Afghanistan: My Enemy's Enemy

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The onus to prove false identities also falls on you.

Ok

"So far, these guys are not well-structured and have rivalries within the movement," says researcher Emal Habib, a pseudonym he uses to protect family still in Ghazni. He says locals accuse the uprising fighters of "robbing, detaining and killing anyone who supports the Taliban."

http://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/aan-reportage-who-fights-whom-in-the-andar-uprising

AAN Reportage: Who fights whom in the Andar Uprising?
Author: Emal Habib Date: 10 August 2012

Onus fulfilled

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Ok

http://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/aan-reportage-who-fights-whom-in-the-andar-uprising

Onus fulfilled

Nice try but clear failure. Once again, Scheuer used the pseudonym Anonymous. The onus is on you to prove this rather accurate and balanced information from a field reporter relying on a pseudonym is unreliable.

The onus is still on you to prove AAN is unreliable.

Weighing Huffington Post, Human Rights Watch, NPR on the one side and RTR and Monawar on the other side - I'd say AAN remains impeccable.

For that matter, Wikileaks anonymized the Afghan sources as did Najibullah Qureshi in his documentary.

So once again, the conclusion remains, we have an article form a reliable source that has impeccable credentials and is widely respected with field reporters and is based in Kabul giving us a balanced and correct report.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Also since irrespective of whether Lutfullah falls under the arbaki system or not, why would "NATO" using Thomas Rittig, write a piece that criticizes their strategy for the rest of the country which rested on the same idea implemented elsewhere? That would be like cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

We would need to see even a glimmer of proof linking NATO to somehow having Rittig write up pieces that attack their very own stratagems.

Note also, the piece is ambivalent, it doesnt attack Lutfullah nor does it spare the Taliban as it notes their excesses in Ghazni... hardly making a case that NATO is using AAN.

Well my HYPOTHESIS would be as Khushal said they want to appease the Swedish Populace in some respects and in others please NATO.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Nice try but clear failure. Once again, Scheuer used the pseudonym Anonymous. The onus is on you to prove this rather accurate and balanced information from a field reporter relying on a pseudonym is unreliable.

The onus is still on you to prove AAN is unreliable.

Weighing Huffington Post, Human Rights Watch, NPR on the one side and RTR and Monawar on the other side - I'd say AAN remains impeccable.

For that matter, Wikileaks anonymized the Afghan sources as did Najibullah Qureshi in his documentary.

So once again, the conclusion remains, we have an article form a reliable source that has impeccable credentials and is widely respected with field reporters and is based in Kabul giving us a balanced and correct report.

Saying "Nice Try" and saying Michael Scheuer did it once doesn't refute that I fulfilled the Onus, furthermore we KNOW who Michael Scheuer's REAL Identity is. This is a losing argument for you Barakzai.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Saying "Nice Try" and saying Michael Scheuer did it once doesn't refute that I fulfilled the Onus, furthermore we KNOW who Michael Scheuer's REAL Identity is. This is a losing argument for you Barakzai.

Years after he released his seminal work as Anonymous.
You didn't fulfill the onus. You have to prove that a well regarded group without a trace of criticism to its name except from a northern alliance/Karzai official who cited nothing, which provides balanced field reporting from anonymous sources it hires, wherein the leadership has no vested interest (Rittig, Klein et al) has produced unreliable work.

You are clearly on the losing side of this argument, Human Rights Watch, HuffPo, the Pashtun Gazette are on the winning side.

Once again produce the proof of unreliability or errors in their reporting.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Well my HYPOTHESIS would be as Khushal said they want to appease the Swedish Populace in some respects and in others please NATO.

There is no support internally from their work to validate that statement. In such a scenario one could easily say Lutfullah is attempting to appease Asadullah Khalid and disgruntled Afghans, yet cater to NATO based on the video.

Besides why would the Swedes want to see Pro Taliban propaganda??

You are clearly wrong.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Right no reference INTERNALLY but Swedish and Norwegian Polls plus the Swedish commitment to NATO makes the hypothesis very plausible

If you want I can post the Swedish polls that want Swedish Govt to cut ties with NATO.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Right no reference INTERNALLY but Swedish and Norwegian Polls plus the Swedish commitment to NATO makes the hypothesis very plausible

If you want I can post the Swedish polls that want Swedish Govt to cut ties with NATO.

A surrogate anecdote is no substitute for explaining how an account that details Taliban excesses in the region, but also explains school closings in the context of transportation fines on the populace etc as a carrot stick method used by militants that proved successful doesn't really make for good Swedish reading.

Its a very balanced article, that if you read it, actually supports some of your original contentions regarding the natives of Ghazi not appreciating certain collective penalties being imposed on them. The only and main place the article diverges from your argument is with respect to who Lutfullah is and was (i.e. his Hizbe roots and Hizbe being at odds with the Taliban at times and fighting alongside of them at times).

It gains traction with its evidence based description of how a localized event was misused by NATO and NDS resulting in various factions now having virtual fiefdoms with Rahmatullah and co on one side, a second faction on another, and Amanullah and his bro Lutfullah on yet another (the latter most being the beneficiary of NDS largesse).

So as it stands, the hypothesis above is implausible but your original argument regarding this particular area being discontented with Taliban and governmental rule for specific reasons has merit.

I think I am being very fair here, I dont understand your beef with the article when the majority of it SUPPORTS what you are saying about Ghazni locally (though not Kandahar and the other areas). The only divergence is regarding Lutfullah.

Rather, you should look at this article as a coup for yourself as the source for the article confirms local sentiments about various tribes and doctrinal groups having friction with Taliban presence (and subsequently governmental presence).

[khushal]

That's like saying the BBC which is funded by the British gov is unreliable. RTR is a moron who is committing ad hominem fallacy. His beef with the article is that it confirms what I had said back when this story first came out. He has a problem with the ground realities that certain members reveal here on this forum and his attempt to Azmalify me has now backfired on him.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Actually Khushal you have discredited various BBC articles as unreliable LOL and the BBC isn't a "THINK TANK" they simply report not accuse and make claims.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

A surrogate anecdote is no substitute for explaining how an account that details Taliban excesses in the region, but also explains school closings in the context of transportation fines on the populace etc as a carrot stick method used by militants that proved successful doesn't really make for good Swedish reading.

).

That's the thing; there's no surrogate anecdote; it's balanced in YOUR OPINION: none the less it's funded by the the Swedish Gov. It's a think Tank that serves their interests and their interests are with NATO>

Highlighting Taliban excesses is irrelevant; It would however serve The Swedish govts interests not to make NATO look like incompetent morons who couldn't deal with the Taliban like these men did and moreover appease their constituents.

[khushal]

when did I discredit BBC articles?

[khushal]

That's the thing; there's no surrogate anecdote; it's balanced in YOUR OPINION: none the less it's funded by the the Swedish Gov. It's a think Tank that serves their interests and their interests are with NATO>

Highlighting Taliban excesses is irrelevant; It would however serve The Swedish govts interests not to make NATO look like incompetent morons who couldn't deal with the Taliban like these men did and moreover appease their constituents.

this would not make NATO look incompetent. It would make NATO look like it would have the moral high ground since they are promoting the idea they are there is to get rid of a group that the people themselves don't want. This article actually makes NATO look incompetent because they sold this as a people uprising and now people are saying it was never so.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

But they can't make that claim because it was common Afghans at the helm and they had no clue who they were, it came out if left field. The problem is the people were the actual ones uprising; so it's quite the contrary despite some statements of approval. This is same when Obama started approving the Arab Apring when he was originally angry that Mubarak got thrown out. Saving Face is what that is.

Both of you asking how would a group like Afghan Analyst have stuff about the Taliban and condemn/discredit uprisings at the same time? Well That's plausible hypothesis on how. There's no intrinsic contradiction there.

Just like others were splitting hairs for how a person speaks Faesi in Ghazni a province where many people Pashtun and Non, know how to speak Farsi.