Locals turn against Taliban in eastern Afghanistan

[Insaanah]

Well we are talking about uniting two groups. If both groups committed atrocities against each other, then there will be victims. For example, let's say there are two Muslim groups (A and B) involved in a conflict due to external factors. A group of Muslim soldiers from group A rape a Muslim women in front of her husband and then kill the husband (based on true events). The Muslim women here is the victim. From her perspective, she won't care about what has lead group A to commit this act. She has been raped and requires justice. If this is ignored, then the following will occur:

1. No justice for the victim. The victim will experience anger and sadness. This will reduce the chances of the two groups uniting.
2. No accountability and deterrence. Those that committed the acts will probably commit them again. They won't fear retribution. More of these acts will be committed, thus making it unlikely for the two groups to unite.

Yes, there are other groups which may have played an indirect role in creating an atmosphere where these two groups commit violence towards each other. I'm not saying this is to be ignored either.

Fine if this categorised Muslims as a whole, but it doesn't.

Overall, what your advocating is not practicable.

Why?

Non-Muslims and non-Muslims countries and forces can set aside their differences to unite against a common enemy, why can't Muslims? Why is it practical for non-Muslims, but not for Muslims? What is it that stops Muslims, when we are commanded to be a brotherhood, but the non-Muslims aren't?

 

[GuestFellow]

Fine if this categorised Muslims as a whole, but it doesn't.

:wa:


It's an example of a conflict between two Muslim groups. A more realistic one is the Pakistan army committing atrocities against civilians of Bangladesh.

Why? Non-Muslims and non-Muslims countries and forces can set aside their differences to unite against a common enemy, why can't Muslims? Why is it practical for non-Muslims, but not for Muslims? What is it that stops Muslims, when we are commanded to be a brotherhood, but the non-Muslims aren't?

This is what you posted: Each views the other as an oppressor in some way. Both have a common enemy, who has invaded their land, bombed their land from above and from within the ground, and is also gaining control of natural resources etc. Should a group of Muslims sit and criticise the other and quantify the other's shortcomings, "mistakes, sins and evils", highlight the "bad-apples", before "lifting a finger" at the enemy (while the enemy does what it likes to their land and people in the meantime) OR, should that group, based on their common bond of faith, unite with the other against the common enemy and leave the fault-picking (which actually should be advising) til afterwards? Which takes precedence in this situation?

The reason why the two Muslim groups, which you introduced in your post, cannot unite because no one has been punished. Assuming both groups committed atrocities against each other, then the people responsible need to be corrected and punished. To sweep this under the carpet will not resolve the problem because the victims of these atrocities have not received justice. People, in general, will not unite with a group that has done terrible things to them, unless retribution has taken place.

EDIT:

I didn't read the last part of your post. Could not see it until I used the big font size. If your saying that Muslims should unite to get rid of a common enemy and then resolve their differences, then that's fine.

 

[Insaanah]

Assuming both groups committed atrocities against each other

I didn't say atrocities. I said each views the other as an oppressor in some way. This could be one viewing the other as too "hardline" Muslims, or one viewing the other as siding with the west, one saying that they don't have enough freedom etc. Anything you do to the other that the other doesn't like can be viewed (or misconstrued) as an form of oppression by the one on the receiving end.

Edit: Just saw your edit.

 

[GuestFellow]

^ Salaam,

Apologies. Ignore the rest of my drivel. I should have read your post more carefully.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

get us the news from the local Taliban tribune

Well, your local Taliban tribune sucks at getting news to the outside world. So, we have to rely on other news agencies. Closing your eyes and stuffing your ears won't make the transgressions and atrocities committed by those who rally under the banner of Islamic resistance go away nor is it the right thing to do. As you yourself have quoted a hadith previously, the least I can do is condemn them. That is exactly what I am doing. If you think there are no atrocities being committed then in your own words you are: "foolish and immature" and "not worth my time". Peace.

 

[جوري]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...hy-415016.html

It is very rare for the truth to come out, the truth that won't suit the goverment's agenda,

Even that is a very well calculated trick, drop a few truths in there so that when the time comes to drop a bombshell no one would question, I mean why now? Like OnTV of Egypt which is owned by Suaris a Zionist endorsed pig with billions.. Seemed fair and objective enough come check them now assailing the brotherhood, which led to one honest reporter to resign if she'll actually survive that if the CIA endorsed other pig Shafeeq comes to power and he's already speaking like someone with rigged elections.

 

[جوري]

Well, your local Taliban tribune sucks at getting news to the outside world.

Concocted corporate media news is a good way to fill idle time and fill in the blanks for what can't be accomplished by drones as I understand it.. yes thanks for taking up web space to perpetuate junk.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Roasted cashew i say you one thing, i sometimes visit the site of the islamic emirates of Afghanistan with backed proof and none what you said is true. The western and puppet media are liars regarding the attacks of the mujahideen(Lying about civilian deaths, while no civilian died but only enemy soldiers and their helpers) so they can blame the mujahideen for the attacks and killings. This is called divide and conquer. A old trick played by britain now done by israel, United states and britain together. The CIA place car bombs near a masjid and the western media will do the rest.

The western media hide the losses of their soldiers in afghanistan yet the American generals admit they're losing lol.


Regarding girl schools, this is a blatant lie from the pro-western feminist media and secular afghanis, the spokesman and scholars have spoken about this, and women where permitted to go to school, the taliban are not behind the destroying of girl schools. The taliban permitted for them to go to qu'ran schools and other schools. In some regions it was best for them to stay home yes due to insecurity caused by enemy forces (Communist afghans)

 

[Abz2000]

cashew, ur wisted logic doesn't make any sense,
to villify the one who is wronged, for something relatively miniscule to what the aggressors are doing just doesn't wash with me, especially when you know that their cause is true while that of the aggressors is false.

they can neither c ur posts, nor can they rectify any mistakes they make.
the only thing you seem to enjoy doing is putting out propaganda against the resisters of aggression.

and pls don't try to pretend that it's just to understand, because there are many ways of going about it,
when i visit any forums which actively support struggle against illegal aggression,
i commend them on their righteous efforts and emphasise the need to have tarbiyyah, and to continue learning about rules of engagement.
i don't however go and vilify them while ignoring the actions of the ones who actually seek to gain from bloodshed, and cause turmoil when it's totally un-necessary, even to the extent of staging false flag operations in order to justify their despicable aggression.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

Lying about civilian deaths, while no civilian died

Four killed in Afghan suicide attack, Taliban claim responsibility
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/05/10/213306.html
and I quote: "...Two police and two civilians were killed ..."

I can give you many such examples with even higher number of civilian casualties. What wrong did these civilians do? Suicide bombings have caused more deaths and injured more civilians than the enemy. Clearly, we as Muslims should condemn this method of warfare just like we condemn drone strikes since they are more harmful to innocent people.

while ignoring the actions of the ones who actually seek to gain from bloodshed, and cause turmoil when it's totally un-necessary, even to the extent of staging false flag operations in order to justify their despicable aggression.

Enough of you over here address the wrongs of the enemy. Very less of you do what I do. I am not ignoring their faults. Their faults are well highlighted over here but not so our own faults. It's just that.

 

[Abz2000]

Suicide bombings have caused more deaths and injured more civilians than the enemy.

who on earth told you that?

ur trying to tell me that suicide bombers have killed over a million people in iraq?

and that the lamestream media tell you the truth when they tell you every act was that of "alqaeda"?

i have documented proofs showing where they were asked about dead people and said "alqaeda" on record, until it was exposed that they themselves did it, then they said it was a "controlled blast" which was meant to take out "alqaeda" militants, then when asked why it was in a local soccer game where only kids who were playing died, they said it was a "regretted mistake".

that's for the documented ones, what of the thousands that are never ever reported,
hell they even staged 9/11 in front of the whole planet and told us it was Osama.

they even got caught with their pants down when they organised the first bombing of the world trade center

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n76g57X4hM&feature=related

 

[Roasted Cashew]

ur trying to tell me that suicide bombers have killed over a million people in iraq?

What I said was that suicide bombings have killed and injured more civilians than they have killed and injured the enemy..is it clearer now?

 

[جوري]

i have documented proofs showing where they were asked about dead people and said "alqaeda" on record

Do you remember this by Robert Fisk:

In Syria, the world appears through a glass, darkly. As dark as the smoked windows of the car which takes me to a building on the western side of Damascus where a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source", which is the name given by American correspondents to their own powerful intelligence officers - waits with his own ferocious narrative of disaster in Iraq and dangers in the Middle East.
His is a fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties. It is a scenario in which Saddam Hussein remains Washington's best friend, in which Syria has struck at the Iraqi insurgents with a ruthlessness that the United States wilfully ignores. And in which Syria's Interior Minister, found shot dead in his office last year, committed suicide because of his own mental instability.
The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces. "I swear to you that we have very good information," my source says, finger stabbing the air in front of him. "One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up."
Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable. And I know where much of the Syrian information is gleaned: from the tens of thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims who come to pray at the Sayda Zeinab mosque outside Damascus. These men and women come from the slums of Baghdad, Hillah and Iskandariyah as well as the cities of Najaf and Basra. Sunnis from Fallujah and Ramadi also visit Damascus to see friends and relatives and talk freely of American tactics in Iraq.
"There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car."
Just who these "Americans" might be, my source did not say. In the anarchic and panic-stricken world of Iraq, there are many US groups - including countless outfits supposedly working for the American military and the new Western-backed Iraqi Interior Ministry - who operate outside any laws or rules. No one can account for the murder of 191 university teachers and professors since the 2003 invasion - nor the fact that more than 50 former Iraqi fighter-bomber pilots who attacked Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have been assassinated in their home towns in Iraq in the past three years.
Amid this chaos, a colleague of my source asked me, how could Syria be expected to lessen the number of attacks on Americans inside Iraq? "It was never safe, our border," he said. "During Saddam's time, criminals and Saddam's terrorists crossed our borders to attack our government. I built a wall of earth and sand along the border at that time. But three car bombs from Saddam's agents exploded in Damascus and Tartous- I was the one who captured the criminals responsible. But we couldn't stop them."
Now, he told me, the rampart running for hundreds of miles along Syria's border with Iraq had been heightened. "I have had barbed wire put on top and up to now we have caught 1,500 non-Syrian and non-Iraqi Arabs trying to cross and we have stopped 2,700 Syrians from crossing ... Our army is there - but the Iraqi army and the Americans are not there on the other side."
Behind these grave suspicions in Damascus lies the memory of Saddam's long friendship with the United States. "Our Hafez el-Assad [the former Syrian president who died in 2000] learnt that Saddam, in his early days, met with American officials 20 times in four weeks. This convinced Assad that, in his words, 'Saddam is with the Americans'. Saddam was the biggest helper of the Americans in the Middle East (when he attacked Iran in 1980) after the fall of the Shah. And he still is! After all, he brought the Americans to Iraq!"
So I turn to a story which is more distressing for my sources: the death by shooting of Brigadier General Ghazi Kenaan, former head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon - an awesomely powerful position - and Syrian Minister of Interior when his suicide was announced by the Damascus government last year.
Widespread rumours outside Syria suggested that Kenaan was suspected by UN investigators of involvement in the murder of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in a massive car bomb in Beirut last year - and that he had been "suicided" by Syrian government agents to prevent him telling the truth.
Not so, insisted my original interlocutor. "General Ghazi was a man who believed he could give orders and anything he wanted would happen. Something happened that he could not reconcile - something that made him realise he was not all-powerful. On the day of his death, he went to his office at the Interior Ministry and then he left and went home for half an hour. Then he came back with a pistol. He left a message for his wife in which he said goodbye to her and asked her to look after their children and he said that what he was going to do was 'for the good of Syria'. Then he shot himself in the mouth."
Of Hariri's assassination, Syrian officials like to recall his relationship with the former Iraqi interim prime minister Iyad Alawi - a self-confessed former agent for the CIA and MI6 - and an alleged $20bn arms deal between the Russians and Saudi Arabia in which they claim Hariri was involved.
Hariri's Lebanese supporters continue to dismiss the Syrian argument on the grounds that Syria had identified Hariri as the joint author with his friend, French President Jacques Chirac, of the UN Security Council resolution which demanded the retreat of the Syrians from Lebanese territory.
But if the Syrians are understandably obsessed with the American occupation of Iraq, their long hatred for Saddam - something which they shared with most Iraqis - is still intact. When I asked my first "security" source what would happen to the former Iraqi dictator, he replied, banging his fist into his hand: "He will be killed. He will be killed. He will be killed."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...s-are-provoking-civil-war-in-iraq-475889.html


It is a shame how unseasoned and unlearned so many of us are. That's what truly ails this ummah!

 

[Abz2000]

Every week or two there has been an atrocity story in the media. Soldiers cut off fingers. Or they shot children from a helicopter. Or they shot up a bunch of women and then dug the bullets out with knives to cover up the crime. Or they urinated on corpses or burned corpses or burned Korans. It is always something. And it is always lied about to the extent possible by the United States and NATO,
with NATO serving as protection from Congressional oversight.
A pattern has developed of the U.S. military passing the buck to NATO,
NATO denying everything,
NATO revising its lies as new evidence emerges,
and NATO finally admitting the crime,
with the blame going to a few rogue "bad apples."
But you cannot have a war without atrocities, and the atrocities are the least of it. The urination on corpses is not as serious a crime as the creation of the corpses in the first place.

The U.S. military lied about football star Pat Tillman's death to his family at his funeral, for purposes of propaganda, but what would have been unusual would have been telling the truth. Wars cannot exist without lies, and lying is the norm.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=31073

 

[IslamicRevival]

suicide bombings have killed and injured more civilians than they have killed and injured the enemy.

Thats a bold statement to make, but whatever the statistics are in terms of suicide bombings (Which i believe are totally wrong and go against Islamic law), facts are Al Qaeda have done far less damage to civilian population then NATO. I understand your frustration with Al Qaeda but remember there are two sides to every story and for every crime NATO commits, there will be most definitely be a reaction!

_____________

I'm far from an Al Qaeda supporter but I recognize what they are fighting for, they're fighting for their country which is, and has been torn apart by satanic forces. I understand why they pick up arms and fight, but at the same time we must not hold them in such a high regard that we see through their faults. Al Qaeda have committed a lot of crimes, which I believe are against what Islam stand for but at the same time we must acknowledge their struggle.

On a personal level, I'm with my Brothers and Sisters of Humanity who are oppressed and those who are fighting oppression in accordance with Islamic law, wherever they may be and only Allah knows who Al Qaeda, Taliban and all these groups, fighting in the name of Islam truly are.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

but at the same time we must not hold them in such a high regard that we see through their faults. Al Qaeda have committed a lot of crimes, which I believe are against what Islam stand for but at the same time we must acknowledge their struggle.

Exactly what I have been saying all this while brother. But some brothers and sisters here just don't get it.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Four killed in Afghan suicide attack, Taliban claim responsibility
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/05/10/213306.html
and I quote: "...Two police and two civilians were killed ..."

I can give you many such examples with even higher number of civilian casualties. What wrong did these civilians do? Suicide bombings have caused more deaths and injured more civilians than the enemy. Clearly, we as Muslims should condemn this method of warfare just like we condemn drone strikes since they are more harmful to innocent people.



Enough of you over here address the wrongs of the enemy. Very less of you do what I do. I am not ignoring their faults. Their faults are well highlighted over here but not so our own faults. It's just that.

Doesn't convince me one bit, that news source is from Saudi occupied arabia. A western puppet, who just said that israel and USA needs to strenghten their war against ''terrorism'' aka islam.

Dajjal has decieved you my brother, go read Surah Al kahf every friday.

And here to know about the divide and conquer tactic:

The same scenario is happening in syria right now, Saudi/israel/USA arming opposition and army defectors and russia/china arming the syrian regime. This how you get divide and conquer and this is where you see dajjal playing so the west has reason to invade.

Their plan is to let the muslims fight each other, weaken the surrounding governments and create ''threats'' for israel and the west to launch their attacks.

They did the same in iraq setting up sunnis and shiites against each other, as justification so the US could stay and US army wouldn't be targeted much.

The revolutions in syria, libya weren't created by the west but the west went getting involved so this would lead in all-out civil war. Look at Libya today: Better or worse?

True revolution are happening in egypt, yemen and tunisia, people willing to stand up.

No government is good today. No one. All controlled. There is reality behind every appearance.

 

[Aprender]

Exactly what I have been saying all this while brother. But some brothers and sisters here just don't get it.

They understood what you were saying and I don't think anyone here disagrees that groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban might do things that go against Islam in their struggle.

What they are saying is that the way you are going about that criticism is already on a shaky foundation that can't be fully trusted. You use the news media of the country that is directly involved in a conflict with the "enemy". You use news stories from the website of a religion that advocates against Islam all together as this barbaric, backwards and evil religion as I was taught when I was going to church. Of course they're going to report on the alleged faults of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They're in a war with them after all. They have to do what they can to reassure the world that these are bad men and their presence in the region is justified.

What others are asking you to do is understand that and not take everything that they report as 100% fact just because they said so.

Research Radio Free Liberty when you get the chance. Particularly its involvement during the Cold War in Europe.

 

[GuestFellow]

^ Salaam,

Yes, I agree that the source cannot be trusted. Then again, it is difficult to find reliable sources. A good way to overcome this obstacle is to obtain information from different sources and compare them.

 

[Aprender]

^ Salaam,

Yes, I agree that the source cannot be trusted. Then again, it is difficult to find reliable sources. A good way to overcome this obstacle is to obtain information from different sources and compare them.

:wa:

Yep. And that brings this thread back full circle when the OP was asked to find another source with the information. He wasn't able to and this is why the thread ended up derailed in this way.