22 dead in Kabul hotel attack

[RevolutionThroughReason]

There are quite allot of things modern Islamic movements do during warfare that do not have a clear evidence neither do they match Islamic rulings.

That does not mean all Islamic movements should stop doing what they do.

If you go to the Masjid to preform the prayer, you see people making big mistakes during the prayer. Because of them, should people stop praying in congregation? I dont think so.

so much for all that hot air about following the sunnah and fighting off shirk and bid'ah ...I guess that goes out the window when it's most convenient eh?

The difference is prayer done wrong HARMS NO ONE .....Islamic resistance done wrong kills Muslim civilians.

It's clear which takes priority here.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Once again I think the theology we can leave to the scholars... the hadith above shows Muhammad (S)'s personal approach which appears to be the most compassionate and the most understanding and the most reasonable meaning that you dont shoot prostitutes and you probably have to give a pimp a fair trial in a true Islamic court. But Im no scholar.

As noted, I think the answer to the question is complex. Referencing what I wrote above:

1) the men who were doing the raid were foot soldiers convinced they were righting some sort of wrong. They, like most soldiers, are conditioned to act when an order is given. Think about it... if a group of 200,000 men from the most advanced country can be told that WMDs exist in a 3rd world country despite questions raised by many experts including their own Scott Ritter... and these 200,000 men can "shock and awe" a whole population with many innocent Admin Khans and Barakzais sitting around in Baghdad... and if that same advanced population is now being convinced that a Persian country near that other country has WMDs... to urge them to intervene there... why is it hard, my friend, for you to see that its easy to tell a foot soldier that some wrong is going on in a hotel frequented by Westerns, Afghan emigre elites, etc.

2) I repeat, then the more important question, leaving foot soldiers out of it, is WHO gave the order?

3) The WHO in question 2 would probably repeat my prior post to you about being able to show that the Taliban can still strike when they please despite having thousands of midlevel commanders supposedly mowed down.

So now Admin, WHO gave the order? WHO told them that prostitutes were there? WHO provided them the intel on the hotel?

It's not about what's hard to see but what is most likely; since you've been using your classic situational comparison angle

most situations have shown Taliban have given either cum hoc or ad-hoc/auxiliary justifications for their acts as already explained eariler. There is less evidence to believe that this is merely a result of war drummed worked up militants, but a deliberate terror campaign for the political interests of our neighbors below.


The attack on a civilian recreational property is not evidence that the Taliban is somehow entrenched from amongst the people as if it were some peoples movement carried by the support of the population. If the Taliban were striking General Petreus' bunker on a regular basis, that might show this to be true. What Taliban striking such soft targets indicates is the Taliban's desperation to draw blood even the Afghan peoples to show they're to be reckoned regardless of what the Afghan people want. That's why the struck a non-Military target and imposed maximum carnage and not a military target where more of the alleged debaucheries take place than anywhere else.

who gave the order? Who's been giving the orders? Pakistan.

[Shah-i-Kot]

You're Pakistani, and have no relation to pashtuns what so ever

the end.

the end??

what happened to Paki Paki Paki? Or Heera Mundi (you learned from Soldat?)

Lol did PashtunShinwari crack you?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

the end??

what happened to Paki Paki Paki? Or Heera Mundi (you learned from Soldat?)

Lol did PashtunShinwari crack you?

hey if you want to acknowledge your Heera Mundi origins .....by all means be my guest. I didn't want to be mean since you are pretty stewed but hey if the shoe fits, wear it.

PunjbiShemale thinks I secretly support the Taliban; if you believe I'm really on your side, then you're more of a moron then you let on

[Shah-i-Kot]

hey if you want to acknowledge your Heera Mundi origins .....by all means be my guest. I didn't want to be mean since you are pretty stewed but hey if the shoe fits, wear it.

why arent you calling me Paki? Where is the Paki Paki Paki?

Fool/clown, Soldat taught you what Heera MUNDI is Heera Mundi Heera Mundi.

LOL you class act

[RevolutionThroughReason]

why arent you calling me Paki? Where is the Paki Paki Paki?

Fool/clown, Soldat taught you what Heera MUNDI is Heera Mundi Heera Mundi.

LOL you class act

Isn't that what I did when I called you Pakistani? or do you have a particular liking for the word "paki" in particular?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

It's not about what's hard to see but what is most likely; since you've been using your classic situational comparison angle

most situations have shown Taliban have given either cum hoc or ad-hoc/auxiliary justifications for their acts as already explained eariler. There is less evidence to believe that this is merely a result of war drummed worked up militants, but a deliberate terror campaign for the political interests of our neighbors below.


The attack on a civilian recreational property is not evidence that the Taliban is somehow entrenched from amongst the people as if it were some peoples movement carried by the support of the population. If the Taliban were striking General Petreus' bunker on a regular basis, that might show this to be true. What Taliban striking such soft targets indicates is the Taliban's desperation to draw blood even the Afghan peoples to show they're to be reckoned regardless of what the Afghan people want. That's why the struck a non-Military target and imposed maximum carnage and not a military target where more of the alleged debaucheries take place than anywhere else.

who gave the order? Who's been giving the orders? Pakistan.

Wrong again Scimitar.

Situational comparisons are 100% valid and that is why Admin Khan grasped (maybe did accept the ethical basis - but nonetheless grasped) what I was saying in response to his question.

America may not be the Roman Empire, but we study history, a collection of situational occurrences, in order to better understand past decisions and project forward to make better ones.

As an example, one American military figure cracked the joke about not being able to even control the rather easy terrain of the Mexican American border and that asking Pakistan to then defend a border strattling the Suleiman mountain range is absurd. The response? Drone surveillance and considerations and discussions of mining as much of the border is possible. Thats how life works. With your convoluted demand for some sort of bizarro logic that general would have to soil test the American border and the Afghan border - note that mountains done exist except in a small portion of the former and then state: we cannot discuss a first world nations inability to control its southern border and compare it with a third world country we have expectations from: uh oh we cannot now address policy.

With respect to the Taliban being a "people's movement" no where in my commentary did I address this or state this. What I said simply was that if the people of Kabul see a guy they dont like hitting a guy doing something they dont like... or a guy they dont know hitting a guy doing something they dont like and then both of them beating eachother to a pulp... it need not matter whether they are of the people or not.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Do some research, specifically in the South. Again, this isn't the thread for this discussion. Kindly start a new one, or keep your thought for some other day. For the 2nd time, N/A had thousands of Pashtuns who were loyal, and situated in the South. Even Kandahar had a minor brigade, of spera Pashtana serving Masood interests I can even go as far as naming the commander, and his district that had thousands of Pashtuns under his control, yet he served Masood's interests. Let's not kid ourselves -- some Pashtuns will sell their souls for the smell of a dollar.

Off topic, but .. so Pashtuns served in the NA, but it was not on the whole a movement that drew Pashtuns to it. It remained a mostly non-Pashtun movement, and to this day it whatever is left of it, sparsely broken apart into different factions serving different ethnic militias is mostly non-Pashtun. One can say it has been replaced by the new Green Movement spearheaded by the one and only Amarulleh Saleh who advocates a heavy handed war against Pashtuns.

Secondly, those Pashtuns that did join the NA were opportunistic. Hekmatyar's alliances changed like the weather. Sayaf, this clown has joined Karzai regime.

I may not know much about the internal dynamics of the Afghan civil war as I have never been to Afghanistan proper, but I know enough to know how the ethnic divisions worsened due to the different militias fighting each other, and how the Taliban became a formal group as a response to that.

Thats history that is irrefutable.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Isn't that what I did when I called you Pakistani? or do you have a particular liking for the word "paki" in particular?

Why are you not saying Paki anymore?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Why are you not saying Paki anymore?

which do you prefer?

[Shah-i-Kot]

which do you prefer?

Buzz off pervert

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Wrong again Scimitar.

Situational comparisons are 100% valid and that is why Admin Khan grasped (maybe did accept the ethical basis - but nonetheless grasped) what I was saying in response to his question.

America may not be the Roman Empire, but we study history, a collection of situational occurrences, in order to better understand past decisions and project forward to make better ones.

As an example, one American military figure cracked the joke about not being able to even control the rather easy terrain of the Mexican American border and that asking Pakistan to then defend a border strattling the Suleiman mountain range is absurd. The response? Drone surveillance and considerations and discussions of mining as much of the border is possible. Thats how life works. With your convoluted demand for some sort of bizarro logic that general would have to soil test the American border and the Afghan border - note that mountains done exist except in a small portion of the former and then state: we cannot discuss a first world nations inability to control its southern border and compare it with a third world country we have expectations from: uh oh we cannot now address policy.

With respect to the Taliban being a "people's movement" no where in my commentary did I address this or state this. What I said simply was that if the people of Kabul see a guy they dont like hitting a guy doing something they dont like... or a guy they dont know hitting a guy doing something they dont like and then both of them beating eachother to a pulp... it need not matter whether they are of the people or not.

Admin Khan saying he "likes how you put it" is not the same as him agreeing with you.

In fact that's exactly why I stepped in to demonstrate how flawed and hoaky your reasoning actually is.

I do understand you weren't making a statement in regards to claming the Taliban were a peoples movement; but applying your very same strategy, you have indicated so in the past ....and furthermore your indication that they were somehow able to do this with ease implies complicity with common Afghans to support the idea that Afghan civilians were cheering on murders of other civilians. Using the historical context clause that you employ; it's no reason to see this as any other than an attempt to imply that hypothesis.

The only problem is; this hypothesis fails as with such popular support much more bold targets would be possible using the same aggressive methods; not a mole here and there as in some past acts, but guns out fighters taking down Petreus' own cadre. We see none of that but plenty of soft civilian targets. Not the workings of a civilian support or cheering them on.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Buzz off pervert

pot calls kettle black

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Admin Khan saying he "likes how you put it" is not the same as him agreeing with you.

In fact that's exactly why I stepped in to demonstrate how flawed and hoaky your reasoning actually is.

I do understand you weren't making a statement in regards to claming the Taliban were a peoples movement; but applying your very same strategy, you have indicated so in the past ....and furthermore your indication that they were somehow able to do this with ease implies complicity with common Afghans to support the idea that Afghan civilians were cheering on murders of other civilians. Using the historical context clause that you employ; it's no reason to see this as any other than an attempt to imply that hypothesis.

The only problem is; this hypothesis fails as with such popular support much more bold targets would be possible using the same aggressive methods; not a mole here and there as in some past acts, but guns out fighters taking down Petreus' own cadre. We see none of that but plenty of soft civilian targets. Not the workings of a civilian support or cheering them on.

No, he understand the comparison made. He was in disbelief about how a group of men would be able to execute a mission without putting thought into who else might be in the environment (i.e innocent people). He grasped the concept that if a nation of people with info access at their fingertips can be manipulated into belief Iraqs were hiding nukes under the Saddam statue, its not too far fetched to be a rabble rouser in Afghanistan (hence the who). You can call that comparison logico-fallacious-maximus or whatever the heck you want to call it, but I stand by it 100%.

With respect to popular support and being of the people, that was a seperate argument and nowhere in this discussion have I stated that they either had the people's complicity except that someone decided to visit that hotel and then tell someone else who told someone else who told someone else that it was a "fine" target. Whether that person was a Pakistani agent, Darth Vader, or an Afghan is something that investigators will need to figure out. They should look at their guest lists if possible.

You seem to have glossed over what I was saying in the first place which had nothing to do with Kabulis being complicit or supportive. You seemed to have extricated that out of the thin air within this thread, based solely on what I stated here. Rather, let me repeat, I am pointing out that you dont have the proof, nor do I to speak for the denizens of Kabul to determine whether they are A) outraged and want to name this martyrs day B) could care less thinking that two groups of people they dont like smacked eachother about or C) are oblivious and going about their lives.

My whole commentary was in response to Shamlawar's comment about whether this is a PR disaster for them or not. If you can show me where in this thread I claimed Kabulis were cheering them on, then please show me the quote? A guy who works at the hotel who tells someone else that he doesnt like what he sees is not "aiding and abetting."

With regards to the Taliban being of the people or not, you can create another thread or return to the old one to rediscuss that. Once again, my discussion here was simply whether this was truly a PR disaster within Afghanistan for the group. If outside of Afghanistan, the NY Times is calling is brazen etc, I dont think the war numbed Afghan people who are pretty smart would not see things as they were and are on a practical level and not through your ideological lenses.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

pot calls kettle black

What is this deal between you three with respect to Pakis, Panjabis, Arabs, and the like? Can I get an explanation of this?