Obituary for Abdul Raziq

[khushal]

Its a bit difficult to find articles about Taliban massacres during the civil war because the Internet was almost non existent back then.

Because there weren't none since most of Afghanistan was taken without a fight. The people welcomed them.
How Afghans' Stern Rulers Took Hold - The New York Times

''The story of the Taliban is not one of outsiders imposing a solution, but of the Afghans themselves seeking deliverance from mujahedeen groups that had become cruel and inhuman. The Afghan people had been waiting a long time for relief from their miseries, and they would have accepted anybody who would have freed them from the tyranny.''

The only one was the one that involved hazara in Mazar the second time the Taliban entered and that was a reaction to the hazara killing 3000 Taliban the first time they entered mazar in 97.
Study Hints at Mass Killing of the Taliban - The New York Times

tit for tat killing;
Rights Group Tells of Taliban Massacres - The New York Times

You can find articles from before the internet existence like this:
Afghan President Is Ousted and Executed in Kabul Coup, Reportedly With Soviet Help

[khushal]

I showed one link and all the links dealt with different incidences. So I'm not sure what your point is....

But since you insist.....

Here you go. A whole list of examples ....now don't go around saying "they're reacting". They're as power hungry as everyone else.

TALIBAN ACCUSED OF MASSACRING 6 - Chicago Tribune

Istalif Campaign

Memories of Taliban Regime - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan

Gosfandi Massacre

In Custody: Law, Impunity and Prisoner Abuse in South Asia - Nitya Ramakrishnan - Google Books


This one covers the Massacres in Robatak, Bamiyan, and Shomali

Fact sheet: The Taliban's betrayal of the Afghan people - Afghanistan | ReliefWeb


I mean not sure how many more examples are needed before Taliban can be designated as power mongering and corrupt in themselves. But I'd say this should cover it.

Your sources are mostly whack. The massacres they mention were reaction to the massacre of 3000 Taliban in Mazar. It should mention the truth like the sources I put up above in response to Firdousi.
Study Hints at Mass Killing of the Taliban - The New York Times

Your last source contradicts itself. You can come up with better sources than that. Basically your googling and putting up articles that mention half truths that serve MIC rather than an analysis that serve truth.

Your T being intact is questionable because your being deceitful.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Your sources are mostly whack. The massacres they mention were reaction to the massacre of 3000 Taliban in Mazar. It should mention the truth like the sources I put up above in response to Firdousi.
Study Hints at Mass Killing of the Taliban - The New York Times

Your last source contradicts itself. You can come up with better sources than that. Basically your googling and putting up articles that mention half truths that serve MIC rather than an analysis that serve truth.

Your T being intact is questionable because your being deceitful.

Massacring civilians and non-combtants for the deaths of combatants is a war-crime with a motive of power not a "reaction against U.S. invasion to liberate the country" as the apologist narrative is trying to push these days. Not exactly a "contradiction"

You're right MY T count shoots up to Super human levels every time I make Taliban apologists cry and call sources "WHACK!" for shooting holes in the Taliban apologetic narrative.. Thanks for noticing

[khushal]

Massacring civilians and non-combtants for the deaths of combatants is a war-crime with a motive of power not a "reaction against U.S. invasion to liberate the country" as the apologist narrative is trying to push these days. Not exactly a "contradiction"

You're right MY T count shoots up to Super human levels every time I make Taliban apologists cry and call sources "WHACK!" for shooting holes in the Taliban apologetic narrative.. Thanks for noticing

Reread my post. Youre deception is weak. Red herring to be exact. Dont let the T comment cloud your judgment.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Reread my post. Youre deception is weak. Red herring to be exact. Dont let the T comment cloud your judgment.

Explain ...because so far, all Taliban apologists have done is outrightly reject critical claims about Taliban crimes on basically circumstantial ad-hominem and confirmation bias.

so not sure where the red herring is since we're dealing with crimes the Taliban did long before the U.S, invasion. Which was Insight's goal post.

[khushal]

Your sources are mostly whack. The massacres they mention were reaction to the massacre of 3000 Taliban in Mazar. It should mention the truth like the sources I put up above in response to Firdousi.
Study Hints at Mass Killing of the Taliban - The New York Times

Your last source contradicts itself. You can come up with better sources than that. Basically your googling and putting up articles that mention half truths that serve MIC rather than an analysis that serve truth.

Your T being intact is questionable because your being deceitful.

The bold senior and source is available.

FYI; I have never rejected Taliban crimes. They exist but that doesnt mean we should ignore the truth of why they happen. The people that ignore the reasoning are basically MIC psychopath lackeys that want to profit from peoples misery. Its hard to find angels in a wartorn environment.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The bold senior and source is available.

FYI; I have never rejected Taliban crimes. They exist but that doesnt mean we should ignore the truth of why they happen. The people that ignore the reasoning are basically MIC psychopath lackeys that want to profit from peoples misery. Its hard to find angels in a wartorn environment.

Okay which I addressed, Massacring civilians and non-combatants isn't "reacting to foreign intervention"; it's murder without a justification. It's not like they went after the criminals themselves, THAT WOULD be a legitimate action. This is simply power lust and ego driven war crime


Why they happen is easily explained, Power and lust for control, big egoes and lack of morals. Pretty simple. If you were hoping for some loftier explanation like "noble Islamic warriors defending their homeland against Evil imperialistic forces" ....you're mistaken.

[Insight]

Explain ...because so far, all Taliban apologists have done is outrightly reject critical claims about Taliban crimes on basically circumstantial ad-hominem and confirmation bias.

so not sure where the red herring is since we're dealing with crimes the Taliban did long before the U.S, invasion. Which was Insight's goal post.

I asked for sources. You gave me human rights report as well as a Indian human rights activisit, both of which were neutral and valid sources. 2 SOURCES

The rest of the numerous links you posted were from parties to the conflict (pro-regime paper, US State department) This was the result of your frantic google search.


Im just explaining your response

[Insight]

Where does it say that they're Pro-Kabul? I recall several times they had former Taliban and Taliban apologists. They even had Mullah Zaeef on there. If your reasoning for them being invalid is because you can't find any critical attitudes towards the government on their site, remember absence evidence is not evidence of absence


you're making largely arbitrary contention as far as why a source isn't valid, but there aren't any compelling reasons why this necessarily makes them invalid

in my opinion there aren't many heroes in this world neither Abdul Raziq nor Mullah Umar nor Regan nor Gorbachev nor Bush nor Obama nor Trump...but I won't reject evidence just because a source presented an editorial praising someone like Obama or Trump because are several valid explanations for that than simply the merits of a source being compromised.

You are missing my point. If you hold this Pro-Regime newspaper as valid in its documentation of Taliban crimes then you should also hold it as valid in it's favorable "facts" on Abdul Raziq.

Explain to me why you don't accept their facts when it comes to Abdul Raziq but you choose to accept their documentation of pre-2001 Taliban crimes sourced from an Afghan MP.

Im not discussing anything about "no ones a hero" lol.

[randolph85]

If you take 2 Afghans on opposite ends of the political spectrum and they present all their arguements with references, each will be able to poke holes in the others narrative, while the nation remains a toilet because of the people they support or defend.

Afghans today don’t have the luxury of choosing pious leaders, they will follow communists if their lives and property are protected. In Kandahar, they followed Raziq because he made their lives easier, in Andar Ghazni they may follow the Taliban for this same reason, and in the north maybe Dostum.

I feel like on the internet, political/historical minded Afghans are more caught up in the past than the current players in Afghanistan are. The Taliban killed a dozen Iranian agents in Mazar and some of their leaders condemned Shias, now they take Iranian support and attend conferences in Tehran. Communists exchanged their mustaches for beards and called themselves Mujahed. Karzai went from the most token worthless pro American pos you have seen to the same pos but acting like a nationalist. Hekmatyar goes from mountain Mujahed to Kabul mailbox Mujahed while foreign boots are still on the ground. Taliban with “here is our yearly Ramadan message” signed “Mullah Omar and not Mullah Mansoor umm lol maybe? Ok really it’s me Omar trust me”

[khushal]

Okay which I addressed, Massacring civilians and non-combatants isn't "reacting to foreign intervention"; it's murder without a justification. It's not like they went after the criminals themselves, THAT WOULD be a legitimate action.

red herring. no one said this about this particular massacre.

This is simply power lust and ego driven war crime


Why they happen is easily explained, Power and lust for control, big egoes and lack of morals. Pretty simple.

thats not what the source says.

If you were hoping for some loftier explanation like "noble Islamic warriors defending their homeland against Evil imperialistic forces" ....you're mistaken.

Your making stuff up. No one said that.

[khushal]

If you take 2 Afghans on opposite ends of the political spectrum and they present all their arguements with references, each will be able to poke holes in the others narrative, while the nation remains a toilet because of the people they support or defend.

Afghans today don’t have the luxury of choosing pious leaders, they will follow communists if their lives and property are protected. In Kandahar, they followed Raziq because he made their lives easier, in Andar Ghazni they may follow the Taliban for this same reason, and in the north maybe Dostum.

I feel like on the internet, political/historical minded Afghans are more caught up in the past than the current players in Afghanistan are. The Taliban killed a dozen Iranian agents in Mazar and some of their leaders condemned Shias, now they take Iranian support and attend conferences in Tehran. Communists exchanged their mustaches for beards and called themselves Mujahed. Karzai went from the most token worthless pro American pos you have seen to the same pos but acting like a nationalist. Hekmatyar goes from mountain Mujahed to Kabul mailbox Mujahed while foreign boots are still on the ground. Taliban with “here is our yearly Ramadan message” signed “Mullah Omar and not Mullah Mansoor umm lol maybe? Ok really it’s me Omar trust me”

The current players are similar to the 80's. The insurgency has no central authority nor is it cohesive just like the 80's and you have people switching sides between gov and anti gov on a daily basis just like the 80's. In Paktia, the guys that fly the white flag are in it for themselves, hijacking trucks and kidnapping people for ransom just like the 80's. Spin Boldak was run by thug Esmat achakzai who was as brutal or more so than Raziq achakzia just like the 80's.n Kunar/Jalalabad had groups that numbered in the double digits that fought each other daily and switched alliances like the 80s.

The problem is if The US cant handle the situation then they should quit or get fired. But they creating the problem with people like Raziq rather than solving it:
The U.S. Lost a Key Ally in Southern Afghanistan. But Abdul Raziq Was No Hero.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

You are missing my point. If you hold this Pro-Regime newspaper as valid in its documentation of Taliban crimes then you should also hold it as valid in it's favorable "facts" on Abdul Raziq.

Explain to me why you don't accept their facts when it comes to Abdul Raziq but you choose to accept their documentation of pre-2001 Taliban crimes sourced from an Afghan MP.

Im not discussing anything about "no ones a hero" lol.

That's not how thingw work, Media networks aren't by default "hive" minds.


Saying things like "that's besides the point" when I gave you known examples of them basically giving a Mouthpiece to individuals that are NOT Pro-Regime i.e. Zaeef, demonstrates your initial narrative failed so instead of saying "yeah you may have a point there" you just double down and pretend otherwise.

That type of denial belongs back in 2010 dude. We've progressed in our understanding of things in 8 years. get with the times.


Short Version; Your premise didn't hold. The End.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

red herring. no one said this about this particular massacre.




thats not what the source says.



Your making stuff up. No one said that.

These examples are simply apart of the greater context that these massacres represent that Taliban were doing this stuff long before American involvment which is something I just said ...So there's no "red herring" when that's exactly where this disccourse stemmed from.

You're right, I'm saying they're driven power lust and ego BASED on the source, I never claimed "the source" said this.

I'm not making anything up; I'm lampooning the type of Apologetic narrative you keep trying to push", which has been dismantled.

[Insight]

[

QUOTE=Iblis_Efreetzai;823915]That's not how thingw work, Media networks aren't by default "hive" minds.


Saying things like "that's besides the point" when I gave you known examples of them basically giving a Mouthpiece to individuals that are NOT Pro-Regime i.e. Zaeef, demonstrates your initial narrative failed so instead of saying "yeah you may have a point there" you just double down and pretend otherwise.

So you cant answer my question?

You did not give me any examples where this same paper AfghanOutlook has published an article criticizing the Kabul regime.BUT Stop changing the topic. Answer my question.

That type of denial belongs back in 2010 dude. We've progressed in our understanding of things in 8 years. get with the times.

Repeat the same reply above

Short Version; Your premise didn't hold. The End.

You have failed to answer the question LOL Here I will restate it.

If you accept the Pro-Regime newspapers/media documentation of pre 2001 Taliban crimes as fact then why dont you also accept the facts they present regarding Abdul Raziq?

Just answer the question!!! Lol Either you believe their account of Raziq or you don't. YES or NO