- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Kinda did when you said if "I loved the idea of seeing women in Burqas"
No one loves war, but sometimes you have to tolerate it.
Neocons seem to love war. But how long can we tolerate an endless war?
How did it work for the US? Not to good if you mean that Al-Qaeda was there. But you might find this interesting:You are giving me a good laugh here today, TDS, so thank you for that. But again, you have an amazing ability to ignore all history that is inconvenient to your myopic view. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Taliban is just a misunderstood group that doesn't want anything more than to re-establish the Emirate of 1996. What was the result of that the first time? And how did that work out for the US? How do you keep that from happening again without US involvement? Rainbow Magic?
How long can you stand endless terrorism?
Terrorism is a tactic. It will always be used.
Terrorism has to be responded to.
How much more response do we need? How do you win a war on a tactic that has always been used?
War is also a tactice, both are political tactics. War has always been used.
How did it work for the US? Not to good if you mean that Al-Qaeda was there. But you might find this interesting:
"Our people consider al-Qaeda to be a plague that was sent down to us by the heavens. Some even concluded that al-Qaeda are actually the spies of America. Originally, the Taliban were naive and ignorant of politics and welcomed al-Qaeda into their homes. But al-Qaeda abused our hospitality. "
New Statesman | Preview: Michael Semple interviews a senior member of the Taliban
"Contrary to the established perception that they are of one mind, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are not in lockstep. In fact, the Taliban in Afghanistan could be persuaded to renounce the infamous terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden.
According to Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, the two groups did not get along at times before the September 11 attacks, and they have continued to spar since. Also, in their report, the authors claim that Taliban leaders were not informed by al-Qaeda in advance of the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC. “Bin Laden effectively manipulated the Taliban, using their lack of international experience to advance his own goals…. Significant parts of the senior Taliban leadership, along with rank-and-file commanders, were outraged at bin Laden’s abuse of their hospitality and his blatant disregard for their government.”
U.S. and the World - Surprise! Taliban and Al-Qaeda are Worlds Apart - AllGov - News
Of course. Everything that doesnt fit your narrative is a "lie".Yes, TDS, again, you have a penchant for Radical lies. What do you expect the Taliban to say? There goal is to get control of Afghanistan back and return to business as usual. They realize they can't do that through force so they are doing it through lies. It's amazing that you are so easily duped.
The answer to your question is in the 2nd sentence of the article: " The identity of his interviewee is protected, to allow him to speak freely about the upper echelons of the movement, but Semple has verified his seniority and cross-checked his account."Funny enough, you are missing the 800lb gorilla in that article. I ask you: Why does this unnamed "Taliban leader" wish to remain anonymous? I'll be over here in reality when you are ready to answer.
Again. Of course, everything that doesnt fit your narrative is a "lie".And again, you are willing to accept the excuses by a group that allowed Al Qaeda to operate opening within their own government for years while the attacked and murdered Americans because now that they can't win back Afghanistan they are ready to start telling lies so that idiots will let them back in. This too is the history of the world. Once properly beaten the enemy that is left is always ready to point at their dead comrades and claim it was all their fault.
You are a sucker for their lies, TDS, plain and simple.
Of course. Everything that doesnt fit your narrative is a "lie".
The answer to your question is in the 2nd sentence of the article: " The identity of his interviewee is protected, to allow him to speak freely about the upper echelons of the movement, but Semple has verified his seniority and cross-checked his account."
Again. Of course, everything that doesnt fit your narrative is a "lie".
Then we are back at the original point.....incompetence in the waging of that war. 13 years, an array of allies and drone strikes in the thousands and the enemy is "not beaten down enough"...
It simply is not working.
:roll: Except none of this runs contrary to history...No, everything that runs contrary to their history and has clear ulterior motivations is an obvious lie.
"to allow him to speak freely about the upper echelons of the movement".Again, WHY is he speaking anonymously? What happens to him if his name is made public?
No one else is calling them "misunderstood victims" except you.. .More importantly, if they are really just the misunderstood victims in all of this then why did they not welcome US troops as liberators in 2002 rather than TAKE UP ARMS WITH AL QAEDA FOR 12 F***ING YEARS!?
Uhhh in his own words: "The Taliban are fighting to expel the occupiers and to enforce shariat... "Also, if they are just misunderstood peaceniks then why are they still killing US troops in Afghanistan?
Then what is the "honest truth"?Seriously, how blind does one have to be to accept this bullS*** from a "Senior Taliban Leader" as the honest truth?
:doh You notice how no one is saying that Al-Qaeda was allowed to stay in Afghanistan by the Taliban....Nope. These lies are obvious because they don't mesh with years of known collaboration with Al Qaeda and have an obvious motivation.
:roll: Except none of this runs contrary to history...
"to allow him to speak freely about the upper echelons of the movement".
Because he is talking about sensitive information.
No one else is calling them "misunderstood victims" except you.. .
Uhhh in his own words: "The Taliban are fighting to expel the occupiers and to enforce shariat... "
Then what is the "honest truth"?
You notice how no one is saying that Al-Qaeda was allowed to stay in Afghanistan by the Taliban....
Again, you have learned nothing. We will always be a target of radical Islamist no matter how cowardly we behave.
I think its common sense. IF the US gets out of the war, they no longer are involved in the conflict, the war is over for the US.
They have already tried to attack us and wont stop. The solution-expose them to large amounts of rapidly expanding gasses and shrapnel.
Technically they didint.
Technically they were stopped from doing it, thats all.
I disagree. "enough death, misery, and pain til the the enemy knows it is too much to continue to wage." ends up being slaughter in the fog of war. It was tried one and off again in Korea and Vietnam. Since WWII wars have become more strategic, surgical strikes etc. But you have to have a starting point, what is the objective beyond scorched earth?
As with Afghanistan, and now Iraq there is no strategic objective, no way to tell success from failure other than the "daily body count" of Vietnam.
There has to be a way to get these Arab countries to deal with what they are breeding in their own back yards.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?