The Last Days of Taliban Head Mullah Omar

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

according to king george. yes.

side note here; G washington was convinced that jefferson was a french puppet til his death.

Point being it's still a false equivalence because Pakistan admitted they engineered the Talibs which is consistent with corroborating evidence.

[khushal]

Point being it's still a false equivalence because Pakistan admitted they engineered the Talibs which is consistent with corroborating evidence.

talibs were there before the creation of pakistan. The brits used to call them mad mullahs

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

But the bad taliban had pledged allegiance to M Omar. also the haqqanis and TTP are closely alligned.

The whole game is circular. US funds pakistan, pakistan supports talibs, talibs kill us soldiers -- us fund pakistan......
Therefore US funds the killing of their own soldiers.

Pakistan supports talibs, talibs support TTP, TTP kills pakistani soldiers---- pakistan supports talibs......
Therefore pakistan supports the killing of their soldiers.

Pakistan is a necessary evil that the US needs to keep the region divided While pakistan needs the necessary evil (TAliban) to keep india out of its north and north west.


Saudi supports Taliban, Taliban supports AQ, AQ wants to depose the Saudis---Saudi supports Talibs.....
Therefore Saudis Supports their own ouster

Saudi regards the necessary evil (taliban) to keep Iran contained just like they were against the deposing of Saddam who wanted to invade them to keep iran contained.

Its called Risk management.

I think it's pretty well established that the Afghan and Paki Taliban are separate entities; some pledge they made years ago, has clearly not been lived up to. Especially since its been established that the Afghan IDS has been on collusion with them. IN FACT, if I recall you were arguing that the Paki and Afghan Taliban were distinct and operated differently and that we couldn't use extremes done by the Paki Taliban to malign the Taliban as a whole? Or was that Insight? Either way, I think you endorsed that view point.

So "risk management" wouldn't really apply here" but I look forward to your retrograde re-working of your narrative next time you're caught in a factual error.

Side note; The Haqqanis and Mullah Umar, having ISI associations, were pleading with the TTP not to do kill Col. Imam. Very telling.

[Insight]

I think it's pretty well established that the Afghan and Paki Taliban are separate entities; some pledge they made years ago, has clearly not been lived up to. Especially since its been established that the Afghan IDS has been on collusion with them. IN FACT, if I recall you were arguing that the Paki and Afghan Taliban and that we couldn't use extremes done by the Paki Taliban to malign the Taliban as a whole? Or was that Insight? Either way, I think you endorsed that view point.

So "risk management wouldn't really apply here" but I look forward to youf retrograde re-working if your narrative next time you're caught in a factual error.

Side note; The Haqqanis and Mullah Umar, having ISI associations, were pleading with the TTP not to do kill Col. Imam. Very telling.

Why do you lie so much?

I never have ever defended any political movement/insurgency or even a country for that matter on this forum.

I can't help you if your mental limitations equate stating facts and presenting sources as "defending."

Anyone reading your posts can tell you don't have any idea what you are talking about

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Again its risk management. Closing borders hurts both sides but it usually hurts the poor neighbor more in this example it would be afghanistan.
Just like closing the US mex border will hurt both sides but it will hurt mex ico more since they are more poor.
Pakistan purpose of closing the border is to punish afghanistan for being friendly with india. It still hurts pakistan economically but they view an india friendly afghan state as a bigger threat to any economic cost.

Pakistan is the desperate one here. Taliban will still exist without pakistan just like the TTP exists without pakistan.

You can't do this by analogy, Pakistan and America aren't the same. Pakistan is a military government with a civilian government exterior. America is a civilian government. Pakistan is thus willing to "hurt" its own, look what it did to FATA. The closest thing to FATA that happened in the U.S. was Waco. FATA was Waco times 1000. All it cares about is subverting India.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Why do you lie so much?

I never have ever defended any political movement/insurgency or even a country for that matter on this forum.

I can't help you if your mental limitations equate stating facts and presenting sources as "defending."

Anyone reading your posts can tell you don't have any idea what you are talking about

Where did I lie? I wasn't sure which one of you tried to exonerate the Afghan Taliban fro Pakistani Taliban crimes?

I just noted that he "flipped" his script now. I wasn't sure if you made that argument or him. If it wasn't you, then it was definitely Khushal, since you and he are the only active Taliban apologists left.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

talibs were there before the creation of pakistan. The brits used to call them mad mullahs

Those people you consider "The Talibs" i.e. the Faqir of Ipi, Mad Mullah etc. before Pakistan don't share a linear continuuum with the ISI Taliban, ISI just learned these stories, co-opted them and appropriated them into the Taliban mythos for street cred. It's the same way Wahhabis co-opt Imam Shamil Daghestani, despite the fact he was a Sufi Mystic and would have nothing to do with their brand at all. Pakistan tries to personify itself as the inhertitor of "Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, Sher Shah, Abdali" and every other Muslim conqueror in the general region, but also no linear continuum, it's just as I said, co-opting stories to serve a mythos.

[Insight]

Those people you consider "The Talibs" i.e. the Faqir of Ipi, Mad Mullah etc. before Pakistan don't share a linear continuuum with the ISI Taliban, ISI just learned these stories, co-opted them and appropriated them into the Taliban mythos for street cred. It's the same way Wahhabis co-opt Imam Shamil Daghestani, despite the fact he was a Sufi Mystic and would have nothing to do with their brand at all. Pakistan tries to personify itself as the inhertitor of "Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, Sher Shah, Abdali" and every other Muslim conqueror in the general region, but also no linear continuum, it's just as I said, co-opting stories to serve a mythos.

Pakistan says they created the Taliban, it must be true.

Pakistan also says they don't back the Taliban with supplies or give them a safe haven. Is this true?

[Insight]

Those people you consider "The Talibs" i.e. the Faqir of Ipi, Mad Mullah etc. before Pakistan don't share a linear continuuum with the ISI Taliban, ISI just learned these stories, co-opted them and appropriated them into the Taliban mythos for street cred. It's the same way Wahhabis co-opt Imam Shamil Daghestani, despite the fact he was a Sufi Mystic and would have nothing to do with their brand at all. Pakistan tries to personify itself as the inhertitor of "Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, Sher Shah, Abdali" and every other Muslim conqueror in the general region, but also no linear continuum, it's just as I said, co-opting stories to serve a mythos.

Was the Vienamese resistance (Viet Minh/Viet Cong) "mythos" created by China and Russia?

Was Ho Chi Minh a figure who was made mythical too with exaggerated stories of heroism penned in Beijing and Moscow?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Pakistan says they created the Taliban, it must be true.

Pakistan also says they don't back the Taliban with supplies or give them a safe haven. Is this true?

There's very little plausible reason for them to lie about it given the context and time period it was said. Which was 1999, few years before the "War on Terror" began and Armitage threatened to "bomb Pakistan into the stoneage"

There IS PLENTY of reason for them to lie about giving Taliban assistance NOW, after such turn of events and other incentives.

You're making a false equivalence between the two scenarios. You use that approach a lot but it doesn't work when you examine things more closely.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Was the Vienamese resistance (Viet Minh/Viet Cong) "mythos" created by China and Russia?

Was Ho Chi Minh a figure who was made mythical too with exaggerated stories of heroism penned in Beijing and Moscow?

Refer back to False Equivalence. Since Pakistan admit to engineering the Taliban, the other parties don't w/ regard to Viet Kong.

[Insight]

Refer back to False Equivalence.

Was the Vietnamese resistance "mythos" made up in China and Russia as you say the Taliban "mythos" was made up in Pakistan?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Was the Vietnamese resistance "mythos" made up in China and Russia like the Taliban "mythos" was made up in Pakistan?

Refer back to false equivalence. since the Taliban were engineered by Pakistan, and I know of no evidence of China and Russia doing the same for the Viet Cong.

[Insight]

Refer back to False Equivalence. Since Pakistan admit to engineering the Taliban, the other parties don't w/ regard to Viet Kong.

Pakistan says they don't back the Taliiban.

Pakistan (some random retired military general) claims they engineered the Taliban.


You believe the second statement but not the first. That is called being an intellectual fraud.


You cherry pick certain statements made by one Pakistani and ignore other statements. So now you nees to explain why you believe one Pakistani official but not others? Whats the reason?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Pakistan says they don't back the Taliiban.

Pakistan (some random retired military general) claims they engineered the Taliban.


You believe the second statement but not the first. That is called being an intellectual fraud.


You cherry pick certain statements made by one Pakistani and ignore other statements. So now you nees to explain why you believe one Pakistani official but not others? Whats the reason?

ALready addressed that, Pakistan now have a lot to lose by admitting association with Taliban, back when the statement was said they didn't. Context and situation is a huge factor Pakistan don't have plausible deniability because they were proud of supporting Taliban in the 90's. America wasn't threatening to attack them, nor was America giving any other incentives.

There's no cherry picking here, the details matter. The details make the difference.

I've actually repeated why you're using false equivalence several times, why do you keep glossing over it as if you're scared and think repeating the false premise in your question will imply it wasn't answered? That's not how things work. It's almost like you're trying to Smokescreen.