The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

[JAMALUDEEN]

You still haven't mentioned what type of proof you're looking for. What type of proof will you accept?

Hard evidence...

Documents.. confessions and interviews..which can then be verified by others.

[sanman]

So are you agreeing to an equal standard, where you will provide "hard evidenec, documents, confessions and interviews which can then be verified by others"?

Or are you saying that only other people have to run around providing you with stuff, while you will sit around doing nothing?

You are not neutral, you're taking the other side. So equal burden of proof is on you.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Just because the evidence you provide is weak,

prove that the evidence is weak

[ScimitarXEdge]

Hard evidence...

Documents.. confessions and interviews..which can then be verified by others.

provided, you just reject it.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You are the one who makes accusations after accusations and yet provide no proof..to back your accusations. You are being very dishonest and unislamic.

I provided proof; you made a baseless claim that it's weak, non-sequittur fallacy.

[JAMALUDEEN]

prove that the evidence is weak

provided, you just reject it.

I provided proof; you made a baseless claim that it's weak, non-sequittur fallacy.

you are merely dodging the question and changing topics at will so to divert everyones attention from the real issue, this is Red Herring fallacy. You still haven't provided me with strong evidence.

[ScimitarXEdge]

you are merely dodging the question and changing topics at will so to divert everyones attention from the real issue, this is Red Herring fallacy. You still haven't provided me with strong evidence.

confessions are strong evidence, your denial of them is a scapegoat/red herring. Also you're using red herring incorrectly since none of those statements were a "counter argument" thus could not be a red herring'

I never changed topics; you're rejecting evidence based on things which do not logically follow. This by definition would be a red herring because it's being used as a counter argument to the evidence presented.

[ScimitarXEdge]

prove that the evidence is weak or have your claim disregarded, proving you're denying evidence.

[JAMALUDEEN]

None of this is relevant, since you still haven't shown me any solid evidence. You are just a conspiracy theorist, you live in your fairy world.

You show me a video from a Pakistani news outlet, and call it evidence without even critiquing it. The video states "there is taliban in the mountains who are bad" then it shows a few exploded cars and houses with some dramatic music and mr scimitarxedge calls it evidence, maybe it was as a result of Pakistani army bombing, or maybe the america drone attack. I didn't see even one talib in the whole video.

When i was a kid, my friend used to tell me that there are aliens living in his backyard. I guess, you would call this evidence for the proof of UFO as well if i show you him saying it in a video, then with dramatic music in the background, show you his backyard.

Then, the video claims that the taliban are supported by the ISI, then in the same video, one of the guy thanks the pakistani government for providing weapons to them in order to fight the taliban. Then it speaks about how the pakistani police support the taliban, then you see another police who has defended his station. So basically, the ISI are funding both sides. Then America is supporting the ISI, and the Afghan Government.

Isn't this a conspiracy theory now?

the onus is still on you, show me evidence solid evidence. Perhaps, you could take a visit to Afghanistan with a video camera and provide us with real proof.

Not speculations.

I never liked fiction.

and i am sick of conspiracy theories.

[ScimitarXEdge]

your argument is circular; you're saying it's irrelevant because the evidence is weak, and that you don't have to prove it's weak because it's irrelevant

The burden is on you to prove these evidences are fabricated. you're committing a changing Goal Posts fallacy.

The Pakistani news, was to show Pashtun tribesmen are fighting against the Taliban because the Taliban are violating their rights.

[sanman]

Jamaludeen is demonstrating his great "honest neutrality" again, since he claims to be such a God-fearing person. I think we all understand his level of honesty before God.
Such a person cannot truly respect or fear God on the inside, when he behaves the way he does.

When Jamaludeen dies, and arrives in Jahannam, he will immediately demand from Shaitan, "Hey buddy! You have not convinced me why I should be here! WHERE IS THE PROOF???"
And Shaitan will stick a pitchfork in his a**, "There's your proof, man"

[Talal]

From each one they kill they create tens times as many fighters, from many fighters one will...this is what they've been doing in Afghanistan

[sanman]

Creating the most fighters is not necessarily what wins in the end. All those armed fighters is what got Pak so nervous and promoting their new "Islam" in the first place.
Sustaining conflict forces Pakistan to maintain a high cash-burn rate, even if jihadis are cheap drones. Without US aid, it's harder for them to maintain their expenditure. Arabs with their oil money can of course outbid Pakistan in certain places, and that brings Talib-Arab alliances which create even more international headaches for Pak.

If Saudis cut their aid to Pak, then Pakis would be in for really hard times.

[JAMALUDEEN]

Jamaludeen is demonstrating his great "honest neutrality" again, since he claims to be such a God-fearing person. I think we all understand his level of honesty before God. Such a person cannot truly respect or fear God on the inside, when he behaves the way he does.

When Jamaludeen dies, and arrives in Jahannam, he will immediately demand from Shaitan, "Hey buddy! You have not convinced me why I should be here! WHERE IS THE PROOF???"
And Shaitan will stick a pitchfork in his a**, "There's your proof, man"

you are comitting both ad-hominem and red herring fallacy as you are questioning my belief which is irrelavnt to this debate and to divert the attention of the real issue which is producing reliable solid evidence.

If you wish to discuss whether I will go to hell or not, please do make a thread about it in the religion section.

[sanman]

Relax man, it's not an attack, I'm just cracking a joke at your expense.

This is not a court of law. To me, you are determined to support Taliban, and your claim of neutrality is unbelievable to me. This is like when Pakistan arms and supports Taliban, and shelters Osama, and then says to US, "Oh, but I'm still your ally! Give me more money!"

Silly unsustainable fiction. I'm not going to try to convince you which side to take, man. You've already taken a side. Your neutrality is fiction.

But I don't know why you feel you are God-fearing, when you go around peddling fiction. Do you say a little prayer each time before you lie, hoping that God will overlook it? You know that doesn't work, right? I just wonder how someone reconciles religiosity with lying.