The UK and the mujahedeen

[cockneyrebel]

no-one has anything to say about the appalling crimes of the russians against the chechens?

Maybe because this thread is about Afghanistan by any chance?

You're a woman hating nut case, and hopefully you and the rest of The Taliban will come to the same end that that PDPA dealt out to the royal family and the Mujahideen when they came to power.

And you still haven't come to terms with the fact that the PDPA were actually very popular in the Afghan cities and a civil war broke out, it wasn't the Afghans vs the invaders.

Interesting article about ex-PDPAers here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,11447,658185,00.html

 

[cockneyrebel]

On Kabul:

Half the Afghan capital was in ruins, he wrote, "thanks to 22 years of civil war". With a little homework, he could have discovered that until 1992, when the communist regime imploded, Kabul was virtually untouched.

The scum that are The Taliban and the Mujahideen before them managed to reduce it to ruins.

 

[cockneyrebel]

On the PDPA:

Afghan cities enjoyed a huge surge in education and healthcare.

Had they not been allied to Moscow, the PDPA would be praised today as the most competent modernisers in Afghan history.

Yet one thousand male and female doctors were graduating annually, equal to the number in the entire 50 years of Zahir Shah and his cousin, Mohammed Daoud, who followed. In their time there were five kindergartens in Kabul and none elsewhere. We built 400.

 

[ViolentPanda]

lame

That's a pretty good assessment of the bullshit you've posted, I think we can all agree.

 

[ViolentPanda]

then they aint muslims are they

Care to show everyone the text from the Koran or the hadith that supports your claim?

 

[fattboy]

Fuck me you're a right charmer aren't you, a homophobic conspiracy loon who supports the lashing and stoning to death of women and i strongly suspect there's a nasty hole of anti-semitism crawling around under your 'anti-zionism.

i hope ur not suggesting all jews are murdering,facist thieves.

 

[fattboy]

nice circular argument there

please clarify

 

[fattboy]

That's a pretty good assessment of the bullshit you've posted, I think we can all agree.

funny and well mannered

 

[fattboy]

Care to show everyone the text from the Koran or the hadith that supports your claim?

'And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers'

Qur'an 5:44

*waits for the 'tafseer'*

 

[cockneyrebel]

Interesting that there are still Maoist groups in Afghanistan and off shoots of the PDPA. Fair enough they are tiny (and in the case of the Maoists seem very like the Sparts) but I thought there was literally no left forces whatsoever.

 

[fattboy]

btw, some of these things that are being attributed to the taliban, im not accepting them without proper proof, but if they did something wrong ive got no problem condemning it at all.

 

[Blagsta]

please clarify

You what?

 

[Blagsta]

btw, some of these things that are being attributed to the taliban, im not accepting them without proper proof, but if they did something wrong ive got no problem condemning it at all.

oh fuck off

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here are some Brzezinsky quotes about his involvement in stirring up Afghanistan against the Soviets.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zbigniew_Brzezinski

My recollection though, and I'll have a look for a source on this (I think I might have read it in Woodward's book about the Casey/Reagan era CIA, 'Veil') was that during the Reagan era, the support was ramped up heavily at the instigation of the same people who were pushing the idea of clandestine support for the Contras before it was adopted as actual policy.

 

[butchersapron]

btw, some of these things that are being attributed to the taliban, im not accepting them without proper proof, but if they did something wrong ive got no problem condemning it at all.

And what would you consider to be 'proper proof' oh learned one?

 

[ViolentPanda]

'And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers'

Qur'an 5:44

*waits for the 'tafseer'*

And when the Koran says "Allah", it means...?

Have a think about it, before replying.

 

[ViolentPanda]

btw, some of these things that are being attributed to the taliban, im not accepting them without proper proof, but if they did something wrong ive got no problem condemning it at all.

Why not try doing a bit of research on Pashtunwali (the Taliban being overwhelmingly composed of Pakistani and Afghan Durrani Pashtuns) and compare it to the precepts of Islam?
The differences between the messages of your prophet and the standards and obligations inculcated by the Pashtun ethical code should be enough for you to condemn the Taliban for "unIslamic practices" alone.
After all, how devout is a person who picks and chooses to follow only those parts of a religious code that suit their preconceived prejudices? Why do you think so many more scholars of Islam have condemned the Taliban and their actions as "unIslamic", compared to the amount of scholars who have supported them?

 

[ViolentPanda]

And what would you consider to be 'proper proof' oh learned one?

I suspect that for "fattboy" there is no "proof" that is "proper" enough to defeat his own prejudices on this matter.

 

[fattboy]

And what would you consider to be 'proper proof' oh learned one?

if theyve done some of these things mentioned like murder or being involved in drugs then i condemn it, but their not gulity of everything thats being thrown at them

look at how they treated Yvonne Ridley when they captured her, with the utmost respect and dignity, a lot more than the women of iraq and afghanistan can expect from either us/uk forces or their stooges.

btw, while she was in their custody, some agency passed information and fabricated docs to the talibs that inferred she was a mossad spy, thankfully they realised they were being set up and disregarded it.

 

[fattboy]

And when the Koran says "Allah", it means...?

Have a think about it, before replying.

it means Allah

oh my days...

 

[butchersapron]

if theyve done some of these things mentioned like murder or being involved in drugs then i condemn it, but their not gulity of everything thats being thrown at them

What's this supposed to mean? Do you now accept that you were 100% wrong about the Taliban involvement in the drug trade or not? Or are you still demanding 'proper proof' without specifying what you mean by this?

 

[Aldebaran]

'And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers'

Qur'an 5:44

*waits for the 'tafseer'*

It is tafsir, not tafsEEr and it is typical for fakers posing as Muslims to give one-line quotes out of Al Qur'an, not only neglecting the rest of the verse but also completely neglecting the whole of the context.
It is on the other hand also a known Radical's brainwashing tactic to do just that, and while doing it make their listener believe that there isn't even a neglect of anything taking place.
Either way you are exposing yourself by doing this.

surat-al mâ'ida (V), is considered to be among the last, reveiled during what is commonly known as "the farewell pelgrimage" of the Prophet.
Referring to the Jews are verses 12,13,20-26.41-45,64,70,71 and 78-82.

You took one little piece out of 44 and without even knowing what it refers to let alone you would know how to place it and what it could mean.
You think you can use that to "win" an argument...What argument exactly and what do you think you are talking about with taking this one line out of its verse, its context and giving it a self-invented meaning that is as obscure to anyone as the real meaning and context is to you.

If you want me to explain the verse, you only need to ask.

salaam.

 

[fattboy]

What's this supposed to mean? Do you now accept that you were 100% wrong about the Taliban involvement in the drug trade or not? Or are you still demanding 'proper proof' without specifying what you mean by this?

basically, if someone accuses someone of something and that person denies it, unless ive got some very clear proof, im obliged to accept his word he's innocent.
anyway, they outlawed it, so if they did get involved theyve repented from that.

 

[butchersapron]

basically, if someone accuses someone of something and that person denies it, unless ive got some very clear proof, im obliged to accept his word he's innocent.
anyway, they outlawed it, so if they did get involved theyve repented from that.

An entirely fatuous anology that bears no substantial relation to the situation here.

And no, they're back propheting from it today.

What this actually does is throw even more doubt on your historical knowledge and leads to other posters asking themselves why you repeatdly made such definitive statements about something that you now admit was wrong - it's almost as if you're making it up as you go along.

 

[fattboy]

It is tafsir, not tafsEEr and it is typical for fakers posing as Muslims to give one-line quotes out of Al Qur'an, not only neglecting the rest of the verse but also completely neglecting the whole of the context.
It is on the other hand also a known Radical's brainwashing tactic to do just that, and while doing it make their listener believe that there isn't even a neglect of anything taking place.
Either way you are exposing yourself by doing this.

surat-al mâ'ida (V), is considered to be among the last, reveiled during what is commonly known as "the farewell pelgrimage" of the Prophet.
Referring to the Jews are verses 12,13,20-26.41-45,64,70,71 and 78-82.

You took one little piece out of 44 and without even knowing what it refers to let alone you would know how to place it and what it could mean.
You think you can use that to "win" an argument...What argument exactly and what do you think you are talking about with taking this one line out of its verse, its context and giving it a self-invented meaning that is as obscure to anyone as the real meaning and context is to you.

If you want me to explain the verse, you only need to ask.

salaam.

ur correcting me on the right way of spelling an arabic word in english,lol.
so would dhuhr be more correct or zuhr, or ishaa or eesha in ur little world.
it doesnt matter sheikh, their arabic words, u write it how it sounds.

anyway, it is taf-sEEr, not taf-sir.

 

[Aldebaran]

ur correcting me on the right way of spelling an arabic word in english,lol.
so would dhuhr be more correct or zuhr, or ishaa or eesha in ur little world.
it doesnt matter sheikh, their arabic words, u write it how it sounds.

anyway, it is taf-sEEr, not taf-sir.

. You remind me of a (Jewish) poster who has no knowledge at all about Arabic and even claims to have it as his first language.

I'm also a linguist, my child. Not only in the Arabic language although I hold one of my doctorates in that field.

salaam.

 

[fattboy]

was that supposed to be a refutation

wa aleikum salaam

 

[Aldebaran]

No, it is supposed to make you think before you post.

salaam.

 

[MikeMcc]

ur correcting me on the right way of spelling an arabic word in english,lol.
so would dhuhr be more correct or zuhr, or ishaa or eesha in ur little world.
it doesnt matter sheikh, their arabic words, u write it how it sounds.

anyway, it is taf-sEEr, not taf-sir.

I see you didn't bother to try to repudiate any of the rest of Alderbaran's arguement. On top of that he disputed the point that you did raise.

0/10 for you

 

[MikeMcc]

btw, some of these things that are being attributed to the taliban, im not accepting them without proper proof, but if they did something wrong ive got no problem condemning it at all.

Then start doing so fuckwit. Theres a long list available to view on a simple search.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/afghan2/
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=332562
http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2002/May/olattaliban_May02.htm
http://www.hazara.net/taliban/taliban.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/16/asia/afghan.php

That's just a start. You really are a buffoon.