if you have any questions to the taliban here you can ask them!!

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Larry Sinclair said

But Merely saying "Weak" doesn't make it false; you have not presented ny reason why it is weak; except that he is Indian. LOL


That's called Ad-Hominem and not a legitimate justification for claiming it is weak

[khushal]

http://books.google.com/books?id=dld...0women&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=n8j...0women&f=false

Just because the Taliban claimed to uphold shari'ah doesn't mean they did.

these sources are useless, the first by ahmed rashid basically quotes a tajik commander saying all the attrocities the taliban committed which could not be verified.
the second book talks about what happened when at least 3000 taliban were ambushed and massacred in mazar after a peace deal was agreed apon. that was a reaction to the massacre.

[Karpo]

How do you determine if its weak?

you just respond back claiming it is weak....not why, you denying something doesn't make it untrue.


If your reasoning for why it is weak is because it's a "Western" or because it is "Ahmed Rashid" then your counter claim is biased; That's called Ad-Hominem

Larry Sinclair said that he had homosexual sex with Obama in a limousine.
Is it true? Now if several people confirm that Larry Sinclair had homosexual sex with Obama in a limousine, then its validity strengthens, but if only a few people do, and not several, then it is he said, she said nonsense.

If you believe the above unconfirmed and un-authentic story about alleged actions of the Taliban, then you probably also would believe what Larry Sinclair says. Thus, your reasoning and method of corroborating something is weak. If I say that Timmy punched Goerge , is it true?


There you have it

[RevolutionThroughReason]

these sources are useless, the first by ahmed rashid basically quotes a tajik commander saying all the attrocities the taliban committed which could not be verified.
the second book talks about what happened when at least 3000 taliban were ambushed and massacred in mazar after a peace deal was agreed apon. that was a reaction to the massacre.

Raping is never a valid reaction to a Massacre. Also you're commiting a logical fallacy in respects to the first one

No legitimate reasons for discrediting the sources.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Larry Sinclair

That's not a cogent reasoning for the lack of credibility of these sources. False Analogy.

[khushal]

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,...,0,IRBC,,.html

Afghanistan: Information on house-to-house searches by the Taliban in the province of Maidan in January 1995 killing all Hazara men and raping and kidnapping the women


Information on the above-mentioned topic could not be found among the sources consulted by the DIRB. Please note that Maidan is not a province but a city located 25 kilometers southwest of Kabul. Refered to as Maydanshahr or Maidan-Shahr, it is located in Wardak province. According to the attached map from Olivier Roy's book Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War, the Hazara community can be found in the provinces of Bamiyan, Parwan, Wardak and in the city of Maydanshahr.

The DIRB could not find any reports about a massacre perpetrated by the Talibans against the Hazara community in Maydanshahr in January 1995. The attached articles from the Agence France-Presse (4 Feb. 1995) and Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network (5 Feb. 1995) outline that Maydanshahr was taken over by the Taliban in February 1995.

An April 1995 Amnesty International Report states that

In recent months, dozens of prisoners have received punishments including execution and amputation ordered by Islamic courts set up in areas controlled by the Taleban in Afghanistan. Several men have been executed in Taleban-controlled areas on charges of murder. At least three men have had their hands and feet chopped off on charges of theft. Several Hezb-e Wahdat leaders have died in the custody of the Taleban in circumstances which raise concern that they may have been killed deliberately and arbitrarily; and 22 corpses discovered in a mass grave in Charasyab in March were believed to have been the bodies of prisoners allegedly killed by the Taleban (1).

The report also mentions that the Taleban

emerged as a strong military and political force in November 1994 when they captured the city of Kandahar from the Mujahideen groups. They reportedly have full control over at least nine of Afghanistan's 30 provinces, by far the largest number of provinces controlled by a single armed political group. The Taleban's most significant advance was the capture in February 1995 of Maydan Shahr (ibid.).

Finally, the report adds that "the Taleban have claimed that poppy cultivation, looting, abducion and rape of women and children — reportedly so characteristic of the previous Mujahideen rulers — have now stopped in the Taleban-controlled areas" (ibid., 2).

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995 reports that

While the Taliban were generally acknowledged to have been more successful than other factions in restoring peace and order to areas under their control, they also were reputed to enforce strict Islamic punishments in areas that they controlled — public executions, amputations of hand and feet for theft, and restricting women's rights by preventing them from working and girls from attending schools (1996, 1288).

The report also adds that

In March Abdul Ali Mazari, the leader of an anti-Rabbani Shi'a faction, was killed while in the custody of the Taliban. The Taliban carried out public executions of purportedly corrupt officials in certain areas they controlled. In March a mass grave with 22 bodies was found south of Kabul; 20 of the deceased were Shi'a Muslims of the Hazara ethnic minority. They apparently were killed execution style with ther hands tied behind their backs and bullets fired into their heads. It was unclear who was responsible for the Shi'a deaths (ibid.).

For additional information on the recent events in Afghanistan, please consult the attached articles.

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the DIRB within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.

References

Agence France Presse. 4 February 1995. Hervé Clerc. "New Religious Movement Has Kabul in Its Sights." (NEXIS)

Amnesty International (AI). April 1995. "Afghanistan: Executions, amputations, and possible deliberate and arbitrary killings." (AI Index: ASA 11/05/95). London: Amnesty International.

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995. 1996. United States Department of State. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Roy, Olivier. 1995. Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, n.p.

Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network [Tehran, in Persian]. 5 February 1995. "Internal Affairs; Religious Students Continue Advance Towards Kabul." (BBC Summary 7 Feb. 1995/NEXIS)

Attachments

Agence France Presse. 4 February 1995. Hervé Clerc. "New Religious Movement Has Kabul in Its Sights." (NEXIS)

Amnesty International (AI). 16 March 1995. "Afghanistan: Amnesty International Condemns Deliberate and Arbitrary Killings, Torture and Rape." (AI Index: ASA 11/WU 01/95). London: Amnesty International.

Asian Survey [Berkeley, CA]. February 1996. Vol. 36, No. 2. Zalmay Khalilzad. "Afghanistan in 1995: Civil War and a Mini-Great Game," pp. 190-95.

Asiaweek [London]. 3 March 1995. "Afghanistan: The Rise of the Taliban," pp. 26-27.

The Women's Watch [Minneapolis]. April 1996. Vol. 9, No. 4. "Human Rights," p. 4.

Roy, Olivier. 1995. Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, n.p.

Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network [Tehran, in Persian]. 5 February 1995. "Internal Affairs; Religious Students Continue Advance Towards Kabul." (BBC Summary 7 Feb. 1995/NEXIS)

This is also weak, iranian agents were also killed in taliban custody. those were all war criminals. you have no idea what happened during the warlord days. all those warlords should be tried and punished.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

So basically Both Khushal and Karpo's reasoning for why these sources are weak

are

1.) The author is Indian
2.) the source is Iranian
3.) The source is Tajik
4.) Some nebulous analogy about Larry Sinclair somehow makes the sources no longer credible

The last one AT BEST merely says that more investigation is needed NOT that the source itself is weak.



In essence you're both using logical fallacies as grounds for why you draw such conclusions.

This indicates your bias in regards to evidence of crimes done by the Taliban; and that you refuse to acknowledge it. Otherwise you would have logical reasons for why ithey are weak not

"he's Indian ...Tajik .......Larry Sinclair ...etc etc etc"

[RevolutionThroughReason]

This is also weak, iranian agents were also killed in taliban custody. those were all war criminals. you have no idea what happened during the warlord days. all those warlords should be tried and punished.

That doesn't change the truth value of the report.


See my post on Circumstantial Ad-Hominem

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.

Your counter reasoning itself is weak

[khushal]

Raping is never a valid reaction to a Massacre. Also you're commiting a logical fallacy in respects to the first one

No legitimate reasons for discrediting the sources.

so what your saying is that what ever a tajik commander says about his enemy that shamed him in battle is telling the truth. ahmed rashid is just quoteing some tajik commander that he cant even name.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

so what your saying is that what ever a tajik commander says about .

What I am saying is merely saying "Oh look Tajik commander" doesn't discredit the report, by simple logic

examine circumstantial ad-hominem once again if you didn't get it the first three times

[khushal]

That doesn't change the truth value of the report.


See my post on Circumstantial Ad-Hominem



Your counter reasoning itself is weak

the truth value of the report is from a source that made plans to invade the country. Iran was making plans to invade, ofcourse they have motive to lie.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

the truth value of the report is from a source that made plans to invade the country. Iran was making plans to invade, ofcourse they have motive to lie.

circumstantial ad-hominem once again.

not admissible rebuttal by logical rules sorry

[khushal]

What I am saying is merely saying "Oh look Tajik commander" doesn't discredit the report, by simple logic

examine circumstantial ad-hominem once again if you didn't get it the first three times

thats not ad-HOMINEM
but he cant even name the tajik commander, we dont even know if the person existed.

[khushal]

circumstantial ad-hominem once again.

not admissible rebuttal by logical rules sorry

so when the US made plans to invade Iraq, they actually were telling the truth that Saddam posses WMD.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

thats not ad-HOMINEM
but he cant even name the tajik commander, we dont even know if the person existed.

Check his foot notes.

and you're changing goal posts now; first it was because he was Tajik and now it was because he didn't name it in the text? Goal Post changing definitely

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.