Obituary for Abdul Raziq

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[


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.




Repeat the same reply above




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

If you accept the Pro-Regime newspapers 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

I thought you were talking about Tolo

But,the same response applies, Outlook Afghanistan also had articles featuring Zaeef's critique of regime policies.

Only Political Solution Possible in Afghanistan: Zaeef - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan

I don't believe any idealized portrayal of Abdul Raziq, since I believe he's probably corrupt. However, there's no evidence that they have done anything but report on stories.

so again , this dismissal is you simply doubling down.

[Insight]

[QUOTE]

I thought you were talking about Tolo

all Pro regime media. You just were trying to not answer the question.

But,the same response applies, Outlook Afghanistan also had articles featuring Zaeef's critique of regime policies.

Only Political Solution Possible in Afghanistan: Zaeef - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan

Ummm what? They are reporting on whaf Zaeef says like they report on what Trump or Taliban SAY? This is an irrelevant point. It rained today at 4pm

I don't believe any idealized portrayal of Abdul Raziq, since I believe he's probably corrupt

.

Thank you for finally answering my question. The results.

You believe what pro-Regime media says about Pre-2001 Taliban crimes. You don't believe in the idealized portrayal of Abdul Raziq.

However, there's no evidence that they have done anything but report on stories.

Yes there is. The Pro-Regime media (lets stick to Afghanoutlook for your sake) never reported on Abdul Raziq's crimes in Afghanistan (i.e killing Noorzai children. These crimes have been documented but show me where it is in AfghanOutlook or Tolo for that matter? Start googling. Lets agree for argument sake thaf AfghanOutlook reports on "incidences." Show me their reporting of the crimes of Raziq?

The Master of Spin Boldak | Harper's Magazine

Our Man in Kandahar - The Atlantic

so again , this dismissal is you simply doubling down.

Rehash.

You believe pro-Regime media accounts of pre-2001 Taliban crimes.

You don't believe Pro-regime media idealized portrayal of Raziq. To be consistent you should believe that the FACT they did not report on Raziq's crimes means it did not happen. (Remember you say AfghanOutlook reports on incidences)

you are selective and biased. Case closed !

For the record, I have never said Taliban have never committed crimes pre or post US intervention.

My point is that you back your claims up whatever they maybe with valid sources. You want random and fitting links, then you can open blogs with the titles you want-what Russia did for 2016 US election

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

all Pro regime media. You just were trying to not answer the question.



Ummm what? They are reporting on whaf Zaeef says like they report on what Trump or Taliban SAY? This is an irrelevant point. It rained today at 4pm


Bad analogy, the difference here is they're giving Zaeef an outlet for his opinions.

.

Thank you for finally answering my question. The results.

You believe what pro-Regime media says about Pre-2001 Taliban crimes. You don't believe in the idealized portrayal of Abdul Raziq.



Yes there is. The Pro-Regime media (lets stick to Afghanoutlook for your sake) never reported on Abdul Raziq's crimes in Afghanistan (i.e killing Noorzai children. These crimes have been documented but show me where it is in AfghanOutlook or Tolo for that matter? Start googling. Lets agree for argument sake thaf AfghanOutlook reports on "incidences." Show me their reporting of the crimes of Raziq?






Rehash.

You believe pro-Regime media accounts of pre-2001 Taliban crimes.

You don't believe Pro-regime media idealized portrayal of Raziq. To be consistent you should believe that the FACT they did not report on Raziq's crimes means it did not happen. (Remember you say AfghanOutlook reports on incidences)

you are selective and biased. Case closed !

I knew this is what you were going for, That's why I said earlier "that's not how it works". Because media isn't a "hive mind", different journalists report on news and thus there's probably varied perspectives. Using YOUR own logic, You're dismissing the fact they're presenting and giving a Public Outlet for Zaeef's views that are critical of the regime by equating it to aWeather report , This is a false equivalence/ Bad analogy by the way; rain doesn't have perspectives on Afghan politics.

Furthermore applying your own reasoning, this would mean by dismissing any evidence that may be contrary to your suggestion, then byyour own admission and reasoning, you're filtering things based on your own agenda and bias. Your reasoning backfires against you;

Also, recall what I said earlier, Remember...... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"....., So I don't need to go any further in finding something critical of Raziq, because it's Non-sequittur to whether this source is unreliable or pro-regime. Besides, they don't have a search bar on their site, who knows, maybe they did have an article about suspiscions of Abdul Raziq's crimes, did you try looking through their archives?

And this is is precisely what I mean when I said" you're using 2010 Tactics" for 2018. Your logic is sloppy and hence it backfires just as it did now.

[Insight]

I knew this is what you were going for, That's why I said earlier "that's not how it works". Because media isn't a "hive mind", different journalists report on news and thus there's probably varied perspectives. Using YOUR own logic, You're dismissing the fact they're presenting and giving a Public Outlet for Zaeef's views that are critical of the regime by equating it to aWeather report , This is a false equivalence/ Bad analogy by the way; rain doesn't have perspectives on Afghan politics.

Furthermore applying your own reasoning, this would mean by dismissing any evidence that may be contrary to your suggestion, then byyour own admission and reasoning, you're filtering things based on your own agenda and bias. Your reasoning backfires against you;

Also, recall what I said earlier, Remember...... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"....., So I don't need to go any further in finding something critical of Raziq, because it's Non-sequittur to whether this source is unreliable or pro-regime. Besides, they don't have a search bar on their site, who knows, maybe they did have an article about suspiscions of Abdul Raziq's crimes, did you try looking through their archives?

And this is is precisely what I mean when I said" you're using 2010 Tactics" for 2018. Your logic is sloppy and hence it backfires just as it did now.

No matter how many lines you write, it still stands: you cherry pick.

You claim it reports on incidences but it did not report on Abdul Raziq's crimes. You still say it is a good source. Ignorance is bliss you might as well say. The source is bogus.

You are just a biased person who parrots Pro Regime media sources.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Read all the editorials of OutlookAfghanistan-your credibe source

Here is one of their Editorials marking the anniversary of the US intervention, reports on "incidences." Read your sources, visit their website lol

Pros and Cons of War on Terror
October 07, 2018

Pros and Cons of War on Terror - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan, print and online English Newspaper

Here you can find more material for all your future claims

Editorials - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan, Read our views on Afghanistan political issues, election, women rights, human rights, security and economy.

Yeah I already covered this point .....do you not read my responses ?

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.

Again your argument falls into the "Non-sequittur" category. Do more research, Who knows maybe this IS in fact an unreliable source, but you're doing a terrible job at showing it. This is just basically rehashed Circumstantial Ad-Hominem.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

No matter how many lines you write, it still stands: you cherry pick.

You claim it reports on incidences but it did not report on Abdul Raziq's crimes. You still say it is a good source. Ignorance is bliss you might as well say. The source is bogus.

You are just a biased person who parrots Pro Regime media sources.

Yep, just like I wrote before, when you can't get out of your logical snag, you just "double down" and keep insisting on a failed point.

Sorry, but no. Your logic (or lack there of really) backfired on you. It's your own cherry picking that you base your accusation of cherry picking. Irony or you just didn't think that through?

[Insight]

I knew this is what you were going for, That's why I said earlier "that's not how it works". Because media isn't a "hive mind", different journalists report on news and thus there's probably varied perspectives. Using YOUR own logic, You're dismissing the fact they're presenting and giving a Public Outlet for Zaeef's views that are critical of the regime by equating it to aWeather report , This is a false equivalence/ Bad analogy by the way; rain doesn't have perspectives on Afghan politics.

Furthermore applying your own reasoning, this would mean by dismissing any evidence that may be contrary to your suggestion, then byyour own admission and reasoning, you're filtering things based on your own agenda and bias. Your reasoning backfires against you;

Also, recall what I said earlier, Remember...... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"....., So I don't need to go any further in finding something critical of Raziq, because it's Non-sequittur to whether this source is unreliable or pro-regime. Besides, they don't have a search bar on their site, who knows, maybe they did have an article about suspiscions of Abdul Raziq's crimes, did you try looking through their archives?

And this is is precisely what I mean when I said" you're using 2010 Tactics" for 2018. Your logic is sloppy and hence it backfires just as it did now.

LOL your source OutlookAfghanistan that only reports on incidences according to you.

Read all the editorials of OutlookAfghanistan-your credibe source

Here is one of their Editorials marking the anniversary of the US intervention. Read your sources, visit their website lol

PROS and Cons of War on Terror
October 07, 2018

Pros and Cons of War on Terror - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan, print and online English Newspaper

"During this period, when George W. Bush was the president of the United States, relations between Afghanistan and the United States were warmer and aid and support from the international community, especially the United States, came to Afghanistan. "

Hhhmm Very credible source!! Here you can find more material for all your future claims

Editorials - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan, Read our views on Afghanistan political issues, election, women rights, human rights, security and economy.

[Insight]

Yeah I already covered this point .....do you not read my responses ?







Again your argument falls into the "Non-sequittur" category. Do more research, Who knows maybe this IS in fact an unreliable source, but you're doing a terrible job at showing it. This is just basically rehashed Circumstantial Ad-Hominem.

NO you did not lol

Your source is a Pro War pro Kabul regime propoganda outlet

Here is one of their Editorials marking the anniversary of the US intervention. Read your sources, visit their website lol

PROS and Cons of War on Terror
October 07, 2018

Pros and Cons of War on Terror - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan, print and online English Newspaper

"During this period, when George W. Bush was the president of the United States, relations between Afghanistan and the United States were warmer and aid and support from the international community, especially the United States, came to Afghanistan. "

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

LOL your source OutlookAfghanistan that only reports on incidences according to you.

Read all the editorials of OutlookAfghanistan-your credibe source

Here is one of their Editorials marking the anniversary of the US intervention. Read your sources, visit their website lol

PROS and Cons of War on Terror
October 07, 2018

Pros and Cons of War on Terror - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan, print and online English Newspaper

"During this period, when George W. Bush was the president of the United States, relations between Afghanistan and the United States were warmer and aid and support from the international community, especially the United States, came to Afghanistan. "

Hhhmm Very credible source!! Here you can find more material for all your future claims

Editorials - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan, Read our views on Afghanistan political issues, election, women rights, human rights, security and economy.

That's not at all what I said, I was responding to your statement regarding your issues that you didn't find an article there about Abdul Raziq's crimes, I didn't say anything about Op/Eds.

An Op/Ed is a Op/Ed these exist in almost any news source. By simple infinite regression, if an Op/Ed is why a news paper's articles aren't reliable sources, then this makes EVERY News or media source, EVEN the ones you use no longer would be reliable.

All you're demonstrating here is that you're desperately grasping for something and that you didn't think things through.

[khushal]

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.

But those are explained, they were a reaction to atrocities that were committed against them just like US intervention created Raziq attrocities actually increased violence by forcing Noorzai tribesmen join the Taliban. Raziq's death is a step closer to less violence long term. There is no way rank and file insurgents are going to lay down their arms when these thugs are running loose in the country.

The U.S. Lost a Key Ally in Southern Afghanistan. But Abdul Raziq Was No Hero.


Dude, come on, your basically reaching. I understand why Firdousi says what he says. He is a Tajik and he believes his people are better off with the status quo but youre intentionally being dishonest.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

NO you did not lol

Your source is a Pro War pro Kabul regime propoganda outlet

Here is one of their Editorials marking the anniversary of the US intervention. Read your sources, visit their website lol

PROS and Cons of War on Terror
October 07, 2018

Pros and Cons of War on Terror - The Daily Outlook Afghanistan, print and online English Newspaper

"During this period, when George W. Bush was the president of the United States, relations between Afghanistan and the United States were warmer and aid and support from the international community, especially the United States, came to Afghanistan. "

Are you even reading anything I wrote? I addressed that someone writing an editorial piece has no bearing on what the merits of the news paper's reports.. So you're you're essentially DOING exactly what I was pointing in the post you're replying to.

This is precisely what "doubling down" means, somehow in your head you think reverting back to after it's been addressed will give it more impact. It doesn't

your point's been dispelled, what else you got?

[khushal]

[MENTION=18674]Insight[/MENTION], you initially made me laugh with your comments but youre actually right. I checked Foxnews and they have no articles about Raziq's atrocities either. Also TOLO is owned by Fox. These outlets are owned by MIC industry.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

But those are explained, they were a reaction to atrocities that were committed against them just like US intervention created Raziq attrocities actually increased violence by forcing Noorzai tribesmen join the Taliban. Raziq's death is a step closer to less violence long term. There is no way rank and file insurgents are going to lay down their arms when these thugs are running loose in the country.

The U.S. Lost a Key Ally in Southern Afghanistan. But Abdul Raziq Was No Hero.


Dude, come on, your basically reaching. I understand why Firdousi says what he says. He is a Tajik and he believes his people are better off with the status quo but youre intentionally being dishonest.

The explanation Taliban apologists give, isn't the correct one. The Taliban targeted civilians and non-combatants. rather than the actual perpretators. which means the Taliban had a preexisting inclination that doing immoral crimes such as targeting civilians is a valid course of action. So it's not actually reaction to violence, but a pretext to justify a premotivated drive for violence. A reaction would have been against perpretators only, with Taliban doing so defensively. We can see Taliban militarily invaded the region.


How can I be dishonest when you already admitted to Taliban crimes? This is a perfect example of a back peddle.

Pulling the race and ethnicity card Firdousi is chauvanism; which is why it confuses you when someone puts morals above ethnicity.

[Firdousi]

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 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

Your opinion is irrelevant. You werent in there but enjoying the good life in the USA so I do not need you to lecture me about the Taliban.. And most of Afghanistan was taken by force. Thousands died in Herat and Kabul. The war in the north was brutal as hell. One friend of mine from Taloqan told me that battle between Massoud and Taliban was brutal as hell. He was in there. Several members of his family died. Thousands of Taliban died in there but still they took the city because superior manpower.

You are talking about stuff you ignore.

[Firdousi]

But those are explained, they were a reaction to atrocities that were committed against them just like US intervention created Raziq attrocities actually increased violence by forcing Noorzai tribesmen join the Taliban. Raziq's death is a step closer to less violence long term. There is no way rank and file insurgents are going to lay down their arms when these thugs are running loose in the country.

The U.S. Lost a Key Ally in Southern Afghanistan. But Abdul Raziq Was No Hero.


Dude, come on, your basically reaching. I understand why Firdousi says what he says. He is a Tajik and he believes his people are better off with the status quo but youre intentionally being dishonest.

Thats not true. I believe Pashtuns are also way better off under government rule than under Taliban. Most of them agree with me thats why thousands of Pashtuns keep migrating into government controlled areas instead of staying in Talibanistan enjoying the paradise they have created.