Afghan chief urges early exit for Diggers

[thetruth]

So you dont want to answer this. PF can decide, or how about we let Barakzai ascertain what exactly is said here. Maybe my comprehension skills are dull. Maybe I am reading it wrong. What did you think this was? Connect the dots? Maybe you will give Barakzai more respect. haha I am lying LOL

Here, PFers, read this, and tell me if I am lying.

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. Major contradiction there. 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?


Let some other people here decide whether I am lying or not. Do not take me as a pushover, and that I will just let this slide. Until you can answer these questions, I see no reason for you to ever honestly debate. You claim to not divulge your positions, but this above post contradicts that claim of yours.

[Admin Khan]

So you dont want to answer this. PF can decide, or how about we let Barakzai ascertain what exactly is said here. Maybe my comprehension skills are dull. Maybe I am reading it wrong. What did you think this was? Connect the dots? Maybe you will give Barakzai more respect. haha I am lying LOL

I already answered it above your post. Are you a liar? Yes, you are.

The thread title was "Pakistan exporting terrorism to Afghanistan" and the 1st post was an editorial! I said, in response to tor_khan and the editorial, that what took the US so long to realize this? What that means is, why are they all of a sudden claiming they are sponsoring terrorism. Perhaps you weren't taught this in school, but let me teach you it. Me saying, "What took the US so long to realize this?" means, if that's really the case, why did it take them a decade? If Pakistan was sponsoring terrorism, why didn't they pay heed to all the editorials published? And now that does not mean, I consider the Taliban to be terrorists. And me saying LSE published a report stating ISI is supporting the Taliban, means, why didn't the US doing anything then at that moment, as opposed to whining about it years later. No where, in the above, did I say I feel that "Taliban are terrorists". That was a lie you formulated and coined, hence you are a liar! That, was just one of your lies. In my previous posts, I have outlined all yours line 1by1. Don't take what I say out of context, that's another dishonest move by you.

[thetruth]

Yes, you are.

The thread title was "Pakistan exporting terrorism to Afghanistan" and I said, what took the US so long to realize this. Perhaps you weren't taught this in school, but let me teach you it. Me saying, "What took the US so long to realize this?" means, if that's really the case, why did it take them a decade? If Pakistan was sponsoring terrorism, why didn't they pay heed to all the editorials published? And now that does not mean, I consider the Taliban to be terrorists. And me saying LSE published a report stating ISI is supporting the Taliban, means, why didn't the US doing anything then at that moment, as opposed to whining about years later. No where, in the above, did I say I feel that "Taliban are terrorists". That was a lie you formulated and coined, hence you are a liar! That, was just one of your lies. In my previous posts, I have outlined all yours line 1by1.

Yes I have done that to some of your posts too, but when I saw the repeated nonsense about lying, it got pretty silly.

However, your words speak for themselves. It is your own words, not the reports words, not Pahjwok news's words. Your words about your conversation, and about the same exact comment to him before you even read that thread, and then you talk about the LSE report. OK, your words....not mine


Answer my questions

Define terrorism.

How is Pakistan sponsoring and supporting terrorism to Afghanistan?

[thetruth]

and lastly, what action do you think should be taken? Enough yet?

[Admin Khan]

Yes I have done that to some of your posts too, but when I saw the nonsense about lying it got pretty silly.

However, your words speak for themselves. It is your own words, not the reports words, not Pahjwok news's words. Your words about your conversation, and about the same exact comment to him

Yes, my words do. It's not my fault you can't understand them, or lack the ability to comprehend a post in light of the topic on hand. Sorry for your inability, my friend. You still haven't proven as to how that post translated into me calling Taliban terrorists. Which means, you lied. I, on the other hand, already elaborated on what I meant, in great detail, something you chose to ignore again. Lying and ignoring, interesting habits Unknownprince.

Answer my questions

Liars don't call the shot.

[thetruth]

Yes, my words do. It's not my fault you can't understand them, or lack the ability to comprehend a post in light of the topic on hand. Sorry for your inability, my friend.



Liars don't call the shot.

Dear Admin Khan,

Lying is a serious accusation.

Let Barakzai and some others decide what your posts says? How about that? Deal

You respect him obviously more than me.

So lets leave it at that because its like me saying the sky is blue, but then saying I did not say the sky is blue?

[Admin Khan]

Dear Admin Khan,

Lying is a serious accusation.

And that's exactly why I am shocked at your attempt to justify your lies. I pointed out a good 10 of yours lies, elaborated on them, you ignored all of them, except one which you thought to yourself "Hey, look, perhaps I can twist what he said here and ignore the fact that it was about the thread". Go to previous pages, and read my posts. You had one entire essays, based on lies and assumptions, hoping I won't see it. And bam, you respond with your lame attempt at justifying just one of your lies, out of the many, you spewed in several of your posts.

Let Barakzai and some others decide what your posts says? How about that? Deal

Unnecessary, what I said is obvious and already elaborated upon.

You respect him obviously more than me.

Obviously. You are a liar, he is not. He has credibility, you do not. You lied over 10 times today, and associated over 20 assumptions with me, which you ignored in it's entirety, and he for one, would never do such a thing.

So lets leave it at that because its like me saying the sky is blue, but then saying I did not say the sky is blue?

No, it's like the USA saying the sky is blue, while Pir_Rokhan has been chanting the sky is blue all along in the world, and 5 years later when the USA realizes the sky is blue, I ask "Well, what took you so long? Why is the US revealing the sky is blue now" and I also provide evidence that such and so, years ago, claimed what you know now.

No where, and I mean no where, have I ever said Taliban or Americans are terrorists. That's just dumb, and a blanket statement. In fact, to show how dishonest you are, many times I have tried elaborating on the stance of the Taliban and why they at times do what they do. But no, you chose to take me out of context to justify 1 of the many lies you spewed today.

[thetruth]

Im not going to waste time with you. You can let people you respect determine what is said. Let others be the judge.

[Admin Khan]

Im not going to waste time with you. You can let people you respect determine what is said. Let others be the judge.

Sure, no problem.

I closed it, because you began trolling in that thread by taking the same discussion over there, hoping that by spewing the same lies in two fronts, you might make more of an impact. None of your posts were deleted, only post that I deleted was the one which was here initially to begin with. You just decided to gravedig that thread, hoping it would strengthen you stance. What you fail to realize is, throughout your posts directed to me, your posts contained an array of assumptions and lies, which I pointed out. I, don't like such discussions and that's exactly why I chose to ignore you now. Despite me elaborating, you stuck to your opinion as to how you are not lying even though that's exactly what you did in your initial rebuttals, which I pointed out one by one.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Admin Khan, I know little about Imran Khan other than he was a Cricket player at some point. Where is the evidence that he is an ISI man?

In medicine we have differential diagnoses. You state what you think the most plausable diagnosis is and give reasons/evidence and then you state other plausible diagnoses and provide reasonings for why these have to be tested for. For example, shortness of breath in a heart patient has a plausibility of being certain things, but one cannot forget other things that cause shortness of breath.

So in regard to Imran Khan. Why is he ipso facto the ISI man? Are there other differential diagnoses? Is it simply because his policy spares Pakistan some scrutiny? When this is said, does this mean that he has sit down sessions with the directorate and they feed him lines and that he is an affiliate?

If the reasoning is simply: You dont get this far in Pakistani politics without being an ISI man... I think thats circumstantial at best.

By that line of reasoning the ISI conspiracy nuts here will have to come up with some intricate theories behind why Baitullah Mehsud is dead and was also "their" man. The simple way out is to say: because the US is just that good... they got their man just like they did in Abbotabad. Once again, if such is the case... if they are "really that good." And if they can uncover a courier that no one except 5 people OBL knew had knowledge of, then by the same token, they would be "just that good enough" to firmly establish the ISI link to at least one of these guys with hard evidence.

And remember, Pir Rokhan's theorizing centers on absolute lucid and explicit involvement of each of these players. In that theory, Mullah Omar, Baitullah, and Imran Khan are not simple patsys lackadaisically making their way along in life ... but evil dark doers who are a part of a nefarious plot all centered on hegemony in Afghanistan.

The best link I can find via a simple google is a meeting with Munter, the ISI chief, and himself. Which amounts to what? Its a logic error to assume such a link because by extension we can then say: Well, Munter was in a meeting with the ISI cheif as well and so the US actually drives the ISI and the ISI is the tool of the US and is not rogue. That then runs into a logic error at the point of the fact that the US accuses the ISI of backing Haqqani and forces that attack US legions across the border. So then in effect: CIA and Munter ---> trigger ISI ---> Trigger haqqani ---> attacks US across border ---> US wants attacks to stop ---> So US goes back and does what?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...army-plot.html

^
The second issue raised is how Khan had knowledge of the Haqqani Memo and named Haqqani before the Pakistani Businessman outted Haqqani. But once again, a bit so what? Here in the states, remember when Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson's wife was outed? Obviously someone in central intelligence fed her cover to someone in the Bush administration and Libby (probably on Rove's order) outed Plame. Doesnt mean that because Rove uncovered Wilson's wife's operative name that he was a CIA lacky. Rather, someone, likely an intelligence officer, fed him info that he fed Libby to alter the course of political events. So Pasha finds out about Haqqani and someone in the ISI spills the beans to Imran and he in turn spills the beans to the public. Once again, what was the gain for him being so aloof and allowing that to happen in the press documentation? Is he simply the ISI's dumbest guy out there?

Imran Khan talks to CNN about ISI's role in Osama Bin Laden's hiding.mp4 - YouTube[/URL]
^
In this interview as well, he clearly links a subsegment of the ISI with possibly protecting Bin Ladin.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/v...w/10137141.cms

^ Here he agrees the same same phenomena is what helps the Haqqani group.

Furthermore, what would the military ISI nexus accomplish per his CNN interview if he follows through and cuts the purse strings?

For that matter, Asfandyaar Wali Khan, as per wikileaks was offered the presidency by Kiyani:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/04/asfan...s-reports.html

The naysayers will offer: but no he refused.. see that proves hes genuine... he wanted no part in the system that taps down on Pashtuns. But thats a cop out. After all, his party is still extremely active in Pakistani politics. He has yet to take to the hills like Bugti did and truly show Pakistan what divestment means.

They also note he had meetings with the CIA. And if the ISI is a CIA subletting op, then we might as well conclude that all of Pakistan's political system is CIA centric and CIA run right? That in and of itself would allow for the accusation leveled at Achackzai years ago to stand united in the scheme of things with these sort of intelligence interconnections... that accusation was the Achakzai tribal elder from Afghanistan that was murdered had wanted to unite lar and bar achakzais and his murder led to the tribal leadership role falling onto Mehmood's lap, staving off a strong Achakzai Kandahar Quetta connection.

[Admin Khan]

Admin Khan, I know little about Imran Khan other than he was a Cricket player at some point. Where is the evidence that he is an ISI man?

In medicine we have differential diagnoses. You state what you think the most plausable diagnosis is and give reasons/evidence and then you state other plausible diagnoses and provide reasonings for why these have to be tested for. For example, shortness of breath in a heart patient has a plausibility of being certain things, but one cannot forget other things that cause shortness of breath.

So in regard to Imran Khan. Why is he ipso facto the ISI man? Are there other differential diagnoses? Is it simply because his policy spares Pakistan some scrutiny? When this is said, does this mean that he has sit down sessions with the directorate and they feed him lines and that he is an affiliate?

If the reasoning is simply: You dont get this far in Pakistani politics without being an ISI man... I think thats circumstantial at best.

By that line of reasoning the ISI conspiracy nuts here will have to come up with some intricate theories behind why Baitullah Mehsud is dead and was also "their" man. The simple way out is to say: because the US is just that good... they got their man just like they did in Abbotabad. Once again, if such is the case... if they are "really that good." And if they can uncover a courier that no one except 5 people OBL knew had knowledge of, then by the same token, they would be "just that good enough" to firmly establish the ISI link to at least one of these guys with hard evidence.

And remember, Pir Rokhan's theorizing centers on absolute lucid and explicit involvement of each of these players. In that theory, Mullah Omar, Baitullah, and Imran Khan are not simple patsys lackadaisically making their way along in life ... but evil dark doers who are a part of a nefarious plot all centered on hegemony in Afghanistan.

The best link I can find via a simple google is a meeting with Munter, the ISI chief, and himself. Which amounts to what? Its a logic error to assume such a link because by extension we can then say: Well, Munter was in a meeting with the ISI cheif as well and so the US actually drives the ISI and the ISI is the tool of the US and is not rogue. That then runs into a logic error at the point of the fact that the US accuses the ISI of backing Haqqani and forces that attack US legions across the border. So then in effect: CIA and Munter ---> trigger ISI ---> Trigger haqqani ---> attacks US across border ---> US wants attacks to stop ---> So US goes back and does what?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...army-plot.html

^
The second issue raised is how Khan had knowledge of the Haqqani Memo and named Haqqani before the Pakistani Businessman outted Haqqani. But once again, a bit so what? Here in the states, remember when Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson's wife was outed? Obviously someone in central intelligence fed her cover to someone in the Bush administration and Libby (probably on Rove's order) outed Plame. Doesnt mean that because Rove uncovered Wilson's wife's operative name that he was a CIA lacky. Rather, someone, likely an intelligence officer, fed him info that he fed Libby to alter the course of political events. So Pasha finds out about Haqqani and someone in the ISI spills the beans to Imran and he in turn spills the beans to the public. Once again, what was the gain for him being so aloof and allowing that to happen in the press documentation? Is he simply the ISI's dumbest guy out there?

Imran Khan talks to CNN about ISI's role in Osama Bin Laden's hiding.mp4 - YouTube[/URL]
^
In this interview as well, he clearly links a subsegment of the ISI with possibly protecting Bin Ladin.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/v...w/10137141.cms

^ Here he agrees the same same phenomena is what helps the Haqqani group.

Furthermore, what would the military ISI nexus accomplish per his CNN interview if he follows through and cuts the purse strings?

For that matter, Asfandyaar Wali Khan, as per wikileaks was offered the presidency by Kiyani:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/04/asfan...s-reports.html

The naysayers will offer: but no he refused.. see that proves hes genuine... he wanted no part in the system that taps down on Pashtuns. But thats a cop out. After all, his party is still extremely active in Pakistani politics. He has yet to take to the hills like Bugti did and truly show Pakistan what divestment means.

Although they do not publicly admit to favouring any party, it is an open secret that the military leadership, and the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), are backing Imran Khan's campaign, said The Sunday Times report.
Many other media outlets have reported similar stories in the past, asserting his backing from the ISI.
Imran met Munter in ISI chief's presence - PakTribune

There is no evidence for the claim I made, and it's nothing more than my opinion. I guess the reason why we don't have concrete evidence is because that's the nature of spy agencies. However, I, for one, just feel as if in order to become the president of Pakistan, you sort have to receive the stamp of approval from it's powerful spy agency, ISI. I am aware that what I am saying is my opinion, and I have no concrete evidence to claim he works for the ISI. It's just my opinion, that's all wrora. And the minute ISI get's involved, I have a strong sense of feeling that things in Pakistan's foreign policy might not change. That's all. I can't foresee a president without the stamp of approval from ISI. I respect your disagreement, and I do agree that you have made solid claims but given the nature of ISI, it just makes plain sense to me.

[Admin Khan]

PTI Chairman Imran Khan met Cameron Munter in ISI chief's presence, ISPR denies - YouTube

[BarakzaiAbdali]

PTI Chairman Imran Khan met Cameron Munter in ISI chief's presence, ISPR denies - YouTube

Thank you. Will read into it.

[Admin Khan]

Barakzai Sahab,
You should read into this as well.
Imran Khan says army, ISI will be kept under check | Firstpost

Given the fierce independent nature of ISI, I have a hard time believing they haven't yet spoken to Imran Bhai, like bro, what's going on here. Know your role, if else. I mean, we saw what ISI allegedly did to many journalists who spoke against her, didn't we?

Again, just so my stance is clear. This is nothing but my opinion, and I have absolutely no evidence to back what I am saying. I guess that's what makes it an opinion, and not a fact? I look forward to your response about the above article.

[Talal]

He might be ISI's man, he might not be ..An average Pakistani cares less about what kinda foreign policy ISI wants as compared to the economic conditions ..if Imran can deliver reforms, he's got my vote