22 dead in Kabul hotel attack

[BarakzaiAbdali]

do you think the americans will leave afghanistan, barakzai?

i wil be interested to see what more information comes from this attack at hotel situation. sometimes the first snippets of info that are handed out from situations like this, seem truer than what is announced later and sometimes it is vice versa.

Thanks Faye, a very reasonable assessment.

I have no idea anymore. Up close their military has awesome might that is really technologically without parallel. But at the same time, America's economy is a very important aspect of what plays to the democracy here. Yet both democratic parties march in lock step so I am about as up to speed as you in conjecture.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well, we can let him interpret the comparison on his own time.

Your commentary above is nonsensical. I have no idea what you mean. Once again, no where did I say anything about popular support.

You dont need popular support to say that a whole bunch of people simultaneously may not like one group of people. For instance, it appears much of the world is mad at Americans for one thing or another. South Americans may not provide the Taliban with mass support, but if the Taliban rout NATO from Afghanistan or cause them to leave through attrition, I am sure Hugo Chavez wont cry any tears. The Kabuli might feel one and the same.

See Scimitar? thats a better situational comparison.

As I noted before, you have some strange agenda when it comes to the Taliban. I dont know whether someone you know got off'd or whether a Talib beat up someone in your parent's village, but you superimpose wants and an emotional assessment over a logical one.

So I stand strong behind my original assessment that this attack has likely not made much of a PR deficit for the Afghan Taliban than already existed or the prior stable baseline. Doesnt mean that had popular support, no support or lukewarm support.

Well being that you could magically infer what exactly Admin wror thinks from a mere statement of how he liked your velvety prose might might be a hint as to where your confusion may arise.

You're right I do have an agenda against the Taliban; as I do any Fraudulent claim of standing for resistance under the banner of Islamic Piety when doing precisely the opposite.

As Mostafa wror relayed earlier; It discredits any movement to be killing the very people they're claiming to protect.

but likewise you appear to have an agenda too ..an Agenda to find whatever way you can even by intellectually dishonest means to exonerate the Taliban; improve the Taliban's PR and make the heinous acts of injustice seem like noble acts of resistance.


I would say on the basis of ethics; yours would be more misguided by erratic emotions than mine would.

That's a "better" situational analogy? seriously? This is an UnknownPrince style narrative, leading the witness and giving a narrative of how to intepret the information we have available.

If this was an attempt at ousting NATO you might have a pot to piss in. But as far as something can be inferred, NATO soldiers slept comfortably last night, while possibly 20 Afghan families lives are now shattered. So the NATO scapegoat being used for emotional pull wouldn't apply here.


You can still believe what you want; but I'll be happily to point why your beliefs are nonsense.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Oh my god man we all laughing now at silly Arab trying to say he belongs with Pashtuns. You belong in yemini forum jack a/s's

Lol you belong to the banned members dumpster .....you can laugh all you want but remember you're banned and I'm not ....if you were actually one of us, you woudn't be getting booted off every time you make a new name.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Guess who has hair who is engaged while 13 years younger than you and who is 100% Afghan from both parents? Not you terrorism sympathizer become coward!

NOT you, since you're punjabi

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Well being that you could magically infer what exactly Admin wror thinks from a mere statement of how he liked your velvety prose might might be a hint as to where your confusion may arise.

You're right I do have an agenda against the Taliban; as I do any Fraudulent claim of standing for resistance under the banner of Islamic Piety when doing precisely the opposite.

As Mostafa wror relayed earlier; It discredits any movement to be killing the very people they're claiming to protect.

but likewise you appear to have an agenda too ..an Agenda to find whatever way you can even by intellectually dishonest means to exonerate the Taliban; improve the Taliban's PR and make the heinous acts of injustice seem like noble acts of resistance.


I would say on the basis of ethics; yours would be more misguided by erratic emotions than mine would.

That's a "better" situational analogy? seriously? This is an UnknownPrince style narrative, leading the witness and giving a narrative of how to intepret the information we have available.

If this was an attempt at ousting NATO you might have a pot to piss in. But as far as something can be inferred, NATO soldiers slept comfortably last night, while possibly 20 Afghan families lives are now shattered. So the NATO scapegoat being used for emotional pull wouldn't apply here.


You can still believe what you want; but I'll be happily to point why your beliefs are nonsense.

Thank you for admitting your partiality. Thats a start. Exonerating the Taliban is not my business. That is Mr. Karzai's who has called them watandaraan and who has called them, in two words, misguided brethren. I would say even Karzai appears able to have a cogent and rational discussion about them compared to you where you will generate nonevidence or at least push it to its utter most outer limits to suit the admitted agenda you stated

It is my business however to point out that the Taliban are Afghans. Thats something that even my detractors have admitted. Soldat himself has labeled them as such but merely wants them pulverized, drawn, and quartered. With that in mind, that they are Afghans, I certainly think they have a stake in the future of their country.

Take for instance your approach to the bike bomb posting. How do you know that the Taliban did it?

With respect to the situational analogy, calling it unknownprincian doesnt negate it. Thats merely labeling it because you cant debunk it.

It appears you and Mr. Taniwal disagree about why and how some sort of evolution of thought occurred in your approach to the Taliban.

[Manzareh]

To me it explains something else. It explain how comfortable they are with themselves as Muslims and how they don't find themselves obliged to proving their muslimness to others. We know where to keep our religion and what the importance of not polluting our faith by discussing it with any random self proclaimed bearded muslim is. Beds are for sleeping and dinning tables for eating. Discussions are for matters that need to be sorted out.
Religion is a definit matter. It doesn't need to be discussed unless there is a doubt in the heart of the believer.

No it proves themselves uncomfortable with being a muslim as they want to blend in with the kuffar, since when did being ashamed of being noticed as a muslim be something that one would call proud? your delusional. Prove? you have to prove your muslimness to Allah, Any man that takes Islam serious enough will have a beard, period.

[WalidTaniwal]

NOT you, since you're punjabi

I love it when your insecurity comes out and you are trying to make yourself Afghan by calling others panjabi loooooooool. My fav moments are these because I know I destroy your terrorism ego. You are like pc turtle stuck to trying and watch Porno while trying to harrass our women. Don't get it baldy?best you will get will be old angleez lady like Faye. Or maybe haggle buck teeth yemini. Otherwise you just Arab 4 evaaaa

[faye]

real women like me are gems we know you are jealous.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Thank you for admitting your partiality. Thats a start. Exonerating the Taliban is not my business. That is Mr. Karzai's who has called them watandaraan and who has called them, in two words, misguided brethren. I would say even Karzai appears able to have a cogent and rational discussion about them compared to you where you will generate nonevidence or at least push it to its utter most outer limits to suit the admitted agenda you stated

It is my business however to point out that the Taliban are Afghans. Thats something that even my detractors have admitted. Soldat himself has labeled them as such but merely wants them pulverized, drawn, and quartered. With that in mind, that they are Afghans, I certainly think they have a stake in the future of their country.

Take for instance your approach to the bike bomb posting. How do you know that the Taliban did it?

With respect to the situational analogy, calling it unknownprincian doesnt negate it. Thats merely labeling it because you cant debunk it.

It appears you and Mr. Taniwal disagree about why and how some sort of evolution of thought occurred in your approach to the Taliban.

Lol No sir......That's not what I am admitting .....You much like your Friend Shamlawar think when I mock or make a point based on your assertions that somehow I am catering to affirming them. I guess that's the problem with Literalist thinkers?

To make it more clear to you; I'm not againsg the Taliban to be against the Taliban. I am against the Taliban because of what they do. Now that's not the same as "bias", bias means I think they're bad because they stand in the way of my interest. No I'm against them because they have proven their injustice. This is an agenda, but not a bias.

This is not a dichotomy of Mr. Karzai vs. Mr. Kayani or Mr. Hamid Gul. This is simple of who does evil against others and who doesn't. I hold people who claim to be Pious Muslim Warriors on a much higher standard of criteria than people who are expected to be low grade infidels.

and I don't think you' can really assess rational from what I can iinfer; what you're good at seems to be white washing.


A very important distinction

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I love it when your insecurity comes out and you are trying to make yourself Afghan by calling others panjabi loooooooool. My fav moments are these because I know I destroy your terrorism ego. You are like pc turtle stuck to trying and watch Porno while trying to harrass our women. Don't get it baldy?best you will get will be old angleez lady like Faye. Or maybe haggle buck teeth yemini. Otherwise you just Arab 4 evaaaa

What's insecure is you created a new screen name after being banned just because you keep getting defeated by me; sounds like you're describing the story of your life punjabi boy

[WalidTaniwal]

Like how when you tried in past to hit on Afghan girls less than twice your age you white washed your pervert nature by telling them you had car and job ??? Looooool or like when you whit wash nationality. Pleeeeez you are yemini 100%%%%

Lol No sir......That's not what I am admitting .....You much like your Friend Shamlawar think when I mock or make a point based on your assertions that somehow I am catering to affirming them. I guess that's the problem with Literalist thinkers?

To make it more clear to you; I'm not againsg the Taliban to be against the Taliban. I am against the Taliban because of what they do. Now that's not the same as "bias", bias means I think they're bad because they stand in the way of my interest. No I'm against them because they have proven their injustice. This is an agenda, but not a bias.

This is not a dichotomy of Mr. Karzai vs. Mr. Kayani or Mr. Hamid Gul. This is simple of who does evil against others and who doesn't. I hold people who claim to be Pious Muslim Warriors on a much higher standard of criteria than people who are expected to be low grade infidels.

and I don't think you' can really assess rational from what I can iinfer; what you're good at seems to be white washing.


A very important distinction

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Lol No sir......That's not what I am admitting .....You much like your Friend Shamlawar think when I mock or make a point based on your assertions that somehow I am catering to affirming them. I guess that's the problem with Literalist thinkers?

To make it more clear to you; I'm not againsg the Taliban to be against the Taliban. I am against the Taliban because of what they do. Now that's not the same as "bias", bias means I think they're bad because they stand in the way of my interest. No I'm against them because they have proven their injustice. This is an agenda, but not a bias.

This is not a dichotomy of Mr. Karzai vs. Mr. Kayani or Mr. Hamid Gul. This is simple of who does evil against others and who doesn't. I hold people who claim to be Pious Muslim Warriors on a much higher standard of criteria than people who are expected to be low grade infidels.

and I don't think you' can really assess rational from what I can iinfer; what you're good at seems to be white washing.


A very important distinction

Actually its a very important bias you have. And it was you that admitted the bias, not me so dont pin it on me because I simply dont accept the ISAF narrative.

As I pointed out, I know its a bias when somehow a bike bomb automatically gets pinned on the Taliban or on Karzai, in either direction. There are other possibilities and it appears that the Taliban have no qualms about claiming when they have and when they have not done something. Same goes for Rabbani's killing; the verdict is not yet read and theres been no official investigation leading anywhere yet.

The bias is almost odd because it sounds very neocon like in the notion that all must be idealized or else. Perhaps those "holy warriors" think that what they are doing is in compliance with their beliefs. As you and I discussed in the past, there are folks out there that neither you nor I accept in terms of their arguments, but who nonetheless hold sway, like Qardawi.

[WalidTaniwal]

What's insecure is you created a new screen name after being banned just because you keep getting defeated by me; sounds like you're describing the story of your life punjabi boy

Loool extremist AQ Azzam supporter i am feeding off your failing comment. I am enjoying watching you squirm. With each panjabi comment I see victory of your ego collapse growing close! And btw you were not involved ever with Saudi woman but only saudi mans

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Actually its a very important bias you have. And it was you that admitted the bias, not me so dont pin it on me because I simply dont accept the ISAF narrative.

As I pointed out, I know its a bias when somehow a bike bomb automatically gets pinned on the Taliban or on Karzai, in either direction. There are other possibilities and it appears that the Taliban have no qualms about claiming when they have and when they have not done something. Same goes for Rabbani's killing; the verdict is not yet read and theres been no official investigation leading anywhere yet.

The bias is almost odd because it sounds very neocon like in the notion that all must be idealized or else. Perhaps those "holy warriors" think that what they are doing is in compliance with their beliefs. As you and I discussed in the past, there are folks out there that neither you nor I accept in terms of their arguments, but who nonetheless hold sway, like Qardawi.

No bias....bias means PREJUDGING ....look it up; I'm judging AFTER evidence.


here I will even SHOW you the definition of bias.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias?s=t

bi·as   [bahy-uhs] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi·ased, bi·as·ing or ( especially British ) bi·assed, bi·as·sing.
noun
1.
an oblique or diagonal line of direction, especially across a woven fabric.
2.
a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3.
Statistics . a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

So no admission of bias what so ever; you however do have a bias; you BLINDLY without any evidential reason than MERELY a circumstantial Ad-Hominem, discredit any information which aligns the Taliban with nefarious agendas.

THAT is bias.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Loool extremist AQ Azzam supporter i am feeding off your failing comment. I am enjoying watching you squirm. With each panjabi comment I see victory of your ego collapse growing close! And btw you were not involved ever with Saudi woman but only saudi mans

I'm fine, I still have my screen name; you're urinating yourself as to how long it will take for you to get banned. Like I said you reveal more about yourself

about being involved with men; remember you're obsessing over me ...that's pretty gay.