Of course that is not what I mean, pardon if you find me rude but it really not what I intent. I just not agree that everybody try to know the world and everything by make their base foundation with Wikipedia, it is an open sources that each of the sources are cannot be hold responsible. It can be use as supplementary sources or as something that stronger your sources but to rely always upon it that its what I don't agree with. If you agree with what I state then we have no problem. I just saying, see also another point of view, another angle of opinion, I really like if you watch Yvonne Riddley and tell me what do u think about her, as all of the sources is not come from someone who really live inside the Afghan society, or even live under the Taliban. I think its bit unfair to judge them only from the perspective that against them, more and more if it come from a source like Wikipedia.
-
Because I'm not a professional? I write about Philosophy on Aristotelian logic while my background is psychology, well if it not a problem for you than its alright. Just keep in mind, its an open sources you don't know the credibility or the accuracy of those who write it.
The strangest part of your logic is how you dismiss the source I posted, containing numerous videos, pictures, accounts from victims and witnesses, and more, while you want to convince me of what the taliban is really like, based on one youtube video of the experiences of one lady.
Additionally, important circumstances give indication that she recieved special treatment from the taliban:
*She is British
*She was the subject of intense negotiations
*The regime at the time was fearful of losing power due to the strong probability of overwhelming force being used against them. She was most probably seen as leverage.
Also keep in mind she was only detained for 11 days. Hardly representative for the more common Afghani detainees.
Some years ago, you might have had a point on Wikipedia's credibility. But these days, you or me would no longer be able to edit a page like I posted. Especially on subjects like this, that move many people, the discussions leading to what you can read on Wikipedia are nearly endless.
Also notice that many claims on the page I posted, are backed up by external sources, which you dismiss without giving a single reason why.
That what I not agree, where do u know if the Taliban kill more civilian than US and it allies? From the victim quantity what done by the US is nearly genocide. Even the weaponry of the Taliban are not match in US on doing rampage on civlian, that statement is illogical. Second, the execution that been establish by the Taliban Muajhideen so far its done for the combatan and spy.
I don't agree with killing civilian and babies with light weapon or light explosive because it is madness it not even fit to be call barbaric, it not even fit to be call animal, it devlish, it is anti-human.
I don't agree with killing civilian and babies with high explosive weapon or drone missile, because calling them as collateral causalities and put them into number don't make their death to be more humanize also don't justify their death. Why you call someone who blow up the US military facility as terrorist while US blow up civilian house you justify their action as collateral damages? Does it make it more right if you kill civilian miles away with drone missile hiding behind american flag? does it justify your action?
Hezam said:
The United Nations... the name makes me laugh, they are not united, Only top 5 nations with jungle law, the poor nations feed the top 5 nations.
They report what they want like they want when they want.
The next source I am posting is a UN document on civilian casualties in Afghanistan, I think it is the source Noy mentioned.
UNAMA
It is very easy and not an acceptable debating tactic to just dismiss sources of information based on your opinion only. Give me proof that this document is falsified, and we can consider your bold claim. At the very least,
read it.
Know that this report is based, not only on eyewitness accounts, but also on investigations on the spot and interviews of locals. I will tell you this: it is one of the most credible sources of information that can possibly be obtained. A combination of the work of hundreds, risking their own lives for the sake of credible information.
This clearly shows that 80% of civilian casualties happen because of so called "improvised explosive devices (ied's)", suicide attacks, mostly directed on market squares and other large civilian gatherings, and more complex co-ordinated attacks on civilians.
And last but not least: can you please explain why the taliban have sworn to again attempt to kill Malala Yusufzai at the first available opportunity?
