Robert Pape destroying Sam Harris and Soldat Amir narrative with data/facts

[MostafaM]

I never denied anything at all whatsoever. Comprede? Your the one saying Pakistan supports Afghan insurgency. You saying it does not mean it is true. You need to show me sources/facts? Is that clear yet to you?

You denied that Pakistan is helping the Taliban insurgency.
Do you deny that?

Furthermore, you have yet again brought up the topic of what US and Karzai officials term "safe havens." So this is the issue you are putting forth, and you appear to want Pakistan to take more action against these "safe havens" more than they already have? Right?

No.
I know you lack intelligence.
I asked why Pakistan Army is differentiating between "good and bad Taliban" and leaves the "good Taliban" (Quetta and Miranshah) alone, but attacks the "bad Taliban" (TTP).
If someone asks for the motives of someone, it doesn´t mean that he is expecting it to happen.



And you have written the same sentence in almost 10 variations.

Are you on drugs or why do you forget that you have written the same a sentence above? LOL


And why can´t you answer the simple question of how the Taliban arm, equip and shelter their fighters?
I mean, you accept them as "freedom fighters", back their actions and seem to be a supporter of their cause.
Just let me know how they manage to fight.

Then we can proceed to talk about the other side of the conflict you call NATO and western stooges.

OK?

[MostafaM]

Matt Waldman on Taliban-ISI links - YouTube

Taliban helped by Pakistan's ISI - YouTube

http://www.usip.org/files/resources/SR%20256%20-%20Dangerous%20Liaisons%20with%20the%20Afghan%20Taliban.pdf

Stop crying, Ghundal.
A google search would inform you but you live in denial.

[MostafaM]

If most field commanders acknowledge that ISI representatives are present when the so-called Taliban Shuras hold their meetins, the case is pretty clear.

[Ghundal]

Matt Waldman on Taliban-ISI links - YouTube

Taliban helped by Pakistan's ISI - YouTube


http://www.usip.org/files/resources/...%20Taliban.pdf


Stop crying, Ghundal.
A google search would inform you but you live in denial.

I have seen this video already ( a man making claims like you without evidence. Claims with no sources at all.

In fact, the guy himself admits he has no concrete evidence.

Do you have sources which show Pakistani modern weaponry being used by the Afghan insurgency? Jets, tanks, choppers, and such and such. If you have that, and you have authentic (multiply confirmed ) sources showing the Pakistani aparatus financing and supporting the Afghan insurgents, thats evidence.

You denied that Pakistan is helping the Taliban insurgency.
Do you deny that?






No.
I know you lack intelligence.
I asked why Pakistan Army is differentiating between "good and bad Taliban" and leaves the "good Taliban" (Quetta and Miranshah) alone, but attacks the "bad Taliban" (TTP).
If someone asks for the motives of someone, it doesn´t mean that he is expecting it to happen.



And you have written the same sentence in almost 10 variations.

Are you on drugs or why do you forget that you have written the same a sentence above? LOL


And why can´t you answer the simple question of how the Taliban arm, equip and shelter their fighters?
I mean, you accept them as "freedom fighters", back their actions and seem to be a supporter of their cause.
Just let me know how they manage to fight.

Then we can proceed to talk about the other side of the conflict you call NATO and western stooges.

OK?

When you resort to Ad-hominem attacks, that just shows that you cant support the points you are making with FACTS.

I do not support the Afghan insurgents like you support NATO's war in Afghanistan. If you consider being ANTI-WAR (non-interventionist) (opposed to the US presence/intervention/war in Afghanistan) as support for the Afghan insurgency, then you are a hypocrite, and the mantra of "war is peace, slavery is freedom" describes the perspective you are trying to push forward here, this too, without ANY evidence whatsoever- an anti-reality and ahistorical perspective, refuted all the time. It appears that you are trying to say you are for peace, but logically that makes no sense when you are PRO-WAR. There is no equivalence to looking at facts on the ground and relaying them to being in favor or against the Afghan insurgency.

So, if that is your way of deflecting me from asking you why you fail to provide sources and evidence for each and every single claim you make on top of previous claims, then you simply are a waste of time debating, and can not be taken seriously. putting this aside, lets focus on your inability to furnish evidence for your claims, and the reason why.


Im not going to go in circles with you due to you lacking evidence to furnish your claims.

Firstly, YOU brought the topic up and made the statement that the Afghan insurgency is supported by Pakistan. I did not bring this topic up. I asked for your sources/facts for which you are using to make this statement. I also addressed the fact that Pakistan is supporting the ISAF/ANA with supply lines- a fact that is undisputed.

Hence, the ONUS is on you to provide the evidence to back that claim up. Show proof that Pakistan supports the Afghan insurgency.

Furthermore, you then brought up what US officials and Karzai term alleged "safe havens" existing in what is considered Pakistan. That in itself is an entirely different debate which you are reluctant to address when I responded to your words. This issue is very pertinent to the Durrand line issue, and can not be separated.

Obviously, these "safe havens" according to academia (Scheuer, MK Bhadrakumar, and many others) exist within what is considered Pakistan. To deny it would be intellectually dishonest, but in regards to the geopolitics of the region, and the history associated with the Durrand line, not all is black and white. Again, you raising the issue up then subsequently raises the issue of the Durrand line whether that was your intention or not.

Obviously, it is clear that Pakistan has a gray policy if we are to consider their reluctance to act on certain "safe havens" that do not conflict with their interests, but technically speaking, there is no concrete proof that Pakistan is supporting the Afghan insurgency in terms of arms and logistics. I do not see Afghan insurgents with Pakistan Air Force fighter jets, helicopters, and modern technology belonging to the Pakistan Army inventory. According to US military research and scholars like Dr. Scheuer, the Afghan insurgents are armed with Soviet vintage weaponry, and even are using jezails from the war against the British and Russians. The point I am making is that in a debate, while it may be true that Pakistan is indifferently allowing what the international community considers "Pakistani territory" to be used by the Afghan insurgency in regards to Afghanistan, aside from this, there is nothing else which shows Pakistan "supporting" the Afghan insurgency. When debating, it is then intellectually dishonest to assume that this is a fact when no evidence exists to indicate it to be so.

If we are considering the alleged "safe havens" as tantamount to Pakistan supporting the Afghan insurgency, then that in itself is a separate question which revolves around the Durrand line, a disputed border that is not recognized by the vast majority of Afghans, and specifically, Pashtuns.

Case closed



Until you provide sources showing that Pakistan is supporting the Afghan insurgency, your right, there is no need to talk.

Case closed still

[MostafaM]

An army of 20.000 insurgents need ammunition, food, weapons (AK-47, machine guns, RPGs etc.)

Let me count:

1. Food:
A human being needs 1200 [kcal] a day.
Let´s say, the Taliban eat just rice and some vegetables.
The current price of rice is 14$/Scheffel.
Let´s assume Vegetables are available for free on the wild plaines of afghanistan.
The energy in rice is 1260 kcal/kg.

Conversion factors Scheffel to kg:
Scheffel is volume [m³] and mass is [kg], the conversion factor is the density [m³/kg].
Conversion between Scheffel and Liter: 1 Scheffel = 62,3 Liter
Conversion between Liter and m³: 1 Liter = 10^(-3) [m³]
Density of rice grits: 689 [kg/m³]

a) Rice consume per day:

Energy needed every day by a Taliban fighter: E(day)= 1260 [kcal/d]
Energy in rice: E(rice)=1260 [kcal/kg]
Mass of rice needed to provide that energy: m(rice,day)= E(day)/E(rice)=1200/1260=0,952 [kg/d]

b) Scheffel to kg:
1 [Scheffel]=62,3[Liter]
1 [Liter]=10^(-3)[m³]

c) Density rice:
dens(rice)=689 [kg/m³]

d) Costs of rice a day:
For one Taliban fighter who consumes 0,952 [kg/d] rice, we have to pay
costs(rice,1 fighter)= m(rice,1 fighter)/dens(rise) * costs

cost(rice, 1 fighter) = 14 [$/Scheffel]* (1 [Scheffel]/62,3[Liter])*(1[Liter]/10^(-3)[m³]) * 0,952 [kg/d]/689[kg/m³] = 0,31 [$/d]

---> We need 0,31 $ per day and per fighter to be able to feed him.

Since there are around 20.000 insurgens, we need : 6200 [$/d] to feed the army IF we make simplified assumptions that they only feast on rice. I guess, they eat meat, vegs and other stuff, too. So the real costs would be higher.

----> We need 22.630.000,00 [$/year] to feed the insurgents. Yes, thats 22.63 MILLIONS! The real costs are atleast 5 times higher because meat and vegetables are much more expensive than rice is.

Where does this money come from?

I can make simplified calculations for weaponry, energy for heating, ammunition etc., too.

The question is: do people like you use the brain that God has given you? Or are you just sitting behind your computers and get overwhelmed by filtered pseudo-information to make yourself happy?

[roadrunner]

Where does this money come from?

poppies, saudi arabia, Islamist funding, money removed from the Afghan treasury? it's possible even pakistan.

what you quoted above is not proof of anything.

[MostafaM]

poppies, saudi arabia, Islamist funding, money removed from the Afghan treasury? it's possible even pakistan.

what you quoted above is not proof of anything.

I made a simple calculation to tackle the basic problem that every insurgent army has: feeding their fighters.

And you explained my point perfectly: they have their sources of money.

My point proofs alot: the Taliban are not a self-sufficient entity that relies on taxes. They are FUNDED.

A simple calculation of weapons and ammunition would significantly stress out the question WHERE and HOW they could get so many weapons and ammo on the black markets.
The Tirah Valley is not able to provide an insurgent army with weapons.

[Ghundal]

I made a simple calculation to tackle the basic problem that every insurgent army has: feeding their fighters.

And you explained my point perfectly: they have their sources of money.

My point proofs alot: the Taliban are not a self-sufficient entity that relies on taxes. They are FUNDED.

A simple calculation of weapons and ammunition would significantly stress out the question WHERE and HOW they could get so many weapons and ammo on the black markets.
The Tirah Valley is not able to provide an insurgent army with weapons.

Analysis or critical thinking is not proof

Well now you contradict yourself in this thread about Soldat

You seem to be clueless about Pashtuns.

Pashtun tribes, specially south and south-east of Kabul are and always were armed to the teeth.

The Northern Alliance couldn´t even take on the outskirts of Kabul in 2001 after American B-52 bombers had cleared their way and you are making propaganda for the Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan by declaring it "helping Pashtuns".

If Pakistan cared about Pashtuns, it should have built schools, unis and infrarstructure in KPK and FATA. While ISI general´s children were studying in Oxford, Pashtuns were indoctrinated in madrassas.

It was about installing a Pakistan-friendly regime in Kabul and NOT about Pashtuns and their fate. It was more about undermining the Pashtun cause by Islamic Internationalism.....

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?p=588990

[MostafaM]

Oh you mean proof is when I go to Afghanistan and collect the bills for whatever the Taliban have paid for and get their bank accounts and find out about the flow of cash?

Well, I can flip the coin and ask you to provide me with the nonsense that you have said so far that Taliban are fighting with Jezails and old Russian weapons.

What´s the proof of that?
And for how long can you shoot an AK-47 or RPG gun or a machine gun without needing spare parts or new barrels?

You cannot fool here anyone.

And yes, Pashtun tribes are armed to the teeth.
The people buy their own weapons and have them in their houses.

An insurgent army of 20.000 need stockpiles of weapons and ammo. They don´t keep 10 magazins at home to be able to defend oneself against robbers etc.
They need more.

Analysis and critical thinking leads to proofs.

Since neither you nor I can go and do field research, we have to stick to logic and common sense.

Good luck with that. ;-)

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Oh you mean proof is when I go to Afghanistan and collect the bills for whatever the Taliban have paid for and get their bank accounts and find out about the flow of cash?

Well, I can flip the coin and ask you to provide me with the nonsense that you have said so far that Taliban are fighting with Jezails and old Russian weapons.

What´s the proof of that?
And for how long can you shoot an AK-47 or RPG gun or a machine gun without needing spare parts or new barrels?

You cannot fool here anyone.

And yes, Pashtun tribes are armed to the teeth.
The people buy their own weapons and have them in their houses.

An insurgent army of 20.000 need stockpiles of weapons and ammo. They don´t keep 10 magazins at home to be able to defend oneself against robbers etc.
They need more.

Analysis and critical thinking leads to proofs.

Since neither you nor I can go and do field research, we have to stick to logic and common sense.

Good luck with that. ;-)

Salamoona Mostafa

Im trying to distill down your argument.

So when I look at your argument, I want to seize on the set of theories that underly it and to simplify these and discuss them.

It appears to rest on a few, unsound, in my opinion, arguments, and I aim to show why they are unsound arguments.

1) Assumption 1: The Taliban spend most of their time firing bullets and fighting the way a conventional insurgency in the modern era has taken on a superior army.

This dangerous assumption is simply wrong because it means that you are assuming fighting formations, tactics, raids done, and bullets fired without an iota of proof that such measures are routinely done by the "men in black turbans" to satisfy some grossly exaggerated numbers you cite above. In general, when we examine the logs of US soldiers and descriptions of direct fire fights where the US soldiers felt confronted by a coordinate raid, they are few and far between. As anicdote is that not why the are called "Ghosts" by their adversary US soldiers? They fire a few times and disappear. The most memorable sustained fire fights generally make it into the news. The correlation has to be taken in light of fluctuations in the use of US air power. A major factor in US world dominance that you rarely entertain in your discussion. It is an immense bottle neck on actually ever ensuring the insurgency does away with its assymetric tactics.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...rikes_091109w/

2) Assumption number 2:
That by receding into safer territory the Taliban's views and struggle are somehow not innate to Afghan sentiments. I think this is the main premise on which all your arguments rest.

This notion hinges on the idea that any insurgency requires a safe haven and popular support, yet you do not complete the analysis in the CONTEXT of this war examining all the variables inherent to this conflict. Applying the history of war does not mean that one regurgitates facts... but that one applies what one knows about warfare to the current situation at hand and adds to the growing knowledge of war. For instance, drone warfare and IED utilization are two major contributions the US and the insurgency have each made to the history of warfare.

So to play this out, yes, if an insurgency, like say, FARC is fighting a nonsuper power entity it makes sense to take refuge closer to your enemy and hide amongst your foe. There are many indicators that the Taliban do the latter as well. The Taliban that fired the rocket into the helicopter taking down members of SEAL team 6 were hiding amongst villagers that the US subsequently abused to try and find the men who fired the rockets. Instead, its astute that they use this concept of Western invented boundary lines (and we both accept that Pakistan is a Western designed country) against its own creators. It would be foolish for the Taliban to not recede into NATO recognized "no go" zones for their benefit. Basically, its like you telling them: Hey Talib, I believe that you would be more valiant and Afghan if you ran into a drone hit zone and waved your arms and then, if you didnt get killed by that... I want you to run into a hail of bulletts.

I think this is pure and utter opinion by yourself and you need to prove this. If your response is simply: well why would you need backward operating bases if you have the support of the people?

The same reason that Nadir Shah utilized a backward operating base, the same reason that the Muj factions utilized backward operating bases, and the same reason that anyone fighting an enemy that has IR driven drone utilized identification of warm bodies on the ground would against such a superior force. Perhaps one would best do to ask Amanullah Shah why he utilized the FATA region of then British India as the place from which to launch his advance against Bachaay Saqo.

Quiet simply, kindred groups like kurds and Pashtuns utilizing large tracts of lands with porous borders is the null hypothesis and your hypothesis requires some more dependable evidence to prove some nefarious "by and for Pakistan in all and every case." For instance, Kurds hitting Turkey from Iraq may have some supports from the Iraq based Kurdish groups, yet individual tribes may have their own goals.

Assumption number 3: Ties together assumption number 1 and 2 which is that the Taliban

A) Must eat and someone must be helping them eat. And? This proves what? Basically you are saying: People eat because they eat. The same guys would have been eating elsewhere as well. Jamiat Islami and other groups may very well have a Muslim Brotherhood style ability to organize such nutritional reserves for the Taliban and others. On the Afghan side of the border these men are already members of various tribes. Had they not picked up the gun to fight there is no proof that they somehow have a mandatory ban on eating as they had before they did so.

And once again its an error of assumption that if you are eating in Pakistan or in Kandahar that you automatically have loyalties to the one feeding you.

This is the murky area where you ask us to believe that two people with slightly overlapped goals (Jamiat and the Taliban) have exactly equivalent overlapped goals because food is shared.

You also forget that in times of war the local cleric has a galvanizing effect. Masajids and madrassas activate and become storage facilities, feeding centers, and collection centers. This is proven in the fact that across the Muslim world from Iraq to Afghanistan the US has destroyed weapons depots in mosques.

B) Regarding weaponry and its utility... as noted there is a gaping hole in your theory in the fact that the more assymmetric a war becomes the more likely folks will resort to more desparate means. The Chinese poisoning the bread of British soldiers during that occupation is one example. In this war as noted above, the IED and the suicide agent as well as the embedded ANA lackey are weapons in the insurgency arsenal.

Regarding proof of the the Taliban having to resort to Korean war era and even older weaponry, I previously discussed poignant images of Commander Dauran and his faction captured by Paul Refsdahl in the only embedded journalism behind Taliban lines. A subsequent piece by Najibullah Querishi focusing on Hezbi fighters also shows a motly array of fighters that are relying on road side bombs.

The fertilizer for such weapons does come from Pakistan. In fact, the US has been working with pakistan to find a solution to that chemical component finding its way to insurgents. Yet the CIA has not been able to do an A to Z chain in any way whatsoever showing that anyone besides civilians (ie no military personel) are providing Afghan insurgents this weapon.

Regarding the debate about AKs and MI6s etc. i will refer you to a lengthy discussion Scimitar and I had about this same issue:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthr...enfield&page=2

"The dramatic assymetry between the insurgents and the occupier force can be demonstrated by the number of Lee Enfield rifles being discovered on the battlefield. The Lee Enfield is a British Era weapon to drive home the point.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...-1-22-2009.asp

If one does not want to accept strategypage's musings, then the NY Times assessment should suffice:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...an-gun-locker/

"Insurgents in Helmand Province seem to have used bolt-action rifles more than in many regions of Afghanistan. Whether this indicates a pressure on the supply of assault rifles and their ammunition or a preference for the longer effective ranges of Lee-Enfield and Mosin-Nagant rifles is not clear. But the longer range of bolt-action rifles compared with assault rifles, and their relative abundance in Helmand Province, is a reason this particular acreage of Afghanistan has a reputation as being plagued by a more dangerous set of Afghan marksmen, and even a few snipers, as seen in this video. For those who have been under fire in Helmand, finding that a large fraction of captured rifles are Lee-Enfields or Mosin-Nagants is not surprising. This battalion’s battlefield collections fit its Marines’ experiences on patrol."

Lest Randolph or SXE attempt to harp on the increased accuracy of the Lee Enfield, I would say that they are sorely missing the point.

Here is an example from video, via the Times of the sort of tactic they are advocating. One must remember that in the Russian-Afghan war, AK47s abounded and they decreased accuracy. Initially, the rapid fire sequence would cause the muzzle to rise and point to the sky in a display of idiocy (this occured per the conservational laws of physics and is the reason why the M16 has a rapid fire sequence that terminates after a few bullets), and the single shot itself is also not as accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_rise

Nonetheless, a generation of fighters was trained on these easy to manufacture, easily imitated, and cheap weapons.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...at-matter.html

This video more than adequately proves the point the strategist makes in the first article:

"In the last year, NATO units in southern Afghanistan estimate there has been a 25 percent increase in sniping incidents. This is not seen as a major danger. NATO troops wear protective bests and helmets that can stop bullets fired at long range, making it very frustrating for the Taliban shooters trying to hit a distant target in a vulnerable spot."

Despite the fact that 1 in a group of say 100 Talibs is sniper trained, he merely was able to cause his American counterpart (where a majority are trained to fire with accuracy) a shoulder injury with a good shot.

Why are 99/100 Talibs not sniper quality? Anyone who has ever fired a pistol and travelled to Afghanistan knows the answer to that question. There is no Wal Mart Wana or Wal Mart Kandahar with massive rounds of ammo available cheaply. The cost of ammo to waste to utilize in training is just too great in such settings. The gunsmiths of dar adam would not able to and are not able to churn out the sufficient number of bullets to ensure this level of lethal accuracy training. The average number of shots fired by an American trained policeman in city violence situations is 3-4 rounds.

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles...ing/combat.htm

So we have an evidence based situation: The Talib is equipped with an AK and possibly a Lee Enfield. The AK is less accurate, and the old AKs lack the rapid fire sequence that terminates and allows for some level of increased accuracy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Refer to links above to answer your request for proof regarding the Taliban having to utilize even British era weaponry... the NY Times article provides pictures of the weapon caches themselves.

So in summary, what you are asking us to do is to say:

1) Because your father taught you so: the Taliban are Pakistani agents and are automatons without any sentiments mirroring Afghan mores at all.

We cannot accept this simply because you believe it because the alternate theory that they are legitimate resistance force that utilizes theh "any means necessary" doctrine is just as probable

2) Accept the ahistorical narrative that Pakistan sought to bring a devastating war to its backyard by the Brzenski phemomena alone. That is, you would lead us to believe that Brzenski was the egg and the war was the chicken.

If we accepted that the debate would be over. That ahistorical narrative does not explain the Russian advances into Tajikistan and the other istan states. Where the Pakistanis also to blame for Russkey incursions into Dagestan? Into Uzbekistan? There is precedent the Russians had already set. The greater probability is that the Pakistanis and the Americans took a baseline low level inflammation and insurgency against growing Russian influence that the Sardar Daud government had allowed and put it on steroids. To claim that the whole Afghan Russian War was Pakistani manufactured whole cloth is a denial of recorded history my friend.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Also Mostafa there is a now famous interview with a Talib commander by dateline where he affirms that the Taliban understand the desparate position they are in. He laments to the reporter the fact that various leaders are given up as sacrifices by the Pakistanis from time to time to make the semblance of them being on the US's side. It basically accords with Zaeefs characterization of Pakistan as being the snake with many heads or being able to get milk from a bull.

The Taliban appear to have actually answered the double game with a partial double game of their own. To date we have not seen an Afghan taliban contingent kill TTP faction Taliban despite the assertion that they are both ISI lackeys. Yet what we have seen is that the Taliban puts out occasonal statements urging the TTP to focus their anger across the durand line. To assume taht the Quetta shura is unaware or is just asleep at the wheel as TTP factions kill Pakistani soldiers (and there are bodies to prove they do and have killed Pakistani citizens and soldiers) is naive. Basically the Afghan Taliban appear to undersatnd they require their own "strategic depth" to fight the most assymetric war to date ever recorded... but they also understand their host's goals are not purely in line with their own. Therefore, no effort has been made to help the ISI/Pakistani military complex take out TTP leaders or do serious reprimands to them. Its sort of a game of: Well you prime the supply lines that kill us... and you look the other way (to Paksitan) so we wont say much when some TTP guys try to take out those lines and attack you. They may distance themselves from the act in terms of verbage and nounage but they generally are just looking the other way. Pakistan in turn has taken the game to the gamers by allowing the US to coordinate drone attacks against the TTP folks.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

usually not, but when the person in question advocates the deaths of innocent afghans, id say calling him a fatty is probably not bad in comparison.

The point was utterly missed. First of all, ... calling someone adipose endowed appears to be a complement in some Pashtun circles. Second, i think you got this, but I shall complete the thought: My point to Soldat was that as his a-ss has been collecting this fatty tissue in Britain while dining on KFC and other British goods Royal Marines were eating MRE meals from packets and probably not advancing their midline. The goal was for him to get off his a-ss on the west and join the marines, not out of any special concern for the marines but rather to live up to his ideals. After all, his enemies appear to be living up theirs. Instead of finding them and killing them for his adopted country and ridding them of a UK affirmed menace... he chooses to generate foolish videos.

Insulin resistance with time ensures that all our metabolisms are slowing down. This was not a comment on Soldat's beauty or merits in male modeling.

Regarding the wearing black comment I am sure he understood that was a joke.

[faye]

it'd be good to hear from some real afghans that actually live in afghanistan. it is real sweet of al-hanif, a moroccan, living in france, ahab the arab, living who knows where, ghundal, the pakistani living in the states, 2010 living in paris, catya sher an american and all the other fundamentalists, WHO DO NOT AND MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER, live in afghanistan.....wishing for the people of that country, to be oppressed by the taliban. whilst they are flouncing about the world with their internets, english language, education and freedom, spouting hatred.

[Ghundal]

I am Muslim, and then I am Pashtun. Dont try to forward a narrative where you mean to say that Afghans/Pashtun want permanent occupation/war of their country

So, the Europeans who massacred the Native Aboriginal population of Australia are concerned for Afghans?

You think Afghans want never ending war ?

they dont want the Aboriginal Holocaust committed by the Euros in Australia and the Jewish Holocaust committed by the Euros in Europe.

Think of those little childrens cries as their villages were burned down and their families murdered.

[faye]

blah..blah..blah! but you are also a pakistani/ american, yay or nay, ghundal?
you hate america and you claim you are upset with pakistan and that pakistan doesn't support taliban....right? then how come you are the representative for the taliban on pf? and how come for months you have been claiming that so many of the pashtuns and others on here, are all liars, uncle toms, pro war and hypocrites?
who are you really working for ghundal?
you even speak as though you are the spokesperson for ALL afghans!!!
by the way, who's the other person sharing your account or do you have a split personality?