If the Taliban were ISI stooges, why did they refuse to recognize the Durand line?

[Ghundal]

Here I will point you to it since you seem to have trouble getting there. Its up above ^^^^^^^


Address the Turkish safe havens that the Syrian insurgency enjoys, and the Qatari/Saudi backing that they get. I have linked the article in the previous posts.


According to the VERY SAME reasoning you use to deny the Afghan insurgency, it then follows that you should deny the Syrian insurgency.

Please, no insurgency purposely targets its own people, neither Syrian nor Afghan. Leave that derailing/sidestepping garbage out of this discussion, and keep in mind the title of the thread. Read your own reasoning to deny the Afghan insurgency, and apply the very same to teh Syrian insurgency. Its simple.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Scimiatar,

you failed to address the issues I have brought up. You also offer no evidence.

Neither the Afghan nor the Syrian insurgency targets their own people

Now address what I have asked in regards to Turkish safe havens that the Syrian insurgency enjoys and Qatari/Saudi Wahabi support/funding that they get.


These again, are your reasons of denying legitimacy of an insurgency

Address it

You failed to make a point worth addressing; Just because you highlight something doesn't make what you highlight of any meritable.

I offer no evidence? You mean the Syrian resistance' words themselves aren't evidence? You run a False Dichotomy here. If the Syrian Resistance themselves say it, you deny it, if the Syrian government say it, you deny it. You're running logical discoherency here.


The Taliban claim responsibility for suicide attacks that kill civilians, they know full well that civilians are present and they do it anyways. That's deliberate no matter what they say their intended target was.

That's all I need to never ever support the Taliban. The Syrian Resistance's honor for their own peoples lives is all I need to support them.. Maybe you should tell your Uncles in Quetta to stop using such tactics COMPLETELY and fight like Ghairatmand men and not the honorless cowards Afghans have become, thanks to people who sold out to Wahabis.

[Ghundal]

Here I will point you to it since you seem to have trouble getting there. Its down below now. below this post.


Address the Turkish safe havens that the Syrian insurgency enjoys, and the Qatari/Saudi backing that they get. I have linked the article in the previous posts.


According to the VERY SAME reasoning you use to deny the Afghan insurgency, it then follows that you should deny the Syrian insurgency.

Please, no insurgency purposely targets its own people, neither Syrian nor Afghan. Leave that derailing/sidestepping garbage out of this discussion, and keep in mind the title of the thread. Read your own reasoning to deny the Afghan insurgency, and apply the very same to teh Syrian insurgency. Its simple.

[Ghundal]

Scimitar,

Again, address the Turkish safe havens that the Syrian insurgency enjoys and the Saudi/Qatari backing and funding. Quit sidestepping the issue. This is your logic that you use to deny the Afghan insurgency, why are you not using the same logic in denying the Syrian insurgency?

Well if the Syrian government says it's Al-Qaeda and the Syrian Resistance disavows such tactics. It must be that it's not the Syrian Resistance.

The Syiran government says that the whole Syrian insurgency is AQ just as Qaddafi said of the Libyan insurgency

Now address this post below please.

Fact. The Syrian insurgency is being backed by several Gulf Arab states in what is deemed a proxy war against Iran. http://new.kuwaittimes.net/2012/02/1...-driving-seat/

Fact, To some degree the Pak Army/ISI supports the Afghan insurgency for their own interests which are primarily due to their anti-India agenda. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/is...fghani/651774/ However, this is complicated since the Afghan insurgency also attacks Pak military and ISI (GHQ and ISI HQ have been attacked). Whether non-enforcement of Durrand line from one side constitutes support is an open question. In regards to the topic of the thread, from attacks on Army/Intelligence HQ.

Non-recognition of the Durrand line is not something that can be sidestepped for "street cred." Afghanistan is not New York.

Fact, This same Pak Army/ISI/government also support the US war with supply routes and drone attacks. Supply routes allow for the 50 nation NATO alliance to be supplied with the most advanced weapons and technology. Now this is undisputed Pak support.

Fact. The Afghan insurgency does enjoy safe havens in the Pashtun areas of Pakistan (US Ambassador Complains About Haqqani Havens


http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...140413113.html ) just as the Syrian insurgency enjoys safe havens across the Turkish border. (Turkish-Syrian Border Becomes Haven for Syrian Opposition


http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...135875553.html

(Syrian rebel leader waiting in Turkey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15875399 )

Most all the conditions of yours are met to deny the basis and legitimacy of the Syrian insurgency.you have used in addition to your other conditions (on what is credible), these two conditions are met in regards to the Syrian insurgency having Turkish safe havens and Saudi and Qatari backing). According to your reasoning then (that you use when discussing the Afghan insurgency), the Syrian insurgency has no legitimacy. Case closed.

BUT, you are not saying this.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Here I will point you to it since you seem to have trouble getting there. Its up above ^^^^^^^


Address the Turkish safe havens that the Syrian insurgency enjoys, and the Qatari/Saudi backing that they get. I have linked the article in the previous posts.


According to the VERY SAME reasoning you use to deny the Afghan insurgency, it then follows that you should deny the Syrian insurgency.

Please, no insurgency purposely targets its own people, neither Syrian nor Afghan.

Ok sure you live in that bubble of denial, cover up for the fact that the Afghan Resistance of today is run by cowards who are brainwashed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Actually this is my reasoning

Syrian Resistance gets help from Turkey and Other Muslim countries because Assad is Murdering his people.

Taliban get help from Pakistan who ALSO help the U.S. in killing Afghan civilians, and take Afghan civilian lives themselvees to help serve Pakistan's geopolitical strategy.

I don't see why that reasoning for Syria would apply for the Taliban; the Taliban will blow themselves up around civilians, the Syrians wouldn't.

again Case Closed

[Ghundal]

ADDRESS THE TURKISH SAFE HAVENS THAT THE SYRIAN INSURGENCY ENJOYS AND THE SAUDI/QATARI backing and funding that the Syrian insurgency gets, and potential US support.


Address it.

Please tell me how you reconcile your views then that the Syrian insurgency has the moral imperative but the Afghan insurgency does not

Again, this is your reasoning, not MINE

[ScimitarXEdge]

Scimitar,

Again, address the Turkish safe havens that the Syrian insurgency enjoys and the Saudi/Qatari backing and funding. Quit sidestepping the issue.

There's no side stepping; if Pakistan wasn't out for it's own geopolitical agenda in Afghanistan, colluding with them would make sense. But they have proven that this is the case.

Now while Saudis are after everyone's agenda, Turkey is a bigger player here; I'm fine with Turks helping, good they're showing true Muslim brotherhood there. Pakistan on the other hand helps America while directing the Taliban, that screams of "set up".


Hope this answers your asinine question which I already pretty much answered in other ways

Well if the Syrian government says it's Al-Qaeda and the Syrian Resistance disavows such tactics. It must be that it's not the Syrian Resistance.

The Syrian Resistance ALSO denies it; si if BOTH parties are saying it then one cannot claim it is legitimately their doing.

[ScimitarXEdge]

ADDRESS THE TURKISH SAFE HAVENS THAT THE SYRIAN INSURGENCY ENJOYS AND THE SAUDI/QATARI backing and funding that the Syrian insurgency gets, and potential US support.


Address it.

Please tell me how you reconcile your views then that the Syrian insurgency has the moral imperative but the Afghan insurgency does not

Again, this is your reasoning, not MINE

ok Good, I'm glad unlike ****bag pakistan, Turkey isn't running a two faced campaign of helping america kill afghans, then directing dumb Afghans who join the Taliban to die for them and setting up more Afghan deaths.

If you can't see the clear distinction here, then you clearly don't have resistance and legitimacy of Islamic resistance in mind.

[ScimitarXEdge]

geez why is it so hard for these kids to understand how Syrians and Taliban operate totally differently?

[Ghundal]

Ok sure you live in that bubble of denial, cover up for the fact that the Afghan Resistance of today is run by cowards who are brainwashed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Actually this is my reasoning

Syrian Resistance gets help from Turkey and Other Muslim countries because Assad is Murdering his people.

Taliban get help from Pakistan who ALSO help the U.S. in killing Afghan civilians, and take Afghan civilian lives themselvees to help serve Pakistan's geopolitical strategy.

I don't see why that reasoning for Syria would apply for the Taliban; the Taliban will blow themselves up around civilians, the Syrians wouldn't.

again Case Closed

Case closed for you.

You are simply then a hypocrite.

I have now shown that on one hand you say the Afghan insurgency is not credible because of safe havens in Pakistan, and outside support. You have used this reasoning several times.


BUT then, despite the fact that the Syrian insurgency enjoys Turkish safe havens, and Saudi/Qatari backing, you ignore it, and still say the Syrian insurgency is credible.

How you reconcile the two is questionable, and it reeks of pure hypocracy

Case closed on you


Oh by the way, Turkey hosts a NATO base, and also serves US geopolitical interests. It is also why US is supporting the Syrian insurgency vocally, and is leaning to support it with weapons too

[ScimitarXEdge]

yeah but ....you ignore the fact Pakistan HELPS Americans run Missions in Afghanistan, so why are they seeking Pakistan's help?

I don't care if you call me a hypocrite; because honestly if you think the Taliban taking credit for a bombing that killed AFghan civilians is acceptable, then the only real hypocrite here is you.

yep ...once again case closed.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Oh by the way, Turkey hosts a NATO base, and also serves US geopolitical interests. It is also why US is supporting the Syrian insurgency vocally, and is leaning to support it with weapons too

ah but are they hosting it to kill Syrians, just as Pakistan is hosting the Americans to kill Afghans?


that's the big elephant in the room you neglect.

[Afghanistan2010]

How do you know they were against Durrand line. They were buddies whith Pakistan they didn't do anything to change the situation, by just saing I am against something is nothing special, it was just propaganda, like look at us we want unite all pashtuns. LOL

Muslims of pakistan destroy successfully buddha statue in pakistan

Militants Bomb Buddha in Pakistan - YouTube

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...515958,00.html

[Ghundal]

ah but are they hosting it to kill Syrians, just as Pakistan is hosting the Americans to kill Afghans?


that's the big elephant in the room you neglect.

Yes, they will be once the US start their bombing campaign.

But I will not let you sidestep and distort.

You said that if an insurgency is backed by the outside and enjoys safe havens then it lacks credibility. THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID, NOT ME

You use this reasoning in regards to denying the moral imperative of the Afghan insurgency, BUT you do dont do the same in regards to the Syrian insurgency.


This is what it is called.

con·tra·dic·tion

   [kon-truh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun 1. the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.

2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.

3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.



In regards to the suicide bombing in Damascus, it targeted and killed Syrian military , and also killed civilians.

You said that even the Syrian government said it was AQ, but thats intellectually dishonest since the Assad Syrian government has said that the whole Syrian insurgency is backed and funded by AQ.


So you stand in agreement with the Assads and the Karzais.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Yes, they will be once the US start their bombing campaign.

But I will not let you sidestep and distort.

You said that if an insurgency is backed by the outside and enjoys safe havens then it lacks credibility. THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID, NOT ME

You use this reasoning in regards to denying the moral imperative of the Afghan insurgency, BUT you do dont do the same in regards to the Syrian insurgency.


This is what it is called.

con·tra·dic·tion

   [kon-truh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun 1. the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.

2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.

3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.



In regards to the suicide bombing in Damascus, it targeted and killed Syrian military , and also killed civilians.

You said that even the Syrian government said it was AQ, but thats intellectually dishonest since the Assad Syrian government has said that the whole Syrian insurgency is backed and funded by AQ.


So you stand in agreement with the Assads and the Karzais.

I actually never said that ...unless you find find a direct quote, you really have nothing but your own idiotic inability to read things in their appropriate context.

As for the rest of your babble, it's all just nebulous theories

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-syria-nato-idUSTRE81G0ZF20120217

It's only a contradiction because you create a straw-man