Tweet
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
-
-
Admin, I can posit possible reasons why the Taliban didn't recognize the Durrand Line.
Street Cred; all major leaders in Afghanistan used the idea of the Durrand Line for their political gains and objectives. Even Najib-e-Gow had passionate talks about the Durrand Lne but he would send KhaD agents to watch Russian Spetznaz rape and humiliate Pashtun women in Qandahar.
Claiming animus against the Durrand Line is like "towing the party line"; it was their way of legitimizing themselves, falsely of course. With all the heat that was coming onto the Taliban by the Pashtun tribes who felt side lined by the Taliban and the diaspora, they had to regain sympathy somehow.
In the Past, Durrand Line was a point of angst between Pakistan and other Previous Afghan regimes; Pakistan knew the lessons they learned and saw that paying lip service to the Durrand Line could be used to serve their interests, just like Najib-e-Gow did, so they lent grace to the Durrand Line Rhetoric so long as it kept critics pacified.
It's sort of like how all the Wahhabis on this site, [--EDITED--] say they hate Saudi Arabia; but then follow the idiotic beliefs that the Saudi Arabians fund to be propagted.Comment
-
Randolph and Scimitar,
Do you guys mind explaining the inconsistency of the standards you use in regards to Afghanistan versus Syria/Palestine? Palestine gets backing from Iran. "Friends of Syria" is being intitiated by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to fund and back the Syrian insurgency. In fact these are the same countries that you say the Taliban follow. The question is how come you are not saying the Syrian insurgency is not credible due to apparent outside backing?
How come you don't say the Syrian insurgency are proxies? Or the Palestinians?
Afghanistan and Syria are similar situations, but you guys seem to be giving the moral imperative to Syrian insurgency, but are not affording the same thinking with Afghan insurgency.
ScimitarXEdge
PF senior
*
Posts: 5,811
Thanks: 921
Thanked 1,108 Times in 825 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Yesterday, 01:07 PM
I think it has more to do with Assad murdering his own people; than political gains. It would be hypocritical of HAMAS talked about being free from Israel yet supports Assad for doing things even the Israelis haven't done. Hopefully Iran follows suit, unlikely but who knows
(#5)
randolph85
PF senior
*
Posts: 3,212
Thanks: 293
Thanked 1,087 Times in 806 Posts
My Mood:
Join Date: Dec 2010
Yesterday, 07:38 PM
good move by hamas.
Quote:
now I dont blame Israel at all,
u never blamed israel....at all. u are a cultural kike rather than a religious one.
submitted for the approval of the midnight societyLast edited by Ghundal; 02-26-2012, 11:01 AM.Comment
-
Because except for handful of Wahhabi nuts who infiltrate and using this as an excuse to start push their own agenda and Suicide Bomb OTHER Syrians
Most of the Syrian Resistance care about the welfare of their people' and disavow the attacks being done like suicide attacks. The Taliban call suicide bombers martyrs even when innocent Afghans are killed in the process.
This example itself demonstrates the lack of moral credibility of the Taliban and the credibility of the Syrians. It's as simple as that. In fact this makes the Syrians legit and the Taliban hypocritesLast edited by ScimitarXEdge; 02-26-2012, 11:03 AM.Comment
-
Weak disclaimer that does not explain why you use different standards in regards to the similar Afghan/Syrian situation.Originally posted by ScimitarXEdge View Post
There is no difference between the Afghan insurgency and the Syrian insurgency.
Already, in Damascuss, suicide bombers have struck at places, trying to target Syrian military, but killing also civilians in the process.
The Syrian insurgency is no different than the Afghan insurgency, but you clearly are being inconsistent, and as your post shows employing different standards that contradict. Syrian insurgency has Turkish safe havens, Saudi and Qatar funding, etc. http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/02/.../#.T0pMcbd5mc0
According to the same reasoning you use with Afghan insurgency(safe havens, alleged outside backing) the Syrian insurgency is not credible due to suicide bombing and outside support (Turkish safe havens, Saudi and Qatar backing with weapons). But your not saying this?Last edited by Ghundal; 02-26-2012, 11:22 AM.Comment
-
I already covered that, the suicide bombers who kill civilians, are not considered part of the insurgency; the Syrian Resistance Movement disavow them. The ones that do those attacks are foreign Wahhabis using this as an excuse to help Saudi Arabia stake its claim in Syria.
Not even the Government blames native Syrian Resistance.A suicide bomb attack in Midan, in central Damascus, has killed 26 people and injured 63, the interior ministry said. It said most of the victims were civilians and 15 bodies could not be identified because they were "torn to pieces in the blast". The ministry blamed al-Qaida for the attack and said it would "strike back with an iron fist". It described the bombing as part of an escalation in terrorist attacks that have been afflicting the country since the start of the uprising against the Assad regime. The blast followed two explosions in Damascus on 23 December that reportedly killed 44 people and wounded 166. All of these attacks have taken place while Arab League observers are in the country to monitor alleged human rights abuses by the Syrian security forces. An Arab League committee is due to meet on Sunday discuss an initial report of the observers
• The opposition Free Syrian Army denied responsibility for the attack and it, along with the opposition Syrian National Council pointed the finger of blame at the regime. The FSA had this week expressed frustration with the Arab League observers and had threatened to escalate attacks. Its head, Colonel Riad al-Asaad was quoted as condemning the attack in Midan but at the same time warning of future attacks and that the regime "only understands force". The SNC called for an "independent international committee to investigate these crimes that we believe that the regime planned and carried out".
where as the Taliban....
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the insurgents were targeting "a guesthouse affiliated with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan". Unama does not operate a guesthouse in the area.
On Saturday, two British civilians were among 17 people killed in a Taliban car bomb attack on a military convoy in Kabul.
The two electricians, who have not been named, were travelling in a heavily armoured Rhino bus in the western outskirts of the Afghan capital when the vehicle was rammed by a Toyota Corolla believed to have been carrying 700kg of explosives.
Four US soldiers, five US civilians, a Canadian soldier, a Kosovan civilian were also killed. Four Afghan civilians near the scene also died in the blast, which smashed windows in buildings up to half a kilometre away.
We can see here the Syrians are worlds apart from the Taliban, the Syrians are following Islam, the Taliban are following Saudi Arabian brainwashing. Case closed.Last edited by ScimitarXEdge; 02-26-2012, 11:48 AM.Comment
-
^^^
Lol, Syrians are following Islam. I don't think there is an Arab in the whole world who "Follows Islam."
If Syrians (or other Arabs) were "Following Islam," they would have been fighting the Saudi tyranny family to liberate the Kaaba from the Quraysh. Since they are in close proximity to it, compared to other Muslim nations.Comment
-
[QUOTE]The Syrian government is seeking to deny the legitimacy of the Syrian insurgency by saying it is backed by Al-Qaeda. By the way, since when was the Syrian Assad government considered a truthful and responsible government may I ask? So according to you, because the Syrian government says that the Syrian insurgency is backed by AQ, then it must be true? (BUT you disagree, selective are you not?) In fact, even Qaddafi did the same by saying that the Libyan insurgency was backed by Al-Qaeda, and was Al-Qaeda. Do you agree with that too? Its the former Libyan government, it must be true. right?Originally posted by ScimitarXEdge View PostI already covered that, the suicide bombers who kill civilians, are not considered part of the insurgency; the Syrian Resistance Movement disavow them. The ones that do those attacks are foreign Wahhabis using this as an excuse to help Saudi Arabia stake its claim in Syria.
Not even the Government blames native Syrian Resistance.
Buddy, case not closed. You did not even address half my questions in regards to Turkish safe havens and Saudi and Qatari backing of the Syrian insurgency. The safe haven and outside support were some of the reasons you have said the Afghan insurgency has no credibility. Why are you reluctant to extend that same reasoning to Syria where the Syrian insurgency enjoys Turkish safe havens and Qatari and Saudi backing? and even potential US backing?where as the Taliban....
We can see here the Syrians are worlds apart from the Taliban, the Syrians are following Islam, the Taliban are following Saudi Arabian brainwashing. Case closed.
The Syrian government is not a measure of legitimacy. They in fact have said the the whole Syrian resistance is Al-Qaeda.
In fact, as you claim that the Afghan insurgency is backed by foreigners, Assad does the same in regards to the Syrian insurgency, so you are both making using the same reasoning.
You did not address the other reasons you deny the basis of an insurgency such as foreign safe havens.
Again, you are simply recycling old material. The Afghan insurgency, like the Syrian insurgency does not target civilians on purpose, and both insurgency claim they do not target civilians.
You still need to explain how you consider the Syrian insurgency credible, but not the Afghan insurgency based on the facts that the Syrian insurgency enjoys safe havens in Turkey and gets funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Since you choose to sidestep the suicide bombing question by agreeing with the Assad regimes statements on it being Al-Qaeda (but not agreeing with the fact that Assad Regime does INDEED extend the terrorist label to the Syrian insurgency- how you reconcile that is mind boggling), one can leave that out for now in order to address the other two issues I brought up.Last edited by Ghundal; 02-26-2012, 01:00 PM.Comment
-
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.Last edited by Ghundal; 02-26-2012, 01:20 PM.Comment
-
Syrians aren't in Saudi Arabia, so they don't have to fight the Saudi Family as that doesn't directly affect them, that's the job of the people of Saudi Arabia.Originally posted by کیش View Post
And if Taliban were following Islam; why are they bending over and letting the Saudis dictate to them how to run the show, why are they deliberately allowing Afghans to die just to get a few foreigners.
The Syrian Resistance isn't doing that. as proven. In Islam the sanctity of Muslim lives precedes all else; the Ka'aba is an object of symbolism, not an idol. stop treating it as one.
Your case is debunkedLast edited by ScimitarXEdge; 02-26-2012, 01:25 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by Ghundal View Post
Fact Taliban kill their own, Syrians try avoiding to kill their own. Taliban work for other nation's interests; hence why Afghan blood is cheap for them, Syrians while taking foreign help, see their people's blood as not cheap and thus only engage the regime itself. This is what separates following Islam vs. not following.
This explains why the Syrian Resistance is legit and why the Taliban's are fraudulentComment
-
Ghundal and Qais, when you can answer why the Taliban saw 4 Afghan civilian lives so trivially that it's acceptable for Afghan Muslims to die in an attempt to attack foreign troops. Then you'll have a pot to piss in.Comment
-
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. Put that aside for now.
1Now address what I have asked in regards to 1)Turkish safe havens that the Syrian insurgency enjoys and 2) Qatari/Saudi Wahabi support/funding that they get.
These again, are your reasons of denying legitimacy of an insurgency
Address itLast edited by Ghundal; 02-26-2012, 01:31 PM.Comment
-
[QUOTE=Ghundal;584874]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 government is seeking to deny the legitimacy of the Syrian insurgency by saying it is backed by Al-QaedaComment
-
The Syiran government says that the whole Syrian insurgency is AQ just as Qaddafi said of the Libyan insurgencyOriginally posted by ScimitarXEdge View Post
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.Last edited by Ghundal; 02-26-2012, 01:40 PM.Comment
Comment