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

[khushal]

contact Ahmed Rashid or check the foot notes.

and why is it you want to go through this with a fine toothed comb.....but ll your comments about why and why didnt the Taiban do some things were valid on your word alone?

I did and his secretary who I can not name said that the whole book is fiction.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I did and his secretary who I can not name said that the whole book is fiction.

really? wow that was fast.

[khushal]

I didn't claim that these sources of false? You did; I did my job in showing sources; now you have to show they're weak

so far you're not doing that what so ever. You're grasping for the Tajik card, Circumstantial ad-hominem.

Getting desperate it seems.

I asked for proof and you gave us sources that are questionable so you really have not proved anything. one source quotes someone that has no name and the other is iranian who was making plans to invade.

[Karpo]

right and you haven't shown that these are not authentic. The authors of both have citations and footnotes; it's your job now to disprove them.

Im not going to do your job for you

Is it my duty to look for other sources confirming that Taliban raped Hazara women?

No, your stating it is fact based on a SINGLE shady source, so it is your duty to authenticate/ corroborate it with other several sources which show incident X occurred at place such and such.

Corroborate

corroborate


cor·rob·o·rate

verb \kə-ˈrä-bə-ˌrāt\
cor·rob·o·rat·edcor·rob·o·rat·ing
Definition of CORROBORATE

transitive verb
: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain

— cor·rob·o·ra·tion noun
— cor·rob·o·ra·tive adjective
— cor·rob·o·ra·tor noun
— cor·rob·o·ra·to·ry adjective

See corroborate defined for English-language learners »

See corroborate defined for kids »

Examples of CORROBORATE

1. <the witnesses corroborated the policeman's testimony>
2. <my personal experience does not corroborate your faith in the essential goodness of people>
3. Studies that are wrong will be superseded by better studies with different results. Studies that are right will be corroborated by other good studies. —Harriet Hall, Skeptic, 2007
4. [+]more

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I asked for proof and you gave us sources that are questionable so you really have not proved anything. one source quotes someone that has no name and the other is iranian who was making plans to invade.

They werent questionable because your "qiuestioning" was circumstantial ad-hominems and false association.


These are not legitimate grounds. ...apparently logic is of very little importance to you.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Im not going to do your job for you

Is it my duty to look for other sources confirming that Taliban raped Hazara women?

No, your stating it is fact based on a SINGLE shady source, so it is your duty to authenticate/ corroborate it with other several sources which show incident X occurred at place such and such.
]

But your claims that they're shady are based on False reasons , like ethnicity;

something doesnt become "shady" because the author is Indian. You still have no grounds to claim theyre uncorroborated. The author has foot notes and thus has corroborated them.

It's your duty to PROVE these sources are not legit

so far ....nothing.

[Karpo]

But your claims that they're shady are based on False reasons , like ethnicity;

something doesnt become "shady" because the author is Indian. You still have no grounds to claim theyre uncorroborated. The author has foot notes and thus has corroborated them.

It's your duty to PROVE these sources are not legit

so far ....nothing.

Excuse me, your the one who is supposed to be convincing others that this event happened which means you need to provide more than one source to authenticate it.

I dont believe the claim made in this source. Show me the other sources since I dont believe it.

It is your duty to prove these claims to be true with several other sources in order to authenticate. Your attempt to assign that duty to me is ridiculous since I in the first place did not make the claim that Taliban raped Hazara women


So, go ahead and authenticate. If the the FOOTNOTES provide further authentication then it is your job to go and pull out all the supposed sources which authenticate this obscure and weak claim.


NOT mine

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Excuse me, your the one who is supposed to be convincing others that this event happened which means you need to provide more than one source to authenticate it.

I dont believe the claim made in this source. Show me the other sources since I dont believe it.

It is your duty to prove these claims to be true with several other sources in order to authenticate. Your attempt to assign that duty to me is ridiculous since I in the first place did not make the claim that Taliban raped Hazara women


So, go ahead and authenticate. If the the FOOTNOTES provide further authentication then it is your job to go and pull out all the supposed sources which authenticate this obscure and weak claim.


NOT mine

I dont have to "convince you" I just have to show it is real; Gallileo proved the Earth is round and showed evidence, but the Catholic Church rejected it for centuries

Same applies here; I showed you that the Taliban raping women is real; very real and very well documented and confirmed. You deny the evidence

thus it is YOUR job to prove that this is false evidence because That is what you're claiming. I did MY end of the deal.

sorry

[Karpo]

you did not provide an authentic source to confirm that Taliban raped women.

You provided a SINGLE and questionable source that now appears to be completely fabricated due to your INABILITY to authenticate with several other sources.


I can say that RevolutionthroughReason raped some woman yesterday at 3pm, and that I saw Revolutionthroughreason do that in lets say the middle of Central Park- I can then report and write this in a book.

Without other sources that authenticate this single account I am giving, my account stand weak, and unbelievable.

If someone then googles it, and comes across this single report, does it mean that it is true that RevolutiothroughReason committed this crime?

your one 'source" (if it can even be called that) is not authenticated. I did not define authentic, the dictionary did

Means nothing

[abassinafghan]

kushal , why talib lala didnt understand communism ???

i mean he understand that making land reforms were kufr , he understood that the same people who burned down kabul , khandahar , herat , were not communists or russians , but the same people who also wear beards and called them self mujaheddin ??? should i shave my beard now

it seems you try to play tricks ? so stalin had a mustache , but marx , had a full beard .... he was an atheist jew...... he actually created the ideological base for communism , so should i shave my beard now ???

most of the 18th. century angress , had beards , they attacked us 3 times , so should i shave my beard ?

trying to explain or defend a stupid "law " and then telling "oh it was not like this "

by showing pictures of some who has got a light beard , is not a proof ....

and it was not only in kabul but also in khandahar , and now it was not some knd of special police like in saudi arabia ...

there were more than enough parchamian who had beards , there more then enough "good " muslims like the isi khars who didnt like to have beards .

so connecting some one with having a beard or not to a certain political direction is just stupid .... and your try to explain it and making a point by trying to tell fairy tales is just weak

[RevolutionThroughReason]

you did not provide an authentic source to confirm that Taliban raped women.

You provided a SINGLE and questionable source that now appears to be completely fabricated due to your INABILITY to authenticate with several other sources.


I can say that RevolutionthroughReason raped some woman yesterday at 3pm, and that I saw Revolutionthroughreason do that in lets say the middle of Central Park- I can then report and write this in a book.

Without other sources that authenticate this single account I am giving, my account stand weak, and unbelievable.

If someone then googles it, and comes across this single report, does it mean that it is true that RevolutiothroughReason committed this crime?

your one 'source" (if it can even be called that) is not authenticated. I did not define authentic, the dictionary did

Means nothing

But you're in a loop because you have as of yet not provided a single LEGITIMATE, key word , legitimate reason why any of these sources are not authentic. Your job NOW is to show it is in fact inauthentic. Anyone can say any source of "being questionable? So that is irrelevant Your reasoning has been faulty. Here's why. So far your reasons have been "He's Indian ...." which is a completely illogical and nonsensical reasoning. Your friend Khushal's reasoning has using similar forms of circumstantial ad-hominem.

If you look in ALL my sources They ALL have foot notes; so your little fabricating a story about me analogy FAILS terribly there. None of these sources pulls anything out of the air as you suggest. Go look in the foot notes They give you the sources there.

Your basis for claim lack any Logical merit. So the authenticity of these sources is still not disproven. That's just how logic works.

Simply put; you're making excuses for being in denial.

[khushal]

kushal , why talib lala didnt understand communism ???

i mean he understand that making land reforms were kufr , he understood that the same people who burned down kabul , khandahar , herat , were not communists or russians , but the same people who also wear beards and called them self mujaheddin ??? should i shave my beard now

it seems you try to play tricks ? so stalin had a mustache , but marx , had a full beard .... he was an atheist jew...... he actually created the ideological base for communism , so should i shave my beard now ???

most of the 18th. century angress , had beards , they attacked us 3 times , so should i shave my beard ?

trying to explain or defend a stupid "law " and then telling "oh it was not like this "

by showing pictures of some who has got a light beard , is not a proof ....

and it was not only in kabul but also in khandahar , and now it was not some knd of special police like in saudi arabia ...

there were more than enough parchamian who had beards , there more then enough "good " muslims like the isi khars who didnt like to have beards .

so connecting some one with having a beard or not to a certain political direction is just stupid .... and your try to explain it and making a point by trying to tell fairy tales is just weak

go ask a talib what the communist ideology is, he would go on about how they dont beleive in god and they came to afghanistan to force people to not beleive in god. they dont know anything about the economical aspect of it. yes the destruction of the cities was done by the majahadeen but they still blame the root cause of it on the commies. everytime there was a debate with a talib, he would always make the point of how the commies operated and the majority would go with their flow.

Its kind of like how Bush operated after 911 in America. Everytime a senator would speak up about the policies he was implementing, he would label that senator unpatriotic and would tell people that the senator is endangering America. the majority of Americas would go with his flow even though his policies were stupid.

but I am not defending stupid laws, I am mearly explaining why those laws came to be. There are many stupid laws in America that are outdated but still on the books. They are stupid laws but there is also a reason why those laws came into being.

here is a sample:
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama
Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.
Why does this law exist?
Full text of the law.
Incestuous marriages are legal.
Full text of the law.
It is illegal to impersonate a person of the clergy.
Full text of the law.
It is illegal to maim oneself to escape duty.
Full text of the law.
It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
Full text of the law.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

but I am not defending stupid laws, I am mearly explaining why those laws came to be.

Actually for many of these if not all of these, you're MAKING UP reasons as you go along. How Ironic you demand sources and thorough details of evidence for Taliban crimes; but You'll us your AD-HOC apologetic and pass this as a legitimate proof for the Taliban agenda, with nothing else to support it.

Yet you'll question evidence on the most baseless reasoning.


You sir are have demonstrated evidence that your intention here is to exonerate the Taliban; not represent truth.

[khushal]

Actually for many of these if not all of these, you're MAKING UP reasons as you go along. How Ironic you demand sources and thorough details of evidence for Taliban crimes; but You'll us your AD-HOC apologetic and pass this as a legitimate proof for the Taliban agenda, with nothing else to support it.

Yet you'll question evidence on the most baseless reasoning.


You sir are have demonstrated evidence that your intention here is to exonerate the Taliban; not represent truth.

you are not on the side of truth. First you have to realize how social behavior works and how people are manipulated and diverted to a certain opinion.
Lets examine America since your more familiar with that society. After 911 Bush diverted the people anger to implement irrational neo conservative policies. He also manipulated the people angers and thirst for revenge to invade Iraq even though every sane person knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. He labeled every person that opposed his views as unpatriotic and cowards. the majority of the population went with him even though he talked like an idiot, looked like an idiot, and made policies that limited freedoms for the people that supported him. He told the Amreican people " I am going to take your rights away so I can protect you" and the American people went with it.
This is how he manipulated the american people: "I am protecting you"
Bush goes nuts on matt lauer - YouTube[/URL]

The Taliban did the same thing. It was the political environment that made both idiot successful in the irrationality.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

you are not on the side of truth. First you have to realize how social behavior works and how people are manipulated and diverted to a certain opinion.


The Taliban did the same thing. It was the political environment that made both idiot successful in the irrationality.

If I am not on the side of truth, this would make you Taliban's Joseph Goebbels.


Bush as an idiot, so if you're saying Taliban are idiots; I would agree the analogy holds.

however,the Bushian narrative is documented from the Bush Administration, Taliban one, is just some scant references with more or less individuals abroad giving apologetics.