Documentary = Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge

[lemontree]

Regardless of whether he was a willing accomplice, Mullah Omar knowingly chose his path and that of the Taliban government... to harbor Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda .

Just to add - Mulla Omar, is an illiterate bumb pesant, taking orders from the ISI.

 

[bigross86]

The Taliban were not the 'enemy' in 2001 - an 'enemy' would not have made public statements condemning the 9/11 attacks:


CNN.com - Taliban diplomat condemns attacks - September 12, 2001

Just wanna get my two cents in before this thread is locked due to excessive repetition:

Yassir Arafat made numerous and incessant statements condemning suicide bombings and terror attacks in Israel, but it is a proven fact that he himself was behind an absolute majority of the terror attacks committed while he was in power.

Believe it or not, people have developed the ability to lie.....

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Which is common knowledge around the world.Yet AM just didn't knew.

If that statement of Mullah Omar's was common knowledge to all of you, why did none of you post it earlier?

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

I'm terribly sorry, it's difficult to refute "1+1=3" And just as pointless. So, for that matter, is debating with you.

Nonsense - I doubt you had any clue about that interview prior to Minskaya discovering it because if you had you would have posted it to refute my argument instead of ranting and hurling abuse this entire time.

Once again, you're asking me to prove things like gravity. I gave up on you days ago. I'm simply laughing at you now. And in case you missed it, the vast majority of the board is too.

Or as people smarter than me have described you: "AM is an obnoxious liar, a facile rewriter of recent history"..."he's has taken obfuscation and dissemblance to heretofore unimagined heights."

I could only dream of writing so well.

Again, posting abuse and ad-hominems instead of facts to counter an argument only illustrates your (and/or whoever wrote that garbage) ignorance until Minskaya dug out the details, and now you want to ride on her coat-tails and pretend to have known the information she posted all along.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Just wanna get my two cents in before this thread is locked due to excessive repetition:

Yassir Arafat made numerous and incessant statements condemning suicide bombings and terror attacks in Israel, but it is a proven fact that he himself was behind an absolute majority of the terror attacks committed while he was in power.

Believe it or not, people have developed the ability to lie.....

As Parihaka argued on the Syria thread, it is fallacious to argue that 'because someone lied once, everyone lies all the time' ...

Yes, it is entirely possible that the Taliban ambassador was lying outright, it is also possible that he was not lying and was kept out of the decision making loop by Mullah Omar and the senior Taliban leadership in order to present an acceptable face to the world. You cannot merely claim 'Zaeef was lying' without additional facts to back it up, and those additional facts were the Mullah Omar and Saudi intelligence chief's interviews detailing Mullah Omar's position on the issue of extraditing OBL.

 

[bigross86]

Allow me to present my good friend, Dr. Gregory House:

View attachment 33177

True, to argue that "because someone lied once, everyone lies all the time" is a fallacious argument, but to try and find excuses instead of just accepting Occam's Razor that he's a damned liar is also fallacious, a waste of time, and an insult to everyone's intelligence, ours if you think we're that dumb, yours if you think we're that dumb.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

True, to argue that "because someone lied once, everyone lies all the time" is a fallacious argument, but to try and find excuses instead of just accepting Occam's Razor that he's a damned liar is also fallacious

And on what basis are you arguing that 'it was patently obvious that the Taliban Ambassador was a damned liar'?

The only 'insult to ones intelligence' is the charade you and some others are putting on here now after Minskaya found facts to refute the argument that the US did not pursue negotiations completely - prior to that I saw little other than a torrent of abuse, rants and opinion.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Refute completely? Are you a fucking idiot. Never mind. You are. Omar himself stated that he refused to enter negotiations even before 11 Sept and we cruise missiled OBL's camp in Afghanistan. That is open knowledge. They didn't give up OBL back then or even kick him out of the country. Now, you're coming up with this bullshit that somehow the Taliban would be willing to give OBL up for 11 Sept. If the Taliban didn't give him up for the African Embassies bombing, only a fucking idiot would believe tht they would give him up for 11 Sept.

For fuck sakes, they didn't even arrest the ************, nor even put him in protective custody. Hell, they didn't even ask him to leave. Instead, they allowed him to fortify his camp.

Guess what? You're a fucking fool.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Guess what? You're a fucking fool.

Guess what, read post# 169, and next time provide facts to counter an argument instead of nonsensical, abusive rants. Did you reference the Mullah Omar interview or the Prince Turki interview during the course of this discussion? No, of course not, and now you disingenuous lot want to pretend that 'hey, I knew this all along even though I never once mentioned it'.

 

[Double Edge]

If these negotiations succeed in giving the tail bunnies a degree of autonomy in the southern provinces but under a watchful brief by the Afghan govt. (and the odd drone) then the TB are more likely to concentrate on solidifying their gains in Afghanistan's southern provinces and Pakistan's western ones, and given Pakistan's proclivities are more likely set for conflict against Pakistan than against Afghanistan: a kind of sub-state, straddling two borders and ignoring the Durand Line.

Can we pursue this line some more.

What lies in store for the Taliban and Afghanistan post 2014.

The past is done.

 

[Chogy]

I don't know about the other mods, but I'm going to give this one more morning. Morning for me, that is.

If subsequent posts contain new, meaningful, or revelatory material, the thread lives. If not, it's locked.

 

[TopHatter]

If that statement of Mullah Omar's was common knowledge to all of you, why did none of you post it earlier?

Because you're such an expert on the Taliban and their intentions, we were waiting for you to post it. :tongue:

Nonsense - I doubt you had any clue about that interview prior to Minskaya discovering it because if you had you would have posted it to refute my argument instead of ranting and hurling abuse this entire time.

Again, posting abuse and ad-hominems instead of facts to counter an argument only illustrates your (and/or whoever wrote that garbage) ignorance until Minskaya dug out the details, and now you want to ride on her coat-tails and pretend to have known the information she posted all along.

Yes yes, I know, we're all entitled to your delusions.

I don't know about the other mods, but I'm going to give this one more morning. Morning for me, that is.

If subsequent posts contain new, meaningful, or relevatory material, the thread lives. If not, it's locked.

Don't count on it. Agnostic Muslim is once again busily proving how clever he thinks he is.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Because you're such an expert on the Taliban and their intentions, we were waiting for you to post it. :tongue:

Yes, keep posting BS instead of the facts necessary to refute an argument ...

Yes yes, I know, we're all entitled to your delusions.

Are you actually going to try and argue that the a significant part of your posts were little other than abuse filled rants and that you never mentioned the VoA and Der Spiegel interviews till Minskaya's post?

Don't count on it. Agnostic Muslim is once again busily proving how clever he thinks he is.

The debate over whether the US exhausted the possibility of negotiations with the Taliban is done from my end - again, read post# 169 - I am pretty sure I used simple English that even you could understand. What is going on now is disingenuous attempts on the part of you and some others to act as if you had been aware of the Mullah Omar and Prince Turki interview all this time, despite never one referencing it till Minskaya did so.

 

[TopHatter]

Yes, keep posting BS instead of the facts necessary to refute an argument ...

Are you actually going to try and argue that the a significant part of your posts were little other than abuse filled rants and that you never mentioned the VoA and Der Spiegel interviews till Minskaya's post?

The debate over whether the US exhausted the possibility of negotiations with the Taliban is done from my end - again, read post# 169 - I am pretty sure I used simple English that even you could understand. What is going on now is disingenuous attempts on the part of you and some others to act as if you had been aware of the Mullah Omar and Prince Turki interview all this time, despite never one referencing it till Minskaya did so.

No, I already told you, I'm done with you. You presented (and still present) yourself as some kind of expert on the Taliban, their intentions and why the U.S. should've negotiated with them. Everything you've posted flies in the face of conventional wisdom and historical fact.

Trying to refute, debate or argue with you is like talking to a brick wall or a pile of dirt...and just as pointless and productive.

The only disingenuous thing on this thread is you. But you'd better keep using simple English that even I can understand.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

No, I already told you, I'm done with you. You presented (and still present) yourself as some kind of expert on the Taliban, their intentions and why the U.S. should've negotiated with them. Everything you've posted flies in the face of conventional wisdom and historical fact.

So not only are you being disingenuous about being aware of facts countering the argument I was making, you are also falsely attributing to me claims of 'presenting myself as some kind of expert on the Taliban, their intentions and why the US should have negotiated with them'. Try to get this through your head (and I'll write this in simple English) - I made arguments based on open source facts related to the offers for negotiation made by the Taliban. You chose to rant, rave and heave abuse around to hide your inability to counter an argument you disagreed with rationally. You now continue to pursue a path of abuse, lies and distortion of the positions I took and my comments to make yourself look better and disparage me. Next time engage in a discussion instead of going blue in the face swearing at someone you disagree with.

Trying to refute, debate or argue with you is like talking to a brick wall or a pile of dirt...and just as pointless and productive.

When the only thing you can offer is rants and abuse, don't expect me to buy your nonsense - and just to expose another one of your lies/distortions about me, your claim that I would not accept any 'factual refutation of my argument' was debunked in post#169.

The only disingenuous thing on this thread is you. But you'd better keep using simple English that even I can understand.

How many more lies and distortions of my comments (that you have offered) do I have to expose before you back off?

 

[Chogy]

That didn't take long.

AM - how does the saying go? Something like "When every other person you debate is obviously an idiot, and wrong, it may be time to re-evaluate your position." We are not a gang of teenaged boys hopped up on Monster Energy and playing Call of Duty all day, fantasizing about war.

This "talk with the Taliban after 9/11" smacks of Neville Chamberlain's desperation in the late 1930's. 9/11 demanded action, not diplomacy. Diplomacy died along with >3,000 of our citizens on that day.

If any other mods feel this is premature, feel free to open the thread.