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

[Ghundal]

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.

Obviously, you dont care because I have exposed you for being a hypocrite, and all you will do now is derail and ruin the thread with distractions so people dont see the contradiction in your own reasoning. Retorting "case closed" doesnt prove anything at all.

It was not me who said that safe havens and outside support make an insurgency not credible. Let me explain. Your hypocracy shows since for the same reasons you list for denying the Afghan insurgency (safe havens/outside support), you dont do the same for the Syrian insurgency (safe havens/outside support). If all you got is Afghan insurgents kill their own people on purpose, and Syrian insurgency dont, that is lame dude. These are your conditions we are addressing, and why you fail to use it in denying the Syrian insurgency. If all you can say is that the Afghan insurgency kills civilians on purpose, thats weak and holds no merit at all with this debate since it is called Goal post changing. Address the conditions above about safe havens/outside support. According to you, a legit insurgency should receive none at all.

This was you. Now, you will just retort the same old line that Afghan insurgency purposely targets Afghan civilians, something they deny, but you say they dont. So, now you are dishonest too.

This is what the Afghan insurgency says about Pakistan.

(Taliban tirade against Pak military )




http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakuma...-pak-military/

[Ghundal]

As I said, he will now babble nonsense....oh well.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Obviously, you dont care because I have exposed you for being a hypocrite, and all you will do now is derail and ruin the thread with distractions so people dont see the contradiction in your own reasoning. Retorting "case closed" doesnt prove anything at all.

You didn't really expose me as being a hypocrite; rather the reason I don't care is because the basis you call me a hypocrite is absolutely ridiculous; I'm sure you can't find a single quote by me that makes the claim that "foreign help= illegitimacy"

This was you. Now, you will just retort the same old line that Afghan insurgency purposely targets Afghan civilians, something they deny, but you say they dont. So, now you are dishonest too.

Since you are the Taliban's envoy to Pashtunforums; explain to us why are the Taliban so willing to perform a suicide attack when civilians are around?

[ScimitarXEdge]

As I said, he will now babble nonsense....oh well.

Keep telling yourself so you can sleep with a clear conscience while you sleep safely in a bed away from conflict. If you really felt the Taliban were legit, since you're claim that you're an Afghan (even though I am aware you're actually a Pakistani National), you'd go to your country and help them.

[tor_khan]

I think that emotional loyalties can lead to people holding seemingly contradictory views. If Saudi money or moral support is being directed towards Palestinian or Afghan resistance it might on the one hand be explained as Islamic brotherhood against Israeli/US occupation. On the other hand it also becomes convenient for all involved to forget that Saudi and the US = kiss kiss.

[Ghundal]

Since you are the Taliban's envoy to Pashtunforums; explain to us why are the Taliban so willing to perform a suicide attack when civilians are around?

I am no Taliban envoy to PF.

I am merely pointing out your hypocracy

You state that insurgencies that have outside safe havens and outside support have no legitimacy. This is what you said about the Afghan insurgency.

The Syrian insurgency has Turkish safe havens and outside support from Saudis/Qataris and potentially soon the US, but you ignore this, and still go on to say the Syrian insurgency is credible. By doing this, you then contradict and ignore the CONDITIONS you set for determining whether or not an insurgency is credible or not.


This reeks of hypocracy


Call me what you want. Those are/were not my conditions for the basis of an insurgency, BUT YOURS. Your the one ignoring them now. I am just pointing this inconsistency out buddy.


I have just shown you to be a hypocrite.


All you can do now is goal post change, and spew out nonsene babble in hope no one will see the hypocracy and contradictions in your words.

[ScimitarXEdge]

@ Tor Khan, Granted, but the Saudis aren't even a significant benefactor here; and furthermore is it private Saudi money, or the Saudi Royalty's and Governments that's a legitimate distinction as any of those same families want to sever ties with America and overthrow the Sauds.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I am no Taliban envoy to PF.

I am merely pointing out your hypocracy

Why aren't you answering my question then? I answered yours.

I'll repeat it so you won't have an excuse to avoid it

"why are the Taliban so willing to perform a suicide attack when civilians are around?"

[Ghundal]

As I recall, I am raising your contradictions. Why goal post change? HAHAH

I will repost this for everyone to see why all he can do now is goal post change and detract from his own conditions. He is the one that said the Afghan insurgency has not legitimacy due to safe havens in Pakistan and support. Despite the fact that Syrian insurgency has Turkish safe havens and support, he doesnt follow his own reasoning there. Hypocrite?

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.

[tor_khan]

@ Tor Khan, Granted, but the Saudis aren't even a significant benefactor here; and furthermore is it private Saudi money, or the Saudi Royalty's and Governments that's a legitimate distinction as any of those same families want to sever ties with America and overthrow the Sauds.

Thanks for the clarification.

[ScimitarXEdge]

@ Kundhal LOl I already covered all that in several posts. Answered your question too.

um are you trying to smokescreen and evade the question?

here it is again .......everyone watch what Ghundal/Unknownprince does instead of answering the question ...

ready? Now answer

"why are the Taliban so willing to perform a suicide attack when civilians are around?"

[Ghundal]

@ Tor Khan, Granted, but the Saudis aren't even a significant benefactor here; and furthermore is it private Saudi money, or the Saudi Royalty's and Governments that's a legitimate distinction as any of those same families want to sever ties with America and overthrow the Sauds.

The Saudi Arabians and the Qataris are spearheading the arming of the Syrian insurgency.

Buddy, you can cont deny it. It is at the state level


They recently had a Friends of Syria meeting to further give arm and support the Syrian insurgency.

[ScimitarXEdge]

everyone notice how Kundhal leaps on my comment to Tor Khan, but evades my question about the Taliban's willingness to suicide bomb around civilians. Even though I answered his questions.

doesn't that seem suspicious?

[Ghundal]

everyone notice how Kundhal leaps on my comment to Tor Khan, but evades my question about the Taliban's willingness to suicide bomb around civilians. Even though I answered his questions.

doesn't that seem suspicious?

Another example of sidestepping ^^^^
Failing at trying to turn it around on me. He failed to answer why he contradicts himself, and he says he did.



Oh clown, you didnt answer any of my posts. All you did was goal post change.

Let me state it in as elementary terminology as possible so you cant sidestep and escape. I will also space it out for you (double spaced)


1)You have previously said that insurgencies that have outside safe havens and get outside support do not have a legitimate basis.


2)You have said this in regards to teh Afghan insrugency


3)The Syrian insurgency has outside safe havens and support. The Syrian insurgency has Turkish safe havens and Saudi/Qatar support with weapons and other arms.


SO,

here is the easy part for you.


4)How come the same exact reasoning you use to deny the insurgencies in general does not apply to Syria? Leave out (killing civilians on purpose- thats all BS)


In regards to your sidestepping/detracting question , no insurgency purposely targets civilians. The same question can be asked, why doe US forces walk near civilians? OH, but your not asking that, and you think I wont ask it.

Again, another example of your hypocracy


Keep it going

good job

[ScimitarXEdge]

that's the thing I keep telling you, I NEVER said that, unless you can show a quote where I did and you haven't done so.

The only one side stepping here is you. and you think by spamming a thread you can make my question seem obscure and no one will read it

"why are the Taliban so willing to perform a suicide attack when civilians are around?"