• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taliban leader in secret talks was impostor

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
2,010
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the repeated appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.
But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.


CONTINUED: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40327256/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour...

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all...the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“And we gave him a lot of money.”

American officials say they were skeptical from the start about the identity of the man...

The Western diplomat said the Afghan man was initially given a sizable sum of money to take part in the talks — and to help persuade him to return.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/asia/23kabul.html?_r=1
Egg on face.

Now that we know there are no negotiations, how about a gloves-off assault on the terroristas instead of the hand-cuffed approach we've been using since Obi's been in office?

.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,355
Reaction score
33,142
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

And he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

btw... hand cuffed approach? You've been using assault for awhile and it hasn't worked and might I remind you my partisan friend that Obama sent almost 20, 000 extra troops there, is that hand cuffed?
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

Now that we know there are no negotiations, how about a gloves-off assault on the terroristas instead of the hand-cuffed approach we've been using since Obi's been in office?
Really? What kind of approach do you recommend? You seem to know more than the military so far.
 

Albert Di Salvo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
5,544
Reaction score
685
Location
Undisclosed
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

And he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

btw... hand cuffed approach? You've been using assault for awhile and it hasn't worked and might I remind you my partisan friend that Obama sent almost 20, 000 extra troops there, is that hand cuffed?
Obama has escalated his little war in Afghanistan twice, viz., March 2009 and December 2009. Collectively he increased American troop strength by 50,000. This proves Obama has not hand cuffed American troops. Instead, it is conclusive evidence that President Obama is a callow fool. Emphasis on callow as in inexperienced and incompetent. Mein Gott.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

And he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

btw... hand cuffed approach? You've been using assault for awhile and it hasn't worked and might I remind you my partisan friend that Obama sent almost 20, 000 extra troops there, is that hand cuffed?
Sending troops and letting the fight are two different things.

You obviously missed the Rolling Stone piece.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force," the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any ****ing sense?" asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "

During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence.


.
 
Last edited:

RedAkston

Silent Bob for President!
Administrator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
44,889
Reaction score
26,079
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 

Heavy Duty

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
258
Reaction score
88
Location
GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

Really? What kind of approach do you recommend? You seem to know more than the military so far.
The common sense type that most liberals wouldn't understand. But first off, enaging the enemy on sight instead of holding fight until fired on.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,836
Reaction score
8,130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

Egg on face.

Now that we know there are no negotiations, how about a gloves-off assault on the terroristas instead of the hand-cuffed approach we've been using since Obi's been in office?
We could severely punish those who're thought to've aided an abetted the our enemies, destroying their irrigation systems and other infrastructure. We could carpet bomb cities and bulldoze homes. Why not? It worked very well for the USSR when they went at Afghanistan that way.

FTR, I am not sure that our rules of engagement etc have changed that much as a result of Obama's presidency. Perhaps I am wrong.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

The common sense type that most liberals wouldn't understand. But first off, enaging the enemy on sight instead of holding fight until fired on.
If the enemy is mixed in with the civilians how do you tell which person to fire at unless they fire first?
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

The common sense type that most liberals wouldn't understand. But first off, enaging the enemy on sight instead of holding fight until fired on.
:giggle: Not that the military realises now that conventional victory is not even conceptually feasible... but whatever man. I'm sure common sense in a war overridden by liberals would totally work. (in your head)
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

We could severely punish those who're thought to've aided an abetted the our enemies, destroying their irrigation systems and other infrastructure. We could carpet bomb cities and bulldoze homes. Why not? It worked very well for the USSR when they went at Afghanistan that way.

FTR, I am not sure that our rules of engagement etc have changed that much as a result of Obama's presidency. Perhaps I am wrong.
Dogs and cats.

They tried to take over a country, and with our aid they were stopped.

This is different. We're on a hunt for rats and want the people to have their own society free of the vermin, and the only way to get the job done is to kill them, demoralize them and keep unrelenting heat on them; if civilian lives are lost... sorry. They will have to learn, you let the vermin stay amongst you and you may die. You assist us and fewer will.

Otherwise, let's just turn over the place to the pond scum, return in a few years and start from zero.

As for rules of engagement, they tried COIN, which was... an effort to try not to piss of the locals. Didn't work.

Petraeus Urged to Change Rules of Engagement for U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...es-engagement-troops-afghanistan/#ixzz168i8Ag
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...d-change-rules-engagement-troops-afghanistan/

A month and a half later:

Afghanistan war: Will the new Petraeus rules of engagement make troops safer?
General David Petraeus has issued new rules of engagement for the war in Afghanistan. The rules appear to relax restrictions on the use of deadly force, but it's unclear how much meaningful change will happen on the ground.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...etraeus-rules-of-engagement-make-troops-safer

.
 
Last edited:

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

Is the world simpler in 2d?
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

This is different. We're on a hunt for rats, and the only way to get the job done is to kill them, demoralize them ans keep unrelenting heat on them; if civilian lives are lost... sorry. They will have to learn, you let the vermin stay amongst you and you may die. You assist us and fewer will.
How dare those Pakistani's not accept our military control of their country with open arms. I'm sure if the US had insurgents based here we would allow the Pakistan army to setup in our states and kill our citizens without issue.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,836
Reaction score
8,130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

They tried to take over a country, and with our aid they were stopped.

This is different. We're on a hunt for rats and want the people to have their own society free of the vermin, and the only way to get the job done is to kill them, demoralize them and keep unrelenting heat on them;
We're just trying to kill some people and then our job will be done? We are not trying to establish a government that's different from the power structure that was there before we went in?
 

Heavy Duty

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
258
Reaction score
88
Location
GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

If the enemy is mixed in with the civilians how do you tell which person to fire at unless they fire first?
There will be cases of this. It is unavoidable. But there are times when we knew damn well who the SMFER was and had to hold fire because at the time they were in the town square. They could walk the market, sip coffee and smoke their pipes and there wasn't a damn thing we could do about it. Then the next day dropping mortars down tubes or directing sniper fire. You cannot fight a war with political correctness. If you commit the troops then let us fight to win.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,836
Reaction score
8,130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

As for rules of engagement, they tried COIN, which was... an effort to try not to piss of the locals. Didn't work.

Petraeus Urged to Change Rules of Engagement for U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
Read more: Petraeus Urged to Change Rules of Engagement for U.S. Troops in Afghanistan - FoxNews.com
Petraeus Urged to Change Rules of Engagement for U.S. Troops in Afghanistan - FoxNews.com

A month and a half later:

Afghanistan war: Will the new Petraeus rules of engagement make troops safer?
General David Petraeus has issued new rules of engagement for the war in Afghanistan. The rules appear to relax restrictions on the use of deadly force, but it's unclear how much meaningful change will happen on the ground.
Afghanistan war: Will the new Petraeus rules of engagement make troops safer? - CSMonitor.com
Judging by the time stamps on the articles it appears that under Obama's watch the rules of engagement have become more relaxed and allowing for more opportunities to fire.
Do you have anything that shows teh rules of engagement have been tightened on Obama's watch at Obama's direction? That would do more to support your point
 

Heavy Duty

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
258
Reaction score
88
Location
GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

:giggle: Not that the military realises now that conventional victory is not even conceptually feasible... but whatever man. I'm sure common sense in a war overridden by liberals would totally work. (in your head)
I am not your "man".

And this post reeks of stupidity on so many levels I dont know where to start, so I won't.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

We're just trying to kill some people and then our job will be done? We are not trying to establish a government that's different from the power structure that was there before we went in?
Sure we and the UN are trying to help them establish a government of and by the people. The Commi's were trying to install their totalitarian utopia.

Here is the interesting dichotomy; Libs always tell us we shouldn't be spreading our values about the world. God's values; freedom/liberty. We did exactly that after assisting the Afghan's oust the Commi's. We left them alone, and look what happened.

Wouldn't it have been better to have us and the UN go in an help the establish a government?

.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,836
Reaction score
8,130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

Sure we and the UN are trying to help them establish a government of and by the people.
So we are trying to do more than just kill some people.

Since we intend for the Afghanis to support this government we are trying to establish, how should we treat the people whose support we are trying to get?

Also have you found any articles that show the rules of engagement have been tightened on Obama's watch at Obama's direction? Or are you willing to drop that point?
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

Judging by the time stamps on the articles it appears that under Obama's watch the rules of engagement have become more relaxed and allowing for more opportunities to fire.
Do you have anything that shows teh rules of engagement have been tightened on Obama's watch at Obama's direction? That would do more to support your point
They became more relaxed after Petreaus was installed in Afghanistan; before that they were restrictive. McChrystal started there less than 6-months after Obama took office, and they tried implementing COIN, something Biden was hot to trot about; that should have ben warning enough, for Biden is notorious for being wrong.

.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

So we are trying to do more than just kill some people.

Since we intend for the Afghanis to support this government we are trying to establish, how should we treat the people whose support we are trying to get?

Also have you found any articles that show the rules of engagement have been tightened on Obama's watch at Obama's direction? Or are you willing to drop that point?
I posted that Petreaus has changed the rules of engament; in the end it is The Commander in Chief's call. See post above about COIN. Or go read The Rolling Stone piece on McChrystal.

War isn't a game of neuro surgery. It's messy, especially when the enemy uses human shields. So, some civilians will get killed... and the sooner they learn aiding the idiots will cause more problems, longer term problems, the better for them. If they have a hard time learning, well, they'll have to learn the hard way. If it annoys them... tough darts. We have some scum to eradicate, and we should do it aggressively.

The 1:09 mark is relevant, for had we taken it to the bastards 25-years ago, we might just be spared a lot of grief; of course, the peaceniks would have cried, and cried and cried, as they always do. We left them largely alone, for fear of not offending them, and they multiplied like rats.

Now is the time for E-Rat-ication.


.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,836
Reaction score
8,130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

I posted that Petreaus has changed the rules of engament; in the end it is The Commander in Chief's call. See post above about COIN. Or go read The Rolling Stone piece on McChrystal.

War isn't a game of neuro surgery. It's messy, especially when the enemy uses human shields. So, some civilians will get killed... and the sooner they learn aiding the idiots will cause more problems, longer term problems, the better for them. If they have a hard time learning, well, they'll have to learn the hard way. If it annoys them... tough darts. We have some scum to eradicate, and we should do it aggressively.
I am telling you that this method was tried by the USSR. You're welcome to think it'll be different this time.
 

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

what an embarrassment, this crew in the white house is wholly woebegone

there is so much about this war, OBAMA'S WAR, that just isn't RIGHT

1. the enemy we seek, al qaeda, aren't even in afghanistan, they're almost all instead in pakistan

2. no less than BOB WOODWARD reported that obama's heart just isn't in this war, he's committed us over there purely for politics

3. woodward also tells us our security heads don't believe the strategy they're following is ultimately winnable

4. so obama wages what the new york times calls his secret war in pakistan, killing terrorists and collaterals with drones

5. which pisses off our pakistani "partners," who close khyber and get our gas trucks torched

6. our #1 collaborator in OBAMA'S WAR, karzai, is corrupt AND a kook

7. the general made it mcchrystal clear why he skeedaddled, we all know why dennis blair followed, then jim jones---ROLLING STONE told us

8. billions in us aid has been flown outta kabul, heading for safer havens

9. richard holbrooke says it's time to include IRAN at the table, maybe ahmedinejad can help

10. the pullout, exit, drawdown, timeline, transition, incoherently impromptu, but conditions based, of course---this week bonehead biden tells us the DROP DEAD DATE is suddenly 2014

11. american casualties have increased threefold since the poser's presided

12. obnoxious obama has opened himself up to an anti war primary challenge from the left, and he'd be the last to know

pathetic

STILL not embarrassed

what'll it take?
 
Top Bottom