TTP Leader Reportedly Killed In US Drone Strike In Kunar

[Firdousi]

TTP Leader Reportedly Killed In US Drone Strike In Kunar | TOLOnews

Once again the USA is trying to thwart the Afghan-Taliban ceasefire. Do not get me wrong. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are better off without this dog who butchered 130 kids in Peshawar. But why now?

Two years ago, when the USA killed the former Taliban leader, Akhtar Mansoor, Taliban were on the verge of declaring a ceasefire in Kabul. USA and India are trying hard to sabotage any peace talks in Afghanistan.

[khushal]

TTP Leader Reportedly Killed In US Drone Strike In Kunar | TOLOnews

Once again the USA is trying to thwart the Afghan-Taliban ceasefire. Do not get me wrong. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are better off without this dog who butchered 130 kids in Peshawar. But why now?

Lets also mention that the paki army are saints who have not killed more than 130 kids in FATA. Ignoring the cause and blaming the effect does no one any good.

Two years ago, when the USA killed the former Taliban leader, Akhtar Mansoor, Taliban were on the verge of declaring a ceasefire in Kabul. USA and India are trying hard to sabotage any peace talks in Afghanistan.

It seems that the ones in control are promoting a policy of continued turmoil not just in Afghanistan but the middle east as a whole.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Lets also mention that the paki army are saints who have not killed more than 130 kids in FATA. Ignoring the cause and blaming the effect does no one any good.

Islamically when taking aggression you target the actual perpetrators and not bystanders. The "cause effect" argument wouldn't really make sense here since there was no cause to attack kids, even if children in Taliban held areas were killed.

If it were incidental deaths or deaths completely as a result of poor planning, still reprehensible for negligence but could be explained by cause-effect, that I don't think would apply here.

[khushal]

Islamically when taking aggression you target the actual perpetrators and not bystanders. The "cause effect" argument wouldn't really make sense here since there was no cause to attack kids, even if children in Taliban held areas were killed.

If it were incidental deaths or deaths completely as a result of poor planning, still reprehensible for negligence but could be explained by cause-effect, that I don't think would apply here.

Do you actually think that just because people call themselves Muslim, they cease to be human beings with all the emotions that go with it. If you go to my village and you kill someone, and if their kin(who prays 5 times a day and fast during ramadan) has the power to hunt you down, they will kill you no matter how many times you recite the Quran and if they cant get you, they will get your son remember over there an 11-12 year old is considered a man.


This is human nature, you can stop the men but not the thirst for blood when you have spilled theirs. When 911 happened, Americans were blood thirsty and they took out all their anger on some poor people. They threw away all their ideals ie geneva convention and constitution that made them civil. They were barbarians hunting down those that they believed did it without mercy.

We are not talking about Islamic ideals or morals here nor geneva convention morals. We are talking about action reaction when it comes to human emotions which are barbaric. Islamic ideals or other ideals what ever a person believes in only works when they are enforced. So when FATA gets bombed, who is enforcing or punishing the criminality of the paki army. Who are listening to the complaints of the FATA people.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Do you actually think that just because people call themselves Muslim, they cease to be human beings with all the emotions that go with it. If you go to my village and you kill someone, and if their kin(who prays 5 times a day and fast during ramadan) has the power to hunt you down, they will kill you no matter how many times you recite the Quran and if they cant get you, they will get your son remember over there an 11-12 year old is considered a man.


This is human nature, you can stop the men but not the thirst for blood when you have spilled theirs. When 911 happened, Americans were blood thirsty and they took out all their anger on some poor people. They threw away all their ideals ie geneva convention and constitution that made them civil. They were barbarians hunting down those that they believed did it without mercy.

We are not talking about Islamic ideals or morals here nor geneva convention morals. We are talking about action reaction when it comes to human emotions which are barbaric. Islamic ideals or other ideals what ever a person believes in only works when they are enforced. So when FATA gets bombed, who is enforcing or punishing the criminality of the paki army. Who are listening to the complaints of the FATA people.

No, they don't cease to be human beings, but human beings also can distinguish between bystanders and perpetrators. If someone gets punched in the face, the counter reaction is to punch the person that punched them in the face, not punch some random child in the face. If someone's kid is hurt by someone, that person will attack the person harming his child not another child. Those would be natural emotional responses. In this case the targeting of children isn't a natural emotional response ....it's a sociopathic, calculated decision. This would not even fall under a impulsive reaction scenario.

[khushal]

No, they don't cease to be human beings, but human beings also can distinguish between bystanders and perpetrators. If someone gets punched in the face, the counter reaction is to punch the person that punched them in the face, not punch some random child in the face. If someone's kid is hurt by someone, that person will attack the person harming his child not another child. Those would be natural emotional responses. In this case the targeting of children isn't a natural emotional response ....it's a sociopathic, calculated decision. This would not even fall under a impulsive reaction scenario.

What are you talking about. The paki army was the target, the school was an Army school. It was not some public school in the congo.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

What are you talking about. The paki army was the target, the school was an Army school. It was not some public school in the congo.

An army school comprised of children. It's a military academy. They have similar things in the states too. That's not targeting the army. That's targeting the vulnerable, it was targeted precisely because they know kids are vulnerable.

[khushal]

your going in a circle. it has already been explained.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

your going in a circle. it has already been explained.

The explanation doesn't make sound predictions in line with normative human behavior. Their pattern of behavior is more in line with sociopaths.

[khushal]

I think your talking about psychopaths. Sociopaths usually dont kill, they are pathological liars, manipulative and their moral compass is skewed.

But that is not the case here. Army personal have extra defensive precautions becasue they know they are the target but the public school in the congo have no fear. Its like when you go to the middle east, all the US embassies look like a military bases while the Swiss embassies hardly have any guards.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I think your talking about psychopaths. Sociopaths usually dont kill, they are pathological liars, manipulative and their moral compass is skewed.

But that is not the case here. Army personal have extra defensive precautions becasue they know they are the target but the public school in the congo have no fear. Its like when you go to the middle east, all the US embassies look like a military bases while the Swiss embassies hardly have any guards.

To be honest they seem to exhibit traits of both, but I digress.

Children are always vulnerable targets, it's not as if they went to some place with multiple check points and surveilance.

[khushal]

Ofcourse. private army personal have very little to no defense while the generals and kernels give orders from safety. Army schools are still intentionally vulnerable for reactionary attacks used as cannon fodder since that would feed into army propaganda narrative.

You cant be both. Sociopaths are usually nervous and disorganized while psychopaths are charming and good planners. Sociopaths can form emotional bonds with individuals or groups while psychopaths can not.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Ofcourse. private army personal have very little to no defense while the generals and kernels give orders from safety. Army schools are still intentionally vulnerable for reactionary attacks used as cannon fodder since that would feed into army propaganda narrative.

You cant be both. Sociopaths are usually nervous and disorganized while psychopaths are charming and good planners. Sociopaths can form emotional bonds with individuals or groups while psychopaths can not.

Even in that case, it was the Taliban's willingness and desire to do act on those tendencies which pulled the trigger both literally and figuratively. I'm not sure what absolving or alleviating burden of responsibilty does. It doesn't make sense if we examine the argument from the vantage of human behavioral norms.


Socio and Psycho Paths share traits in common.

What’s the Difference Between a Sociopath and a Psychopath?

Most experts believe psychopaths and sociopaths share a similar set of traits. People like this have a poor inner sense of right and wrong. They also can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too.

[khushal]

Even in that case, it was the Taliban's willingness and desire to do act on those tendencies which pulled the trigger both literally and figuratively. I'm not sure what absolving or alleviating burden of responsibilty does. It doesn't make sense if we examine the argument from the vantage of human behavioral norms.


Socio and Psycho Paths share traits in common.

What’s the Difference Between a Sociopath and a Psychopath?

Its not about absolving responsibility. The TTP took responsibility. Its who spilled first blood and the repercussions from that. Cause and effect. Most scholars today don't blame Hitler for WW2 but the bad deal that was signed at Versailles. Hitler was the effect of that Treaty. Treaty of Versailles was the Cause and Hitler and continued war was the effect.

It is true that that both share traits but there are many difference as well which means you can not be both. A dog and Human have four limbs, a head and torso but you cant call a dog human.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Its not about absolving responsibility. The TTP took responsibility. Its who spilled first blood and the repercussions from that. Cause and effect. Most scholars today don't blame Hitler for WW2 but the bad deal that was signed at Versailles. Hitler was the effect of that Treaty. Treaty of Versailles was the Cause and Hitler and continued war was the effect.

It is true that that both share traits but there are many difference as well which means you can not be both. A dog and Human have four limbs, a head and torso but you cant call a dog human.

Well if you agree TTP took responsibility, then I'm not sure what the contention is, Firdousi rightly called out their immoral behavior. First blood or last immoral is immoral.

I never said that they were both, but shared traits of both.