2 - YouTube

[ScimitarXEdge]

ScimitarXEdge and sanman.

Just because i'm asking you guys for proof about the taliban does not mean I'm a Pakistani. This is a logical fallacy, it is called the false dilemma fallacy.

Please avoid it next time.

I'm still waiting for you guys to show me the proof i asked in my previous posts.

But you're denying evidence, based on distortions of others arguments (straw man) and making excuses for the Taliban, which is called a Scapegoating Fallacy.

Proof has been shown, you're just refusing to acknowledge it for agenda reasons. That's what makes you servile to Pakistan. Not asking for evidence,, because those demands have been met.

[ScimitarXEdge]

My position is pretty neutral towards the whole situation, unfortunately the onus is on you to prove whether the taliban are the creation of Pakistan.

Then you need to provide us solid evidence, whether they get their funding from Pakistan, Iran, or Russia or the US.

Your questions are genuine but you need to provide evidence about each of your questions.

The questioner doesn't need to provide evidence for questions; that's why they're questions.

No proof. - Provide me with proof then i will answer you.

illegal Pakistani Pathan Terrorists captured in Afghanistan by Shora-e Nezar Warriors - YouTube

No proof - Provide me with proof then i will answer you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165#.TpwIFd5KPoo

Still no proof Again, a false dilemma fallacy.

no proof of what? he's saying your ideas serve Pakistani interests; and they do since you're making excuses for the Taliban and denying evidence.

Again, you have forgotten to provide proof, which should state whether i am a god-fearing person or not. Funny thing is you and smiterxedge can still not provide me with solid proof, yet your beliefs are so strong against both the US and the Taliban.

I have provided proof; you just deny it all. Denial, simply refusal to accept evidence, and you did so on what ws proven to be logically fallacious grounds, such as Non-Sequittur Fallacy.

[kakargirl]

U.S. admits airstrike killed dozens of civilians







The report is part of an ongoing investigation into a fight in Farah province, where villagers reported civilian casualties as a result of U.S. bombing runs on May 4.
"A review of the physical evidence is inconclusive in determining the exact number of civilian and insurgent casualties," the military said in a statement detailing the report.
"In all, the investigation team estimates that 60-65 Taliban extremists were killed in these engagements, while at least 20-30 civilians may have been killed during the fighting. The investigators continue to attempt to better confirm casualty numbers."

[kakargirl]

NATO: Hits on Afghan houses to continue



NATO spokeswoman says attacks on houses in Afghanistan are necessary and
will continue in cooperation with Afghan security forces. The comment came Tuesday after Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he would no longer allow NATO airstrikes on houses, following a recent strike that killed a group of children and women in southern Helmand province. NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu says the alliance takes Karzai's concerns very seriously, and would continue to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties. She says all such strikes are coordinated with Afghan forces and "they continue to be necessary." She... more »

[JAMALUDEEN]

But you're denying evidence, based on distortions of others arguments (straw man) and making excuses for the Taliban, which is called a Scapegoating Fallacy.

Proof has been shown, you're just refusing to acknowledge it for agenda reasons. That's what makes you servile to Pakistan. Not asking for evidence,, because those demands have been met.

this is genetic fallacy.

Your incapability to produce reliable evidence, which on the basis of your argument about legitimacy is rejected, does not conclude to me being a taliban sympathiser or a Pakistan supporter, it merely supports my objective stance on the matter.

[ScimitarXEdge]

this is genetic fallacy.

Your incapability to produce reliable evidence, which on the basis of your argument about legitimacy is rejected, does not conclude to me being a taliban sympathiser or a Pakistan supporter, it merely supports my objective stance on the matter.

look up genetic fallacy
Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy

you're applying it incorrectly.

I never said the evidence is unreliable though, confessions are reliable if they're not coerced or done under duress.

your rejection of evidence becuse of a False premise that illegitimacy of the Taliban movement and America, means evidence such as confessions isn't applicable is a Non-Sequitur fallacy. This is what demonstrates you as a Taliban sympathiser and Pakistan Supporter. The genetic fallacy thus wouldn't apply here

[ScimitarXEdge]

BTW, my debate with smiterxedge started on the basis of whether the US demonize the taliban or not. It is an assumption on their side, that I support them, and since I do not accept his evidence due to the source coming from a side, whom he finds to be not legit.

Legitimacy of the Taliban and Legitimacy of evidence such as confessions are completely unrelated.

You're committing a red herring fallacy to disregard evidence.

[JAMALUDEEN]

The questioner doesn't need to provide evidence for questions; that's why they're questions.

The questioner is required to provide evidence on how the questioner reached the question. Thanks to university education, you will not fool me.




illegal Pakistani Pathan Terrorists captured in Afghanistan by Shora-e Nezar Warriors - YouTube

This group of people are caught by the panjsheeris, and confessions taken under psychological pressure are mostly false and this has been proven through a wide variety of research papers written on the matter in both biological sciences and psychology. look it up on your library site.

Lets say that I hold a gun to your head and tell you to eat a mango (which is the fruit you dislike the most) otherwise I will shoot you. What will your reaction be? Wouldn't you do as i say?

You would eat the mango in order to please me.


Also, these guys do not confess to being a talib. where do they confess to being talib, show me.

[ScimitarXEdge]

The questioner is required to provide evidence on how the questioner reached the question. Thanks to university education, you will not fool me.

That's not true, a question doesn't require evidence. only claims do.

Premises to questions MAY or MAY not require evidence but questions themselves do not.

You must have gone to a crappy university if you didn't know that.




illegal Pakistani Pathan Terrorists captured in Afghanistan by Shora-e Nezar Warriors - YouTube

This group of people are caught by the panjsheeris, and confessions taken under psychological pressure are mostly false and this has been proven through a wide variety of research papers written on the matter in both biological sciences and psychology. look it up on your library site.

The onus is on you to prove that being caught by Panjshiris were under psychological pressure. Since this your claim.

You're using a Circumstantal Ad-Hominem fallacy that Panjshiris discredit the evidence.

Also , the claim was to provide evidence of Taliban having Pakistanis among them, which is proven regardless by the fact there are Pakistani nationals in Panjshir captured after battle with the Taliban.

Lets say that I hold a gun to your head and tell you to eat a mango (which is the fruit you dislike the most) otherwise I will shoot you. What will your reaction be? Wouldn't you do as i say?

This is a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. Which in also a red herring since the fact they're present in Panjshir, captured after a battle shows the Taliban had Pakistani nationals amongst them.

Also, these guys do not confess to being a talib. where do they confess to being talib, show me.

That wasn't the statement though, they were amongst the Taliban, that's what the statement was. You're making a straw man fallacy

[JAMALUDEEN]

look up genetic fallacy
Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy

you're applying it incorrectly.

I never said the evidence is unreliable though, confessions are reliable if they're not coerced or done under duress.

your rejection of evidence becuse of a False premise that illegitimacy of the Taliban movement and America, means evidence such as confessions isn't applicable is a Non-Sequitur fallacy. This is what demonstrates you as a Taliban sympathiser and Pakistan Supporter. The genetic fallacy thus wouldn't apply here

Of course, it applies here just fine. You are just incapable of comprehending your own mistakes because you have turned a blind eye to the truth. You have convinced me now that you are emotionally involved in this debate. If you weren't involved emotionally in this debate, then you would have stopped replying 2 days ago when you said so.

People who become sentimental towards an issue usually stop being objective, no wonder you keep on accusing me of being a talib supporter and sympatiser, while trying to avoid the issue.

Where is your proof for such horrendeous accusations?