Afghan chief urges early exit for Diggers

[Admin Khan]

I will address your one point here for now in regards to Iraq,

If you say so.

and I will address the rest of your repeated statements soon.

Aside from outlining your lies and assumptions, there is not much for you to address, since I haven't said much. Repeated statements? If me, pointing out your blatant lies means repeated statements, then sure. I, for one, find the above hilarious cause it's coming from someone who has a difficulty in constructing a coherent paragraph.

Recycling them does not bring any validity to them.

Me outlining your assumptions and lies, does indeed invalidate your position.

In the end, you are simply holding onto an expired notion of American power which is now declining in the face of China.

False. I'm not holding on to anything, read the above, or ask a tutor to read it for you. Because if you don't get the point after reading the above, you have reading comprehension problems.

So, in regards to Iraq, Muqtada Al-Sadr, if you know who he is, is a Shiite cleric who is fully backed by Iran. However, the main man in Iraq is Ayatollah Sistani. It is because of Muqtada Al-Sadr's objections and threats of renewed armed resistance that the US has been forced to withdraw from Iraq. Mudtaqa Al-Sadr is not satisfied and has now set his objectives on removing the training presence whether civilian or military.

If you say so.

If he has achieved his goals so far, why are you still betting on Obama and Panetta?

Here we go again, I'm tired of correcting you. But once again, for the gazillionth time, I'm not betting on anyone.

I would also like you to cease using "Yous" and "Is" as this is irrelevant to the debate as this is an unnecessary distraction.
Thanks

If you assume, or if you lie, like you did in your previous post, I'd be forced to use YOU. I haven't made many assertions, so there isn't much for you to refute to begin with.

At this point, I don't even view this as a debate. I view it as your attempt to associate lies and assumptions with random posts.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

20 years from now, remember the word Hubris.

What will happen is that the US will do the drawn down, but this will imply that they will set up bases in strategic areas of importance. They will maximize on airpower to back their ANA proxies. Remember, the US is perfectly willing to let others (e.g. Sadr) do its dirty work and Sadr is perfectly willing to let the US do his dirty work (e.g. removal of Sunnis from baghdad and corralling them). This will then permit them to lower the costs of having to pay per soldier head to keep troops in Afghanistan, and they can pay some of the costs of arming the ANA that generally is comprised of ethnics that, per the NY Times statistics, do not derive from troubled Pashtun hot spots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/wo...pagewanted=all

If insurgents choose to attack bases they will do so at their own peril as these will be heavily gaurded after the Khost incident and will likely be exclusively American and American ally bases, similar to the British set up that occurred when they imperialized the region. In that era, various folks infiltrated British bases and whole squadrons of natives mutinied. The Americans will be sure to mitigate the chances of this. So in essence, they will take a static DMZ line (see the Korean conflict) that is better thought of as some sort of DMZ flux in regions of importance.

For Pakistan, it will have worked out somewhat optimally. They must be very happy in certain circles in Islamabad. Currently, Pakistan has threatened the stability of its own semi union with its heavy handidness toward its own people. This has destabilized the country and multiplied misery as the US funds do not trickle down. Now, the US will continue its drone campaign and have some bases in important regions near the border... perhaps. And special forces will conduct some raids alongside the ANA. Pakistan will, however, take advantage of this in two ways:
1) It will be happy to have a sustained source of funding (US Tax dollars and military aid) to prop up its otherwise nonexistent economy. This will be the cashcow that keeps giving. It will claim that it cannot spread its troops thin and must man its arch enemy border with India and that if it does partake in any activity on its Afghan border, heavy US bribes must follow. Pakistani presence will be lessened in these regions to permit fighters to make life difficult for Indian trainers as well.
2) It will continue to stand aside in certain important areas and allow its own native mujahideen freedom fighters and those from Afghanistan and abroad to cross its border. This will deflate the pressure cooker in a way. Basically, the Mujahideen will have to make due with pakistan's double dealing (i.e. occasionally killing some of them) to allow themselves a backwards operating base (i.e. their own strategic depth of sorts - no pun intended). Pakistan will gain, because these potential foes will be killed abroad and not by their own country men... taking the population's eye off any sort of internicine conflict. Its basically the Saudi strategies of the 1980s... ship your young braves off to die in Afghanistan so there are fewer of them to eye an overthrow of the Al Sauds down the road and make off with the US largesse.

Iran will certainly want the US to stay for as long as it can because its goals are to keep its enemies delivering 'a thousand cuts' to each others legs and not being able to focus on Iran. That is why Iranians are the smartest kids on the block. They know that Americans and Israelis are raising the rhetoric and are constantly reminded that they need to keep Israel's most weighty backer locked in a debilitating war of attrition with blood and treasure loss as long as possible before the muzzle of the gun turns to it. They certainly do not want a Taliban Sunni government that would make life for their shiite compatriots and they know Pashtun fervor as well in regard to the sunni shiite doctrinal split. Deployment of stuxnet and the other recent virus against iranian military computers has only made it more apparent to the Iranians that the Americans need to be kept preoccupied with low level inflammation .

The US will attempt to stay as long as it can to save face; leaving a second theatre of war will be a propaganda boon for its enemies (i.e. a second supower power beaten by the Mujahideen). The US also has Lindsay Graham prancing around stating that a mujahideen win in Afghanistan would emperil Pakistan's arsenl and that is untolerable.

The hubris by the US here is that it is under the false assumption that it can wait out its enemies. Its acting as if its adversaries did not calculate for a series of decades as opposed to a single decade. To the contrary, the opposition
"has anticipated a war of attrition, one that might last decades"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/h...on-terror.html

In fact, other statements indicate that the enemy America faces has hunkered down for the long haul. In one early address, the supreme Taliban leader "also pointed out that the Afghans 'fought against the British invaders for eighty years from 1839 to 1919 and ultimately got independence by defeating Britain.'"

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...mar/index.html

And this may ring true. After all, Afghanistan and Iraq are drastically different. In the Saddam era there were functioning hospitals with state of the art medical equipment in many iraqi cities in the early 90s before gulf war 1. The Iraq population remembered days of potable water, a functioning health care and education system, and some semblance of nation unity. Afghanistan is quagmire because a whole generation of young men has been raised without the aforementioned amenities and comforts. There may be mercenaries intermixed in the fold, but there are enough die hards to keep this going.

So the big winners of the day are actually America's adversaries who have , in papers found in Zarqawis Iraq trove, lamented how their greatest goal was to draw America into conflict with Iran and into as many theatres of war as possible.

So expect the Americans to be there a long time, localized to bases with control of the air. But also expect their adversary to remain a potent foe, playing the tune that Gulliver (in this America) will continue to dance to as it delivers as many cuts as it can to Americans legs.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qae...ry?id=12204726

So I expect that this tete a tete will go on for a few more decades in the place from whence we all derived. I will be in the twilight of my career as a physician if and when this is ending.

[thetruth]

[QUOTE]

False carries no weight in a debate? Of course it does. What on earth are you talking about, you are spewing nonsense. Do you even read what you write? If something is false, how could it hold weight? If I claim something as a fact, which is false, are you telling me that won't alter the discussion? Please read what you write.

Let me rephrase. You calling out False carries no weight. You deeming something wrong or false carries no weight. You provided evidence about US maintaining a supposed "covert" presence in which I responded by showing Sadr's effective methods in thwarting all these designs. He has been successful so far in forcing the US withdrawal from Iraq, and it would be logical to assume that he will carry this success through. It appears he doesn't stop with his posturing, and he, not Obama and Panetta, is getting his way. Maliki is Sadr's puppet, not the American's puppet. This much is true. Sadr says to resist any U.S. presence in Iraq | Reuters

Oh really? Why don't you provide me a source that claims US companies don't care about the USA's foreign policy. I will patiently wait for this source. While you are at it, provide evidence that those that buy Apple products, aren't really their consumers(lol).

Read below, my comments are in red. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/wmchina.html

"As one retired senior Wal-Mart executive explained: "Sam wanted everything possible [made] in the U. S., but he was not going to pay [extra] for it to stay. ( this is called Capitalism, it will never be tied to nationalistic concepts, only profit margins )The main thing he asked was: 'Is it good for our customers?' If not, we went and made it overseas."
And so it is equally true -- and far less well known -- that Sam Walton was the architect of Wal-Mart's unpublicized "Buy Asia" program. (Does this look like Sam is concerned about US foreign policy? Business with China happened due to the devalued currency which the US continues to protest to no avail.)

In this strategy, Sam Walton was playing catch-up. Sears, Kmart, Target, and JCPenney all had established procurement networks in Asia long before Wal-Mart arrived. Wal-Mart's decision to arrive unfashionably late was deliberate, according to the retired executive. "In going to Asia and then into China," he said, "department stores always beat us. A lot of people were there long before we were. But it was part of the strategy to let them go through the initial tortures. [Wal-Mart would] step in when all the groundwork had been laid."
So by the time Wal-Mart opened its first buying office in Hong Kong in 1981, "manufacturers were already very competent in Taiwan," said Gary Hamilton, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington. "There was already a high level of confidence and responsiveness that allowed Wal-Mart to rapidly expand."
Other retailers' investments in basic infrastructure and manufacturing clusters primed the Pacific Rim for the eventual stream of Wal-Mart's logistics wizards, hard-nosed buyers and product developers to cash in on low-wage Asian labor. "All of the retailers in the world participated in it," said the retired Wal-Mart buyer, recalling the mood in the old days. "We keep moving around to chase lower wages. Or if there's a tariff, we'll move to a country that does not have the tariff."


And here is a sticking point about one of the biggest companies in America

"But several months after Walton's death in April 1992, the "Buy American" campaign backfired when Wal-Mart became the target of a Dateline NBC expose that revealed "Buy American" signs adorning piles of imported goods from Asia. Overnight, an embarrassed Wal-Mart de-emphasized the "Buy American" campaign."

Does it appear to you that Sam cares about US foreign policy? Through his "Buy Asia" program, he became addicted to cheap Chinese products. Now China. does not care one whit how much profit wal-mart makes, only about their own profits. That is capitalism in a nutshell. Their devalued currency draws these greedy companies over there even if it goes against American interests. What is the result? This -> Romney Says China Is Cheating - Forbes

Which narrative do I hold? Huh? In a debate, if you make a claim, you have to back it up. Now provide me evidence of my so-called "narrative" and also provide evidence that my imaginary narrative is expired.

With you commentary in this thread http://www.pashtunforums.com/world-n...tml#post542987 you are stating that the Taliban are terrorists. This is highly debatable, in fact the US government does not even refer to them as terrorists? This is an opinion of your unless you can 1) provide me your definition of terrorism, and then 2) explain how it applies in Afghanistan. This is called pushing a narrative. The term terrorism is highly subjective. It is subjectively used by both the Americans and the Taliban. So, when you use this term to describe the Taliban as you did here,

Tor_Khan mashra,

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic. In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him. Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism? I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban. Why wasn't any action taken? In fact, Pir_Rokhan has been chanting this for years now as well.

you are making a personal opinion. Some say the US Army actions are state sponsored forms of terrorism. Some say the Taliban are, and some say Iran and Pakistan are state sponsors of terrorism. Its subjective, and indicates opinion- thus a narrative that is being framed.

So far, I have yet to share my stance. I haven't even shared my opinion on the matter, and here you are already assuming I have this so called narrative on the matter.

Please re-read the above in regards to the subjective term of terrorism. You have termed the Taliban as a terrorist group. You have also termed Pakistan as a supporter of terrorism.

For the record, all I said was the US might have covert activities in Afghanistan, which makes perfect sense for them considering the amount of money they have spent, and the geo-strategic location of Afghanistan. I'm dumbfounded as this open ended question, which was based on common sense, became something I support and want. Talk about a stretch. Don't beat around the bush Z, and don't misconstrue what I say to solidify your absurd claims which I have outlined in my previous post. I have never claimed I support the USA, nor have I ever claimed I support the Taliban.

this is irrelevant to the debate. I have asked you to stop using "Yous" anfd "Is" You have asked for proof in regards to a narrative. It is here.

Just because I point the obvious in the two, does not mean I support them.

Not a factual statement. Do you think that this below statement does not make your personal opinion clear?

Tor_Khan mashra,

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic. In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him. Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism? I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban. Why wasn't any action taken? In fact, Pir_Rokhan has been chanting this for years now as well.

Define terrorism. Give the definition that is valid, and then it can applied to the Afghan conflict to determine which groups to the conflict are terrorists.

What? Seriously? That's what you think? Power can only be projected by a military presence? Do you even know what power is?

There are many definitions of power, but in regards to world diplomacy this one is most sufficient a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others Power - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The US has a strong presence in Iraq, which it can use to exert influence on Iraq's economy, and internal politics.

This sounds like it came right from FoxNews. The US is leaving Iraq. Its over. Iran has won this round, and appears to be turning its attention to Afghanistan. Here is what the latest warhawk Senator John McCain says, "While there are certainly limits to this influence, the fact remains that Iran's number one priority this year was to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq. They will now accomplish that goal," he said, adding: "In his public comments, Iran's supreme leader has barely been able to contain his enthusiasm." "It's hard to see the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as anything but a win for Iran," said McCain.



McCain, is a major warhawk, and has also been adamantly opposed to the US-withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is doubtful that he has not read the situation in Iraq for what it is, and he is correct to term it a defeat. This is fact, and this is what the world sees, and how history will record it. He calls the US withdrawal from Iraq a"victory for Iran.
"

It's been doing this for years in Islamabad, and will continue doing it since it serves American interests. Power projection does not strictly mean military presence. Look at China, it projects power in many of the African nations, and I don't see Chinese soldiers in Africa, now do I? That was a good laugh, I shall confess.

So here, you are contradicting yourself. You at first say they will not leave Afghanistan because of Afghanistan's geostrategic importance, and now admit that power projection can be done via other means. Power projection can be done via military means, but not when a military is having large number of casualties every year, and not when there is no stability. The US is no longer able to project power because it simply has lost power. Keep in mind the definition of power which was aforementioned. Hillary went with a star-studded high delegation to Pakistan about a month ago to force an operation in North Waziristan. This was not some drama she decided to be a part of. She meant business, but what happened? How many times did they warn Pakistan to act on supposed "safe havens" that they believe is the sole cause for their admitted failure in Afghanistan? Many. There was no results. Then there was threats before that, and there were no results. This is called a loss of power- they were incapable this time of getting Pakistan to do an operation in North Waziristan. On the contrary, Kayani came out and publicly said he has contacts with the so-called Haqqani network, and said even the US had met them before in attempts to get them to forge ties with Karzai, and accept US occupation. A new boogie man title group invented to attribute failure outside of Afghanistan.

Oh my, here we go again. If the US has an embassy in Iraq, it can acheive it's goals through contractors, which the article I posted outlined. The US does not need a military presence in the nation to do what it wants to do.

If that is true, then all US Embassies in the world are power centers, and the Chinese embassy in DC is also a way for China to project power. Does that make sense? In addition, it has been noted above that Sadr is currently raising his opposition to this thorny issue of the presence of any American national in Iraq. Judging from his previous success, it will probably be the case that he again gets his way in that regard too. Is this called redefining victory? How are you convinced that Sadr will not succeed in preventing this too? The atmosphere in Iraq and Iran is of triumph. Khamenei celebrates free Iraq - Indian Punchline

After this attempt at a clandestine presence is thwarted, what will be next, to maintain an ice cream shop for power projection?

Stating the aforementioned, does not mean I support covert activities, it just means there is a probability, based on the US's past track record, that such actions MAY occur. That's not the same as me saying I want it, or me saying it will NOT happen. It's a loud thought.

Already addressed this repeatedly.

Where have I said no, and where have I said Pakistan is the source of all Afghan problems? The above is a lie. You have now officially resorted to lies, to strenghten your position.

Tor_Khan mashra,

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic. In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him. Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism? I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban. Why wasn't any action taken? In fact, Pir_Rokhan has been chanting this for years now as well.

It is highly faulty and outright a distortion to attribute Afghan insurgency to Pakistan and not to the US occupation which is the main reason it exists.

In fact, what I have said many times is both Afghanistan and Pakistan are at fault. I criticize both nations, and I support none of the governments, of the two. I love all humans, and regard them all as equal.

So, Pakistan and Afghanistan (who exactly represents Afghanistan because it certainly is not Hamid Karzai?) are at fault, and what about the US? Are they not at fault for meddling in the outside world?

Another lie. Never have I claimed the US is "high and mighty". And if what I say doesn't matter, why are you investing your time in responding to me?

Please do not resort to accusations of lies. I am assessing what you wrote, and it was not inaccurate to get at what you are saying.

US boots don't have to be on ground to put Pakistan in check. Remember, the US has many ways of getting it's job done.

What ways do they have in getting their job done? Drones ? Drones have only been killing a majority of Afghan civilians, and in fact resulted in greater militancy. There is no other way to fight other than face to face, and that clearly has not been going well. Please list these ways that the US can get its job done, ways without war and invasions which always results in failures. Which ways?

Clearly I have struck a nerve or two, after making you think about your absurd claims, especially the foreign policy, Pakistan, and Apple one.

This has been addressed. In fact, it seems the nerve has been struck in you. Please stop resorting to these childish antics. Be civil.

I have no clue what you are trying to say above. Please write your thoughts in a more organized way, you make absolutely no sense.

Really? This is no way to debate at all. Be professional. You are the Administrator of this forum. Please do not act in a condescending attitude with me- it effects only you.

In specific, what the hell is this supposed to mean:

It is a contradiction in thought to both at one time blame them for all Afghanistan and Pakistan's problems, and then say now that well, they are powerless.

You are saying that Pakistan is behind some of the insurgency (addressed above) and behind terrorism (you did not define that, and you made that statement), and then at the same time you are saying that Pakistan is not palying a double game and serving US interests completely. Well, how does this make sense? It is a contradiction of thought. It is well known that Pakistan has been involved in a double game. A double game means they are working or allowing opposition to US interests, conflicting with their stated goals. So you have a contradiction of thought when you think that Pakistan or certain organs within Pakistan take dictation from the US. This was mentioned earlier.

What American power? All I said was the following:

They can easily set up covert military bases. The solution isn't as easy as one would think. Afghanistan does not have control of her air-space.

You also said this in some other thread

US boots don't have to be on ground to put Pakistan in check. Remember, the US has many ways of getting it's job done.

http://www.pashtunforums.com/hujra-1...96/#post531534 What ways? A supermonkey robot hybrid army that can sweep around the world? Drones? Drones have only killed civilians mostly according to reports published by the Reprieve Organization.

As for the rest of your statements, I will have to address that later since this has consumed too much time.

In short, you saying "Lie" proves nothing.

I expect some professionalism from you.

Thanks.

[Admin Khan]

Let me rephrase. You calling out False carries no weight. You deeming something wrong or false carries no weight. You provided evidence about US maintaining a supposed "covert" presence in which I responded by showing Sadr's effective methods in thwarting all these designs.
He has been successful so far in forcing the US withdrawal from Iraq, and it would be logical to assume that he will carry this success through.

You answered your own question. You are assuming he will be successful, and I respect your right to assume. Leave it at that, at best, all you can do is speculate. On the other hand, what you are doing here is intellectually dishonest. You were caught deliberately lying, and now you are hiding it under the rug. I don't care about China or the USA, in this discussion, because never did I imply the USA is a super power, or some sort of a God. That alone means everything you are trying to type to disprove the USA as being as mighty power holds no weight, because I never claimed such thing. It's like me discussing life on mars, for no reason.

With you commentary in this thread http://www.pashtunforums.com/world-n...tml#post542987 you are stating that the Taliban are terrorists.

LOL! This proves the level of your reading comprehension, I don't mean to have a callous attitude, but you my friend need to focus more on reading than debating. I generally encourage debates, but when someone is intentionally creating lies, I do tend to make things rather obvious. No where, and I mean no where, did I state Taliban are terrorists. That is a lie on your part, once again. Honestly, if you are a Muslim, I'd expect you to request Allah for forgiveness, because spreading lies about a Muslim is a grave sin in Islam. Since you keep on reitterating the same nonsense over and over again, let me break what I said down for you, perhaps then you would find the decency to apologize for your blatant lies.


And I shall break what I said down word by one, cause clearly reading isn't your hotspot.

I said,

Tor_Khan mashra,
That's a way to greet someone whom you respect.

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic.
That means me and Bernard met up, ate food, and discussed the thread title, which was Pakistanis export violence to Afghanistan

In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him.
That means I agree with what Tor_Khan said, read his post.

Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism?
This means if the USA was truly concerned about terrorism, why didn't it approach Pakistan years ago about it's strategic interests. In those days, the USA was openly claiming that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, so here I am, stating WHY did it take the USA so long to reach this conclusions, why did it take them a decade. It's a legitimate question, which doesn't mean I agree, or disagree with what the USA is doing.

I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban.
Here, I am stating LSE stated years ago, that ISI supports Taliban. Why was the US blind to this editorial, considering their massive e-presence.

Why wasn't any action taken? In fact, Pir_Rokhan has been chanting this for years now as well.

The above means if the US was so worried about Pakistan exporting 'terrorism' why didn't they take any action?

As you can see, any 4th grader can realize that no where, and I mean no where did I inadvertently, or directly, claim that Taliban are terrorists. You have lied again, despite me requesting you to kindly stop assuming and formulating lies to solidify your weak claims. I have never stated that A)American are terrorists, or B)Taliban are terrorists. I simply keep my views and my comments to myself, and I am wise enough to refrain from generalizing or passing a blanket statement.

This is highly debatable,

The only thing that's debatable here is the extent of your lies.

in fact the US government does not even refer to them as terrorists? This is an opinion of your unless you can 1) provide me your definition of terrorism, and then 2) explain how it applies in Afghanistan. This is called pushing a narrative. The term terrorism is highly subjective. It is subjectively used by both the Americans and the Taliban. So, when you use this term to describe the Taliban as you did here,

The above has been debunked already, since I never made such a claim.

you are making a personal opinion. Some say the US Army actions are state sponsored forms of terrorism. Some say the Taliban are, and some say Iran and Pakistan are state sponsors of terrorism. Its subjective, and indicates opinion- thus a narrative that is being framed.

Again, the above is just nonsense since I never made that claim to begin with, you lied.

Please re-read the above in regards to the subjective term of terrorism. You have termed the Taliban as a terrorist group. You have also termed Pakistan as a supporter of terrorism.

You don't have to ask me to read, trust me that I can do. You, on the other hand, should read. You have lied a good 10 times already, and have passed a good 10-20 baseless assumptions.

So here, you are contradicting yourself. You at first say they will not leave Afghanistan because of Afghanistan's geostrategic importance,

Yes, I did say that Americans might not want to leave given Afghanistan's geostrategic importance.

and now admit that power projection can be done via other means.

Yes, I did say that. Now the question for you is, do you know what a contradiction is? How is that a contradiction? Explain to me, how I contradicted myself above. I said both of the above, in two separate instances of this discussion, and even if you choose to deliberately quote me out of context, it's still not a contradiction. Honestly, that wasn't even a nice try.

Power projection can be done via military means, but not when a military is having large number of casualties every year, and not when there is no stability.

So you agreed with me again. I too agree, that power projects can be done via military means, but not ONLY be military means. It can be done through other functions as well. You had said, the only way to project power, is military.

The US is no longer able to project power because it simply has lost power.

That's your opinion. Good to know how you feel, and thanks for sharing.

Keep in mind the definition of power which was aforementioned. Hillary went with a star-studded high delegation to Pakistan about a month ago to force an operation in North Waziristan. This was not some drama she decided to be a part of. She meant business, but what happened?

Well, you and I both won't know what happened because you and I both were not present in her closed-room conference room. So it's illogical to ask what happened. However, one might take into account that drone strikes did follow after that meeting, and many people died in Waziristan.

How many times did they warn Pakistan to act on supposed "safe havens" that they believe is the sole cause for their admitted failure in Afghanistan? Many. There was no results.

Depends on how you define results. Who knows, perhaps they permitted the Americans to conduct more air-strikes at their expense. We still haven't seen that stop, now have we? This whole assuming what they discussed is not something I'm interested in discussing. Let's look at what followed after.

If that is true, then all US Embassies in the world are power centers,

Bingo. You got it. They can be USED as power centers, but they are not solely,exclusively that, it's an option on the table.

and the Chinese embassy in DC is also a way for China to project power.

Ting ting ting. Partially right again. China, has an active lobbying group an embassy where it can behind closed doors, discuss what it may like and pursue. Remember, never did I say embassies are EXCLUSIVELY meant for covert war, etc.

It is highly faulty and outright a distortion to attribute Afghan insurgency to Pakistan and not to the US occupation which is the main reason it exists.

again, I never made any mentions of Afghan insurgency, nor did I attribute anything to them. So you are talking to a wall when you say the above.

Please do not resort to accusations of lies.

You have been intellectually dishonest, and have forced me too. I mean, any viewer can see what you were trying to do. You thought I was one of those dorks behind a P.C who you can easily fool with the usage of your incoherent paragraphs. It's not that easy buddy, I will constructively criticize you, and when you begin attributing nonsense/garbage,lies, to with my posts, I will call you out on it. And then, you can but not limited to do the following:

A)Choose to ignore your attempt of associating lies created by you with my posts(something you have done thus far).

B)Apologize, so your credibility can slowly be reinstated. And admit that your post primarily revolved around baseless assumptions.

I am assessing what you wrote

That's not true. You are assessing stuff I never wrote, and you are assuming I feel xyz way about a particular situation. You write paragraphs disproving your assumptions on how I feel. How silly is that, my friend?

Be civil.

Civil? Let's see, I haven't insulted you. I haven't attacked you. I haven't cursed at you, nor have I threatened you! What else do you want? In fact, you have lied a good 15 times now, and I am still here politely requesting you to refrain from lying. In response, all I get is another paragraph based on nonsense, where you ignore every single lie you made previously, and create more lies. You call this a debate? I call it pathetic.

This is the pseudo-code to your algorithm Zahir:

line1: If he responds
I will assume his stance on the matter and write long essays on it
if he catches me with my dishonest trick, I will take his past post and create a bunch of lies hoping that he would fall for it, since he might not remember what he said in the past.
If he catches me in my assembly line of lie-creation's, I shall ignore that part of his post, and jump back to line 1

As you can see, most likely, the above is going to result in an infinite loop because given your credibility now, I will not hesitate to call you out on your lies.

Really? This is no way to debate at all. Be professional.

Says the person who is deliberately lying through his teeth.

In short, you saying "Lie" proves nothing.

Me saying "lie" means the following, and it does mean something:
It means, according to dictionary.com
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
And that's exactly what you have done, read my previous post again.


I honestly can't take you serious UP. You have lost your credibility, and don't expect me to take what you serious at all. I suggest you to not waste your time, and rather focus on comprehension skills.

Thanks.

You are very welcome. Remember, if you believe in God, and if you are a Muslim, associating a lie with a Muslim is a sin.

[thetruth]

My comments hold, and I do not lie

Your accusations of me lying are not acceptable, and I do not appreciate the continuous condescending tone you address me with.

If you want to debate, then do it properly. The only one who is writing what they wish to see is you in my humble opinion.

[thetruth]

The US has lost Iraq. Iraq is being ruled by Sadr's dictation. This is not some hypothesis. The US is withdrawing due to pressue from Iran and Sadr.

This is termed defeat, and with this defeat comes a loss of power.

This is not my opinion.

[thetruth]

[QUOTE]

You answered your own question. You are assuming he will be successful, and I respect your right to assume. Leave it at that, at best, all you can do is speculate.

Really. Has he not already forced them to withdraw, or do you suggest the withdrawal is not happenening? Provide the proof that they can ever excercise power in Iraq. Provide the proof that these American nationals can influence Sistani and Sadr.

On the other hand, what you are doing here is intellectually dishonest.

Right back at you

You were caught deliberately lying, and now you are hiding it under the rug.

Nonsense. Show me how I supposedly lied.

I don't care about China or the USA, in this discussion, because never did I imply the USA is a super power, or some sort of a God. That alone means everything you are trying to type to disprove the USA as being as mighty power holds no weight, because I never claimed such thing. It's like me discussing life on mars, for no reason.

Yes you have alluded to the US putting China, Pakistan, and Iran in their place. Here
[QUOTE]

They can easily set up bases near some mountainous rural area, and no one would know

Affording some Heraculean powers to them? If anyone is from Mars, it would certainly would be the Afghans. With the most superior weaponry, and an alliance of 48 nations, they continue to fail in Afghanistan, or do you disagree? So tell me how "they can easily set up bases near some mountainous rural area" where the Taliban hold sway (in the majority of Afghanistan- (many sources confirmed- Sherard Coles-British Ambasador to Karzai)

should that be the final decision. If these guys have scientists that recently made a hyper sonic weapon, how could the covert-base possibility be taken off the table?[/

So why are they still losing? How do you suggest they do all this- setting up these "covert" bases?

This was a long-term investment for the US, and leaving would be a devastating blow to their foreign policy, and muscle-flexing. Remember, with Afghan bases, they kill 3 birds with one stone - Iran, Pakistan and China.

Kill 3 birds with one stone? What do you mean by this? What methods of killing 3 birds with one stone do you mean? You are aware that they cant even control Afghanistan, so what stones will they be throwing from an unstable Afghanistan? How come they have not attacked Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea?

LOL! This proves the level of your reading comprehension, I don't mean to have a callous attitude, but you my friend need to focus more on reading than debating. I generally encourage debates, but when someone is intentionally creating lies, I do tend to make things rather obvious.

No. I have not lied. Read above to what you have implied. Anyone can figure it out.

No where, and I mean no where, did I state Taliban are terrorists.

I disagree.

That is a lie on your part, once again.

Sorry, your not off the hook on that one. I have posted the quote multiple times.

Honestly, if you are a Muslim, I'd expect you to request Allah for forgiveness, because spreading lies about a Muslim is a grave sin in Islam

You should take this advice yourself. Really, I am not a kid that will be coerced or fooled into agreeing with you on something which is in black and white.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

You answered your own question. You are assuming he will be successful, and I respect your right to assume. Leave it at that, at best, all you can do is speculate. On the other hand, what you are doing here is intellectually dishonest. You were caught deliberately lying, and now you are hiding it under the rug. I don't care about China or the USA, in this discussion, because never did I imply the USA is a super power, or some sort of a God. That alone means everything you are trying to type to disprove the USA as being as mighty power holds no weight, because I never claimed such thing. It's like me discussing life on mars, for no reason.



LOL! This proves the level of your reading comprehension, I don't mean to have a callous attitude, but you my friend need to focus more on reading than debating. I generally encourage debates, but when someone is intentionally creating lies, I do tend to make things rather obvious. No where, and I mean no where, did I state Taliban are terrorists. That is a lie on your part, once again. Honestly, if you are a Muslim, I'd expect you to request Allah for forgiveness, because spreading lies about a Muslim is a grave sin in Islam. Since you keep on reitterating the same nonsense over and over again, let me break what I said down for you, perhaps then you would find the decency to apologize for your blatant lies.


And I shall break what I said down word by one, cause clearly reading isn't your hotspot.

I said,

Tor_Khan mashra,
That's a way to greet someone whom you respect.

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic.
That means me and Bernard met up, ate food, and discussed the thread title, which was Pakistanis export violence to Afghanistan

In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him.
That means I agree with what Tor_Khan said, read his post.

Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism?
This means if the USA was truly concerned about terrorism, why didn't it approach Pakistan years ago about it's strategic interests. In those days, the USA was openly claiming that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, so here I am, stating WHY did it take the USA so long to reach this conclusions, why did it take them a decade. It's a legitimate question, which doesn't mean I agree, or disagree with what the USA is doing.

I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban.
Here, I am stating LSE stated years ago, that ISI supports Taliban. Why was the US blind to this editorial, considering their massive e-presence.

The above means if the US was so worried about Pakistan exporting 'terrorism' why didn't they take any action?

As you can see, any 4th grader can realize that no where, and I mean no where did I inadvertently, or directly, claim that Taliban are terrorists. You have lied again, despite me requesting you to kindly stop assuming and formulating lies to solidify your weak claims. I have never stated that A)American are terrorists, or B)Taliban are terrorists. I simply keep my views and my comments to myself, and I am wise enough to refrain from generalizing or passing a blanket statement.
The only thing that's debatable here is the extent of your lies.
The above has been debunked already, since I never made such a claim.
Again, the above is just nonsense since I never made that claim to begin with, you lied.
You don't have to ask me to read, trust me that I can do. You, on the other hand, should read. You have lied a good 10 times already, and have passed a good 10-20 baseless assumptions.





Yes, I did say that Americans might not want to leave given Afghanistan's geostrategic importance.
Yes, I did say that. Now the question for you is, do you know what a contradiction is? How is that a contradiction? Explain to me, how I contradicted myself above. I said both of the above, in two separate instances of this discussion, and even if you choose to deliberately quote me out of context, it's still not a contradiction. Honestly, that wasn't even a nice try.
So you agreed with me again. I too agree, that power projects can be done via military means, but not ONLY be military means. It can be done through other functions as well. You had said, the only way to project power, is military.

That's your opinion. Good to know how you feel, and thanks for sharing.
Well, you and I both won't know what happened because you and I both were not present in her closed-room conference room. So it's illogical to ask what happened. However, one might take into account that drone strikes did follow after that meeting, and many people died in Waziristan.

Depends on how you define results. Who knows, perhaps they permitted the Americans to conduct more air-strikes at their expense. We still haven't seen that stop, now have we? This whole assuming what they discussed is not something I'm interested in discussing. Let's look at what followed after.

Bingo. You got it. They can be USED as power centers, but they are not solely,exclusively that, it's an option on the table.

Ting ting ting. Partially right again. China, has an active lobbying group an embassy where it can behind closed doors, discuss what it may like and pursue. Remember, never did I say embassies are EXCLUSIVELY meant for covert war, etc.


again, I never made any mentions of Afghan insurgency, nor did I attribute anything to them. So you are talking to a wall when you say the above.

You have been intellectually dishonest, and have forced me too. I mean, any viewer can see what you were trying to do. You thought I was one of those dorks behind a P.C who you can easily fool with the usage of your incoherent paragraphs. It's not that easy buddy, I will constructively criticize you, and when you begin attributing nonsense/garbage,lies, to with my posts, I will call you out on it. And then, you can but not limited to do the following:

A)Choose to ignore your attempt of associating lies created by you with my posts(something you have done thus far).

B)Apologize, so your credibility can slowly be reinstated. And admit that your post primarily revolved around baseless assumptions.



That's not true. You are assessing stuff I never wrote, and you are assuming I feel xyz way about a particular situation. You write paragraphs disproving your assumptions on how I feel. How silly is that, my friend?

Civil? Let's see, I haven't insulted you. I haven't attacked you. I haven't cursed at you, nor have I threatened you! What else do you want? In fact, you have lied a good 15 times now, and I am still here politely requesting you to refrain from lying. In response, all I get is another paragraph based on nonsense, where you ignore every single lie you made previously, and create more lies. You call this a debate? I call it pathetic.

This is the pseudo-code to your algorithm Zahir:

line1: If he responds
I will assume his stance on the matter and write long essays on it
if he catches me with my dishonest trick, I will take his past post and create a bunch of lies hoping that he would fall for it, since he might not remember what he said in the past.
If he catches me in my assembly line of lie-creation's, I shall ignore that part of his post, and jump back to line 1

As you can see, most likely, the above is going to result in an infinite loop because given your credibility now, I will not hesitate to call you out on your lies.


Says the person who is deliberately lying through his teeth.
Me saying "lie" means the following, and it does mean something:
It means, according to dictionary.com
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
And that's exactly what you have done, read my previous post again.


I honestly can't take you serious UP. You have lost your credibility, and don't expect me to take what you serious at all. I suggest you to not waste your time, and rather focus on comprehension skills.

You are very welcome. Remember, if you believe in God, and if you are a Muslim, associating a lie with a Muslim is a sin.

Thoughts in my speculation above? Feedback appreciated.

[thetruth]

I doubt they will stay for that long, Barakzai

This proclamation by Hamid Karzai and public endorsement of the US war and occupation is not to be ignored. That is one thing. Aside from tapping into Afghan resentment to foreign occupation, he has also tapped into regional opposition to US occupation. It was no suprise that in his speech he did not mention Pakistan in terms of ties, but nor did he mention Iran. He quitely mentioned China and Russia as if they are giving him a round of applause, but they too are in objection to his proclamtions and US intentions.

The regional opposition matters, and they will not clap to a US-agenda, nor will they tolerate tis occupation. With increased opposition from Afghans, it will become more dire for Karzai and co. I was suprised that Abdulah Abdullah recently voiced opposition against US bases. If he is tapping into Afghan resentment, then that is unusual.

This is what I think.

I dont know if the US will carry on with average of 600 losses every year, thousands wounded, billions lost, not invested, and a situation which is not favorable at all, but the opposite. Call it Hubris, but all the world dynamics matter.

EU economy is on the verge of collapse, and it appears ther will be a domino effect. Who is next?

US influence throughout has been lost, especially in the Muslim world, and they no longer have the power they once had. That can be called my opinion, but the evidence indicates the continuous decline of a superpower, and the emergence of a new one.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I doubt they will stay for that long, Barakzai

This proclamation by Hamid Karzai and public endorsement of the US war and occupation is not to be ignored. That is one thing. Aside from tapping into Afghan resentment to foreign occupation, he has also tapped into regional opposition to US occupation. It was no suprise that in his speech he did not mention Pakistan in terms of ties, but nor did he mention Iran. He quitely mentioned China and Russia as if they are giving him a round of applause, but they too are in objection to his proclamtions and US intentions.

The regional opposition matters, and they will not clap to a US-agenda.

This is what I think.

I dont know if the US will carry on with average of 600 losses every year, billions lost, not invested, and a situation which is not favorable at all, but the opposite.

It seems in my locales, both down south and here, the public is rather separated from this war by the elimination of a draft. This is another reason why an incursion into Iran would be difficult... they would have to reinstitute a draft. The MO seems to be that they:

1) Send in IAEA or whatever the heck that organization is to determine if a country really is a threat. After all, if Iraq really had nukes, it would have been a strong issue for the US to consider a simple invsaion like they did.

2) Once confirmed that country is generally defenseless, damage its infrastructure like tenderizing meat. Gulf war 1, for instance was meat tenderization. Gulf war 2 was cooking the meat

This 1 -2 step and punch seems to ensure that they utilize less of an obvious footprint.

If you have been watching the news lately as well, each time a soldier dies, its a quick byline and then immediatly off the front page. They learned their lesson from the vietnam and really implemented it when they saw the many discussions going on earlier in the gulf war 2 set up when soldiers started to die.

Its no longer Ted Kennedy's kid of John Kerry's kid going to the war Prince, its ROTC kids who serve as perhaps mid level commanders and the average grunt is some simple kid from somewhere.

I see the soldier children coming back to the VA hospital here and I see the effect first hand, but I can tell you that these guys feel very insulated and sort of resent that.

Generally the news blurbs are fundraising for the troops, some blip about how some soldier built a solar sell for a kochi nomand who saved 5 kids by building a state of the art kochi operation theatre etc.

In medicine we call some drugs decouplers. They separate one process from another.

The elite architects of this war learned a lot from the vietnam experienced and

1) Decouple the public from the war (hence the strikes on Al Jazeera Kabul early in the war as well)
2) Couple the war to a capitalistic enterprise and give it a life of its own... make it a business.

Just my 2 cents as a nonexpert on the Art of War just living his life, reading, watching, and absorbing.

[Admin Khan]

Nonsense. Show me how I supposedly lied.

Are you kidding me? Read my previous 3 posts, it outlines every single one of your lies, one by one. You see this is what I mean, and my pseudo-code turned out to be extremely effective. I clearly outlined how you lied, and how you just assumed my stance, and clearly wrote you a nice little paragraph where I elaborated upon your cheap stunt, and now you are asking me to do it again? Read, my dear friend. Reading is fundamental, and in my previous post, I already showed PF that you are a deliberate liar.

it would certainly would be the Afghans. With the most superior weaponry, and an alliance of 48 nations, they continue to fail in Afghanistan, or do you disagree?

That's your opinion, and I respect your right to have one. Whether I agree or disagree, at this point, I don't want to share with you. You have no credibility since you are a liar. Who knows, if I invest my time offering my opinion, you might formulate another array of lies and later say "where did I lie". Print out your pseudo-code, hang it on a while, and work on a change. Your dishonesty disgusts me. But hey, lying happens to be embedded in you, since you don't even have the gut's to admit your wrong, despite me providing concrete evidence in my previous post about your deliberate attempts at character assassinations by lying.

So tell me how "they can easily set up bases near some mountainous rural area" where the Taliban hold sway (in the majority of Afghanistan- (many sources confirmed- Sherard Coles-British Ambasador to Karzai)

I don't wish to tell you, you don't deserve my time.

How do you suggest they do all this- setting up these "covert" bases? Kill 3 birds with one stone? What do you mean by this? What methods of killing 3 birds with one stone do you mean? You are aware that they cant even control Afghanistan, so what stones will they be throwing from an unstable Afghanistan? How come they have not attacked Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea?

The above was a legitimate question, that I would've loved to have answered with a nice little essay or so, but given your credibility I would like to pass on it now. Such a shame on your part, for resorting to lies, and now trying to play it off.

No. I have not lied. Read above to what you have implied. Anyone can figure it out.

Yup, you telling ME I said xyz, when I did not, is perfectly fine with you. You telling me I feel abc way, when I don't, is perfectly fine as well. Have some shame, I'm sure many are laughing at your immature attention-grabbing tactics. Have some shame, and respect your interlocutor. Don't associate garbage with them, and sure as hell don't lie!

Sorry, your not off the hook on that one. I have posted the quote multiple times

I already elaborated what I meant on that quote, and once again, you chose to ignore it because you have nothing more to say. Notice how this entire post of yours was simply garbage-material, and an attempt to simply have the last word in this discussion.

Here is my post below, outlining the lies of this man, and also debunking his absurd claims. PF'ers, notice how in the post above, he ignored the majority of my post which elaborates on how he has lied, and maliciously was attempting to inject falsehood in this thread.

You answered your own question. You are assuming he will be successful, and I respect your right to assume. Leave it at that, at best, all you can do is speculate. On the other hand, what you are doing here is intellectually dishonest. You were caught deliberately lying, and now you are hiding it under the rug. I don't care about China or the USA, in this discussion, because never did I imply the USA is a super power, or some sort of a God. That alone means everything you are trying to type to disprove the USA as being as mighty power holds no weight, because I never claimed such thing. It's like me discussing life on mars, for no reason.



LOL! This proves the level of your reading comprehension, I don't mean to have a callous attitude, but you my friend need to focus more on reading than debating. I generally encourage debates, but when someone is intentionally creating lies, I do tend to make things rather obvious. No where, and I mean no where, did I state Taliban are terrorists. That is a lie on your part, once again. Honestly, if you are a Muslim, I'd expect you to request Allah for forgiveness, because spreading lies about a Muslim is a grave sin in Islam. Since you keep on reitterating the same nonsense over and over again, let me break what I said down for you, perhaps then you would find the decency to apologize for your blatant lies.


And I shall break what I said down word by one, cause clearly reading isn't your hotspot.

I said,

Tor_Khan mashra,
That's a way to greet someone whom you respect.

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic.
That means me and Bernard met up, ate food, and discussed the thread title, which was Pakistanis export violence to Afghanistan

In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him.
That means I agree with what Tor_Khan said, read his post.

Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism?
This means if the USA was truly concerned about terrorism, why didn't it approach Pakistan years ago about it's strategic interests. In those days, the USA was openly claiming that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, so here I am, stating WHY did it take the USA so long to reach this conclusions, why did it take them a decade. It's a legitimate question, which doesn't mean I agree, or disagree with what the USA is doing.

I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban.
Here, I am stating LSE stated years ago, that ISI supports Taliban. Why was the US blind to this editorial, considering their massive e-presence.

The above means if the US was so worried about Pakistan exporting 'terrorism' why didn't they take any action?

As you can see, any 4th grader can realize that no where, and I mean no where did I inadvertently, or directly, claim that Taliban are terrorists. You have lied again, despite me requesting you to kindly stop assuming and formulating lies to solidify your weak claims. I have never stated that A)American are terrorists, or B)Taliban are terrorists. I simply keep my views and my comments to myself, and I am wise enough to refrain from generalizing or passing a blanket statement.
The only thing that's debatable here is the extent of your lies.
The above has been debunked already, since I never made such a claim.
Again, the above is just nonsense since I never made that claim to begin with, you lied.
You don't have to ask me to read, trust me that I can do. You, on the other hand, should read. You have lied a good 10 times already, and have passed a good 10-20 baseless assumptions.





Yes, I did say that Americans might not want to leave given Afghanistan's geostrategic importance.
Yes, I did say that. Now the question for you is, do you know what a contradiction is? How is that a contradiction? Explain to me, how I contradicted myself above. I said both of the above, in two separate instances of this discussion, and even if you choose to deliberately quote me out of context, it's still not a contradiction. Honestly, that wasn't even a nice try.
So you agreed with me again. I too agree, that power projects can be done via military means, but not ONLY be military means. It can be done through other functions as well. You had said, the only way to project power, is military.

That's your opinion. Good to know how you feel, and thanks for sharing.
Well, you and I both won't know what happened because you and I both were not present in her closed-room conference room. So it's illogical to ask what happened. However, one might take into account that drone strikes did follow after that meeting, and many people died in Waziristan.

Depends on how you define results. Who knows, perhaps they permitted the Americans to conduct more air-strikes at their expense. We still haven't seen that stop, now have we? This whole assuming what they discussed is not something I'm interested in discussing. Let's look at what followed after.

Bingo. You got it. They can be USED as power centers, but they are not solely,exclusively that, it's an option on the table.

Ting ting ting. Partially right again. China, has an active lobbying group an embassy where it can behind closed doors, discuss what it may like and pursue. Remember, never did I say embassies are EXCLUSIVELY meant for covert war, etc.


again, I never made any mentions of Afghan insurgency, nor did I attribute anything to them. So you are talking to a wall when you say the above.

You have been intellectually dishonest, and have forced me too. I mean, any viewer can see what you were trying to do. You thought I was one of those dorks behind a P.C who you can easily fool with the usage of your incoherent paragraphs. It's not that easy buddy, I will constructively criticize you, and when you begin attributing nonsense/garbage,lies, to with my posts, I will call you out on it. And then, you can but not limited to do the following:

A)Choose to ignore your attempt of associating lies created by you with my posts(something you have done thus far).

B)Apologize, so your credibility can slowly be reinstated. And admit that your post primarily revolved around baseless assumptions.



That's not true. You are assessing stuff I never wrote, and you are assuming I feel xyz way about a particular situation. You write paragraphs disproving your assumptions on how I feel. How silly is that, my friend?

Civil? Let's see, I haven't insulted you. I haven't attacked you. I haven't cursed at you, nor have I threatened you! What else do you want? In fact, you have lied a good 15 times now, and I am still here politely requesting you to refrain from lying. In response, all I get is another paragraph based on nonsense, where you ignore every single lie you made previously, and create more lies. You call this a debate? I call it pathetic.

This is the pseudo-code to your algorithm Zahir:

line1: If he responds
I will assume his stance on the matter and write long essays on it
if he catches me with my dishonest trick, I will take his past post and create a bunch of lies hoping that he would fall for it, since he might not remember what he said in the past.
If he catches me in my assembly line of lie-creation's, I shall ignore that part of his post, and jump back to line 1

As you can see, most likely, the above is going to result in an infinite loop because given your credibility now, I will not hesitate to call you out on your lies.


Says the person who is deliberately lying through his teeth.
Me saying "lie" means the following, and it does mean something:
It means, according to dictionary.com
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
And that's exactly what you have done, read my previous post again.


I honestly can't take you serious UP. You have lost your credibility, and don't expect me to take what you serious at all. I suggest you to not waste your time, and rather focus on comprehension skills.

You are very welcome. Remember, if you believe in God, and if you are a Muslim, associating a lie with a Muslim is a sin.

[Admin Khan]

Thoughts in my speculation above? Feedback appreciated.

Assalam-Alaikum mashra,

I will read your post and post my opinion as soon as I am done with my project.


Dera manana for writing that post. I sincerely appreciate your time and effort.

[thetruth]

Who is lying? Am I lying? This is what you said below. Reply to this.

Tor_Khan mashra,

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic. In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him.Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism? I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban. Why wasn't any action taken? In fact, Pir_Rokhan has been chanting this for years now as well.

1)Define terrorism. You say you dont divulge your opinions, but I do not see how the above is not an opinion. Terrorism is a subjective word. Please define it.

2)How is Pakistan sponsoring and supporting terrorism?

3) So do you consider the Taliban a terrorist group?

4) Was this connect the dots?

[Admin Khan]

So tell me how "they can easily set up bases near some mountainous rural area" where the Taliban hold sway (in the majority of Afghanistan- (many sources confirmed- Sherard Coles-British Ambasador to Karzai)

How will they kill 3 birds with one stone (Pakistan, Iran, and China)?How will they be throwing those stones when they dont even have control over Afghanistan? Or do you disagree, and do you think they control Afghanistan?

Like I said, no further discussions with liars.

You just accuse me of lying.

Yes, I did. That's what you have been doing, as outlined in my previous post which you ignored.

[Admin Khan]

Who is lying? Am I lying? This is what you said below. Reply to this.

You are lying. Yes you are lying. You said I consider Taliban to be terrorists, and I never said that. And, that's just one of your lies. Many other of your lies have been outlined before.

Since you are constantly ignoring my response in which I elaborated on what I meant months ago, here it is again. Ask someone to read it to you at loud, since you clearly can't comprehend a paragraph.

Here it is:

I said,

Tor_Khan mashra,
That's a way to greet someone whom you respect.

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic.
That means me and Bernard met up, ate food, and discussed the thread title, which was Pakistanis export violence to Afghanistan

In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him.
That means I agree with what Tor_Khan said, read his post.

Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism?
This means if the USA was truly concerned about terrorism, why didn't it approach Pakistan years ago about it's strategic interests. In those days, the USA was openly claiming that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, so here I am, stating WHY did it take the USA so long to reach this conclusions, why did it take them a decade. It's a legitimate question, which doesn't mean I agree, or disagree with what the USA is doing.

I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban.
Here, I am stating LSE stated years ago, that ISI supports Taliban. Why was the US blind to this editorial, considering their massive e-presence.

Why wasn't any action taken? In fact, Pir_Rokhan has been chanting this for years now as well.

The above means if the US was so worried about Pakistan exporting 'terrorism' why didn't they take any action?

As you can see, any 4th grader can realize that no where, and I mean no where did I inadvertently, or directly, claim that Taliban are terrorists. You have lied again, despite me requesting you to kindly stop assuming and formulating lies to solidify your weak claims. I have never stated that A)American are terrorists, or B)Taliban are terrorists. I simply keep my views and my comments to myself, and I am wise enough to refrain from generalizing or passing a blanket statement.


And like I said, stop asking me any further questions. I will ignore them. You have lied many times, and you should ask Allah[SWT] for forgiveness! Before you ask me "where did I lie", zOMgG I lied? How Did I li3?" Read my previous posts.

Everything is crystal clear for everyone to read. At this point, all you want is the last word to feel better about yourself.