Obituary for Abdul Raziq

[Insight]

You asked what crimes they committed; if you're changing the goal post to prior to 2001, that is already covered within the links. If you're not challenging that they committed crimes, why did you need evidence for something you accept?


This is just repeating the statements we've already covered WITHIN THIS very thread. This is just PR Narrative, which is very flimsy. The Taliban are responsible for their own decisions, no one can MAKE the Taliban massacre people, they decided its worth the cost, alternatives exist which could have been more effective than what they chose to do. There's nothing that necessitates them to make such choices other than disregard for human life and anxiousness for power.



Why is the article false?


The foreign policy article is about Iran's interests; Iran treats Hazaras pretty poorly and exploits Hazaras for their proxy war in Syria; they probably don't care much about what Taliban do to Hazaras, so I doubt this would "contradict" this.

No goal post changing. Im simply asking you to provide sources for your claim that the Taliban were committing rampant crimes regularly before US intervention. You stated they did in previous post.

The HRW report details the Taliban capture of Mazar-i-Sharif. This is a single incident.

Out of all the crimes you continuously stated that the Taliban committed, you have only provided me one link about the 1998 Mazar killings.

I mean you cant link me one source, and that source about one incident is supposed to validate all your other claims of Taliban crimes before 2001?

Thats like me saying [MENTION=2329]Karachi[/MENTION] had an affair with [MENTION=1444]Azmal[/MENTION] and using that report to support a claim that Karachi finally got it on with Jennifer

I suggest you post a thread on the numerous Taliban crimes before the US intervention.

[Insight]

[MENTION=19435]Iblis_Efreetzai[/MENTION] You using Taliban crime at Mazar to support all your other claims of Taliban crimes before US intervention is like this >>>

Thats like me saying [MENTION=2329]Karachi[/MENTION] had an affair with [MENTION=1444]Azmal[/MENTION] and using that report to support a claim that Karachi finally got it on with Jennifer

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[MENTION=19435]Iblis_Efreetzai[/MENTION] You using Taliban crime at Mazar to support all your other claims of Taliban crimes before US intervention is like this >>>

Thats like me saying [MENTION=2329]Karachi[/MENTION] had an affair with [MENTION=1444]Azmal[/MENTION] and using that report to support a claim that Karachi finally got it on with Jennifer

That analogy sounds very bizarre and really forced and it's also not what's going on. I've been saying that the narrative that the Taliban are are "just reacting" to
a foreign occupier is flawed since they've been pretty much doing heinous things since before the U.S. invasion. Which means they're aren't "just reacting" this is just apart of the continuum of antics the Taliban have been doing for nearly 3 decades. That's why this is, as far as the evidence shows, more about power . Especially considering almost everyone here agrees that the Taliban are cooperating with agencies that have long since undermined the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

No goal post changing. Im simply asking you to provide sources for your claim that the Taliban were committing rampant crimes regularly before US intervention. You stated they did in previous post.

The HRW report details the Taliban capture of Mazar-i-Sharif. This is a single incident.

Out of all the crimes you continuously stated that the Taliban committed, you have only provided me one link about the 1998 Mazar killings.

I mean you cant link me one source, and that source about one incident is supposed to validate all your other claims of Taliban crimes before 2001?

Thats like me saying [MENTION=2329]Karachi[/MENTION] had an affair with [MENTION=1444]Azmal[/MENTION] and using that report to support a claim that Karachi finally got it on with Jennifer

I suggest you post a thread on the numerous Taliban crimes before the US intervention.

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.

[Firdousi]

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.

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

[Firdousi]

Thats not up to you. Thats up to the Afghan people to decide, the ones that live there.

Dude, this hilarious when it comes from you. You are like 24/7 imposing your will and opinion on those people but someone else makes a similar move you be like "ey, let them decide" lol

BTW you are ignoring the diversity of the Afghan nation when it comes to politics and opinions. I know for your Americans all Afghans are brainless savages but when you mingle with Afghans you realize that the diversity is as complex as in the West. May be even more.

[Insight]

[QUOTE=Iblis_Efreetzai;823875]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

The source of the report here was Shigbatullah Zaki, an opposition figure who later served as an Member of Parluament during Karzai's years, a period of time in which he never pointed out or acknowledged reports of crimes by the regime or the US intervention.

Thats a big question mark right there.

Database

Istalif Campaign

Memories of Taliban Regime - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan

^this newspaper is a pro-regime Afghan one. I can't find any reports critical of the Kabul regime there, not even one criticizing the corruption of foreign aid money by Kabul officials-a well known fact. I hardly consider this neutral.

Gosfandi Massacre

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

This is a valid source-a neutral advocate for human rights. This is from a quick research on the writer
Nitya Ramakrishnan.

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

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

This is a US State Department report issued in November 2001, one month after the US military intervention in Afghanistan began. I would hardly call this neutral or unbiased.

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.

Out of all the links you posted there is only one valid source. This is not strong support for your claim that rampant crimes were comiitted in Afghanistan by Taliban prior to 2001.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The source of the report here was Shigbatullah Zaki, an opposition figure who later served as an Member of Parluament during Karzai's years, a period of time in which he never pointed out or acknowledged reports of crimes by the regime or the US intervention.

Thats a big question mark right there.

Database

^this newspaper is a pro-regime Afghan one. I can't find any reports critical of the Kabul regime there, not even one criticizing the corruption of foreign aid money by Kabul officials-a well known fact. I hardly comsider this neutral.

Well that's just
Gosfandi Massacre

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

This is a valid source-a neutral advocate for human rights. This is from a quick research on the writer
Nitya Ramakrishnan.



This is a US State Department report issued in November 2001, one month after the US military intervention in Afghanistan began. I would hardly call this neutral or unbiased.



Out of all the links you posted there is only one valid source. That is weak.

Plot Twist:

Their validity is still unchanged at the moment becaause using your same angle and approach, since you're an apologist for the Taliban as far as we've seen historically, then it's equally valid to say your motivations are biased towards Taliban interests, claiming the sources are invalid suggests confirmation bias. All you've done is reject evidence ....not dispel evidence.

It'd be like OJ Simpson being the prosecutor of his own trial lol

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

So when your argument fails you resort to name calling. Leave that in the past.

What is so unreasonable with what I asked? Valid sources. HRW (Mazar) was a valid one in your previous post, but you have posted reports here by PARTIES to the ongoing conflict except one source (the Indian human rights advocate)

What name calling? you're making apologetics for the Taliban, that's an observational fact. There's no "name calling" there. I'm highlighting that if you want to deny the evidence presented on grounds that those sources are suspect, then that equally calls to question your reasoning being motivated by confirmation bias.

So you either have to concede to the evidence presented, show counter-evidence or give more compelling reasons
for why the evidence isn't trust worth other than circumstantial bias against the source.

there's really no way around this.

[Insight]

Plot Twist:

Their validity is still unchanged at the moment becaause using your same angle and approach, since you're an apologist for the Taliban as far as we've seen historically, then it's equally valid to say your motivations are biased towards Taliban interests, claiming the sources are invalid suggests confirmation bias. All you've done is reject evidence ....not dispel evidence.

It'd be like OJ Simpson being the prosecutor of his own trial lol

I hardly believe asking for valid sources constitite being a Taliban apologist. Secondly, name calling (a habit of yours when your argument collapses) should be left in the past.


What is so unreasonable with what I asked? Valid sources. HRW (Mazar) was a valid one in your previous post, but you have posted reports here by PARTIES to the ongoing conflict except one source (the Indian human rights advocate)

Shukria Barakzai, a well known Afghan politician who opposes the Taliban herself said that it was not that the Taliban were commiting rampant crimes (as you state) but that they were draconian in their ruling and enforcement of Sharia (i.e no music). That is a solid position.

For you to ramble on and say crimes were regularly committed while providing me with questionable sources from parties to the conflict is weak.

[Insight]

What name calling? you're making apologetics for the Taliban, that's an observational fact. There's no "name calling" there. I'm highlighting that if you want to deny the evidence presented on grounds that those sources are suspect, then that equally calls to question your reasoning being motivated by confirmation bias.

So you either have to concede to the evidence presented, show counter-evidence or give more compelling reasons
for why the evidence isn't trust worth other than circumstantial bias against the source.

there's really no way around this.

So questioning your sources makes me a Taliban apologist? That is name calling and is done when you fail at your points. Like with everyone here who makes statements , I have the right to question your claims and sources. You cant just post some random link you google (and dont read from the looks of it) and expect no questions.
Aside from two sources that you have provided to back your claims up (HRW + a human rights activist), all your other sources are from parties to the conflict (Afghan MP, pro Kabul government newspaper, US State department from Nov 2001)


Read your own sources before you post them. I

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I hardly believe asking for valid sources constitite being a Taliban apologist. Secondly, name calling (a habit of yours when your argument collapses) should be left in the past.


What is so unreasonable with what I asked? Valid sources. HRW (Mazar) was a valid one in your previous post, but you have posted reports here by PARTIES to the ongoing conflict except one source (the Indian human rights advocate)

Shukria Barakzai, a well known Afghan politician who opposes the Taliban herself said that it was not that the Taliban were commiting rampant crimes (as you state) but that they were draconian in their ruling and enforcement of Sharia (i.e no music). That is a solid position.

For you to ramble on and say crimes were regularly committed while providing me with questionable sources from parties to the conflict is weak.

It's not requesting valid sources that's the problem; but you claiming a source is invalid for no other reason that they're from sources with conflicting interests with the Taliban, you've presented no compelling basis for why these sources aren't valid other than that were affiliated with this or apart of that. This is a circumstantial ad-hominem which easily backfires as confirmation bias.


I repeat you have not presented any compelling reason why the sources are "questionable" on the other hand, this ignites the question of whether you're driven by confirmation bias.

By the way The Taliban made an assasination attempt on Shukira Barakzai. .....THAT too is a crime

[Insight]

It's not requesting valid sources that's the problem; but you claiming a source is invalid for no other reason that they're from sources with conflicting interests with the Taliban, you've presented no compelling basis for why these sources aren't valid other than that were affiliated with this or apart of that. This is a circumstantial ad-hominem which easily backfires as confirmation bias.


I repeat you have not presented any compelling reason why the sources are "questionable" on the other hand, this ignites the question of whether you're driven by confirmation bias.

By the way The Taliban made an assasination attempt on Shukira Barakzai. .....THAT too is a crime

So according to you :

Pro-Kabul regime newspapers are valid.

US State Department Nov 2001 report is valid. Post US intervention

Question: is Abdul Raziq a hero to you? This is another pro-Kabul regime media source. According to this news it seems he did nothing wrong in his time.

[44 - Component not found | TOLOnews

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

So according to you :

Pro-Kabul regime newspapers are valid.

US State Department Nov 2001 report is valid. Post US intervention

Question: is Abdul Raziq a hero to you? This is another pro-Kabul regime media source. According to this news it seems he did nothing wrong in his time.

[44 - Component not found | TOLOnews

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.

[khushal]

Dude, this hilarious when it comes from you. You are like 24/7 imposing your will and opinion on those people but someone else makes a similar move you be like "ey, let them decide" lol

BTW you are ignoring the diversity of the Afghan nation when it comes to politics and opinions. I know for your Americans all Afghans are brainless savages but when you mingle with Afghans you realize that the diversity is as complex as in the West. May be even more.

Relax, no one is imposing anything. The sources speak for themselves.
Politics give two options. One is through the ballot which can not be done since the country is occupied and the gov is corrupt and the second is to duke it out in the mydawn but it has to be you, not some American fighting for you.