The Last Days of Taliban Head Mullah Omar

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Your answer is either yes or no

Why are you reluctant to answer these questions?

Pigeonhole principle only works with actual dichotomies.


My response stands. Were the Communist Afghans stooges of The Soviets?

[Insight]

Then you shouldn't have demanded evidence from me, now you seem to be caught of guard by the evidence and are trying to muddy the waters and make an ink cloud.

I take this as you conceding.

I have all the sources. It is exhausting repeating this debate with you for the 100th time.



This has beem discussed almost infinitely on this forum.

I will bring up some good threads from Barakzai where I recall you just ran away. Lol thats going to be fun

[Insight]

Pigeonhole principle only works with actual dichotomies.


My response stands. Were the Communist Afghans stooges of The Soviets?

Yes, Soviet troops were in Afghanistan propping up Najib

Were the Vietnamese stooges of Russia and China because they were backed by them with weapon supplies in the same way Taliban are backed by Pakistan and Iran?


Apply your logic man

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I have all the sources. It is exhausting repeating this debate with you for the 100th time.



This has beem discussed almost infinitely on this forum.

I will bring up some good threads from Barakzai where I recall you just ran away. Lol thats going to be fun

LOL ah okay, but you seemed to be missing the point. You can't simply just "have" the sources, you have to demonstrate how the "sources" counter the merits of these sources by falsifying the claims made by the sources ..

Not some ridiculous remark about how they "said this about Taliban and India ...do you think that coincides with their claim about Taliban and Pakistan?" ....That's not how it works ....Simply because you weren't thinking about the case of the Taliban seeking benefactors and willing to servce who'll patronize them ...as is the case with Iran.

You tend to use very sloppy reasoning, which is why your declarations of "weak sources" is almost laughable, because your whole basis for something being weak tends to be based on faulty reasoning based on what I know of you.

[Insight]

LOL ah okay, but you seemed to be missing the point. You can't simply just "have" the sources, you have to demonstrate how the "sources" counter the merits of these sources by falsifying the claims made by the sources ..

Not some ridiculous where they "said this about Taliban and India ...do you think that coincides with their claim about Taliban and Pakistan?" ....That's not how it works ....Simply because you weren't thinking about the case of the Taliban seeking benefactors and willing to trade sides based on who'll patronize them ...as is the case with Iran.

You tend to use very sloppy reasoning, which is why your declarations of "weak sources" is almost laughable, because your whole basis for something being weak tends to be based on faulty reasoning based on what I know of you.

You are perhaps the only person here who expects no one to question your sources.

That is absurd. Sources always can be questioned.


When did I say Taliban are not backed by Pakistan or Iran? I have always said that is the case. Have you lost memory

[Insight]

Pigeonhole principle only works with actual dichotomies.


My response stands. Were the Communist Afghans stooges of The Soviets?

Yes, Soviet troops were in Afghanistan propping up Najib

Were the Vietnamese stooges of Russia and China because they were backed by them with weapon supplies in the same way Taliban are backed by Pakistan and Iran?


Apply your logic man

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Yes, Soviet troops were in Afghanistan propping up Najib

Were the Vietnamese stooges of Russia and China because they were backed by them with weapon supplies in the same way Taliban are backed by Pakistan and Iran?


Apply your logic man

So then By your logic you view Ahmad Abdali as a Stooge of Nadir Shah Qoli since his troops propped him up too. As for the Taliban, we already covered how they were basically organized and had collusion with Pakistani military, so that's already covered. Let's not "pretend" that point wasn't addressed like you typically do.

[Insight]

So then By your logic you view Ahmad Abdali as a Stooge of Nadir Shah Qoli since his troops propped him up too. As for the Taliban, we already covered how they were basically organized and had collusion with Pakistani military, so that's already covered. Let's not "pretend" that point wasn't addressed like you typically do.

Lmao


Afghanistan did not exist back then. There was a Persian empire that many tribes of that region were a part of.

You are aware that Ahmad Shah Baba founded Afghanistan? Right?

[Insight]

So then By your logic you view Ahmad Abdali as a Stooge of Nadir Shah Qoli since his troops propped him up too.

I asked you those questions. You answer them lol. Why you refusing to answer.

Were the Vietnamese stooges for taking support from China and Russia during Vietnam war?

Was Mirwais Neka a stooge for taking support from Ottomans during his war with Safavid Persians?

Was Ahmad Shah Baba a stooge due to his dealings with Persia?

William Wallace for taking support from French?

LoL you cant answer

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I asked you those questions. You answer them lol. Why you refusing to answer.

Were the Vietnamese stooges for taking support from China and Russia during Vietnam war?

Was Mirwais Neka a stooge for taking support from Ottomans during his war with Safavid Persians?

Was Ahmad Shah Baba a stooge due to his dealings with Persia?

William Wallace for taking support from French?

LoL you cant answer

Mainly because they're not all equivalent and you're trying to use "analogy" to validate the Taliban, but it doesn't work that way.

Also you're trying to base facts about something based on personal speculation. Even if I said "no", it woudn't mean Taliban aren't stooges.

Your approach is trash ...sorry it's logically errant. in fact I'll tell you which logical fallacy this is so you know you're wasting our time.\

This is a Fallacy called "False Equivalence" . NOw back to the drawing Board.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/245/False-Equivalence

False Equivalence
Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.

[Insight]

Iblis cant answer this question for the record:

Were the Vietnamese stooges of Russia/China for recieving military support from them in the same way Taliban are stooges of Pakistan and Iran?


Im waiting.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Iblis cant answer this question for the record:

Were the Vietnamese stooges of Russia/China for recieving military support from them in the same way Taliban are stooges of Pakistan and Iran?


Im waiting.

Oh I see, you're trying to distract from me asking you for counter evidence.

Nope, no derailing. I won't bite.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Lmao


Afghanistan did not exist back then. There was a Persian empire that many tribes of that region were a part of.

You are aware that Ahmad Shah Baba founded Afghanistan? Right?

What does that have to do with whether he was propped up by Nadir Qoli's army?

Being propped up means acquiring power. It doesn't rely on whether a certain presently existing Nation-state existed or not. Seriously, you're too sloppy.

[khushal]

Iblis cant answer this question for the record:

Were the Vietnamese stooges of Russia/China for recieving military support from them in the same way Taliban are stooges of Pakistan and Iran?


Im waiting.

or was Washington a stooge of the French for receiving Aid from them against King George.

[khushal]

Pigeonhole principle only works with actual dichotomies.


My response stands. Were the Communist Afghans stooges of The Soviets?

The difference is the Soviets did the fighting for the Afghan gov.