FIVE straight days of Taliban violence in Pakistan

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Why is NATO having such a difficult time mustering enough troops to combat these scumbags?

You know, son, i'm done taking this insults from your sorry arse, you know better, or rather, if you are who you say you are you damn well should know better.

We don't have the problem, the US does.

You KNOW that, and yet you spew this bullshit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got to love it, its the Brits in Nato who don't have a problem with the USA taking their eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, because the USA spun its wheels it in Iraq. Surely we can't be talking about the same Brits who withdrew from Southern Iraq because they got tired of pretending they were in charge when the Shia militias were always in charge.

And here we have a poo poo alliance in palehorse74 and JOS who have perpetually been telling us how horrible than taliban is, and that same taliban seems to have more popular support in both Afghanistan and Pakistan than the US, the Brits, and Nato put together.

And at the same time we are supposed to believe that the US, the Brits, and Nato are the competent entities who know what they are doing after compiling a 5 year plus record of dismal failure. And therefore we should escalate this conflict and destabilize Pakistan also?

When sheer logic dictates we should get rid of that miserable lot of failures, drop back 20 yards, and get better leadership.

There is something horribly wrong when the taliban is more popular than the Nato alliance in Afghanistan. And it can only speak to a bungled occupation conducted by defective Nato leadership that is totally out of touch with with the local people and with reality.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's a good thing we never took our eye off the ball in regards to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

It's a good thing we didn't, son, it's a bad thing they are allowed to retreat behind Pakistani borders and do cross border terrorism.

We could have fixed this a long time ago, in that you are right, instead of wasting time, money and manpower in Iraq, which will be a success, it will, in time, but was it worth it?

I have the highest regard for the men i've both served with and not served with, but that mission was stupid from the get go, i want Blair on trial for it, i will do my best to make it happen and i know there are others who agree with me on it, but now... now no one seems to care much anymore.

This idiocy has cost way more lives than needed because of three things, Blair, Bush and the refusal to listen to the military who KNOW these things.

US took the big hit there though and it's not getting better from here, US is laying low awaiting a recession, Iran is pompous and proud.

Whaddaya say cowboys, maybe it's time we started working with the UN and uphold those human rights that we talk so much about but never follow?

I saw a video with ex-SAS Ben Griffin about this issue. I am with you guys. I just don't see why people don't care about it. It is necessary to clean up the mess and to show that the rule of law applies in the UK too (the same goes for Bush no matter if he is president or after his presidency).

Whatever Iraq will emerge from the current ruins I doubt it will be what the US envisioned when it invaded. Look at the pictures of Ahmadinejad meeting al-Maliki, they look like flippin newlyweds! And when Ahmadinejad gloated how good it was that Saddam was gone.. ouch!

The US has the War Bill to pay. It is trying to get out of it by inflating the $ to hell and have it's trade partners foot the bill as usual. But this will cause a world wide recession/depression.

The world should have gone the UN route to get rid of Saddam in the first place. But the US/UK (Bush/Blair) was looking to self interest (their neocon agenda) rather than common interest when it invaded.

**********

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

*******

 

[chucky2]

Am I to understand we want the UN to solve something other than speaking and doing nothing?

The same UN who cannot field 24 F'ing helicopters in Sudan?

Funny, I didn't think this was April 1st.....

Chuck

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Why is NATO having such a difficult time mustering enough troops to combat these scumbags?

You know, son, i'm done taking this insults from your sorry arse, you know better, or rather, if you are who you say you are you damn well should know better.

We don't have the problem, the US does.

You KNOW that, and yet you spew this bullshit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got to love it, its the Brits in Nato who don't have a problem with the USA taking their eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, because the USA spun its wheels it in Iraq. Surely we can't be talking about the same Brits who withdrew from Southern Iraq because they got tired of pretending they were in charge when the Shia militias were always in charge.

And here we have a poo poo alliance in palehorse74 and JOS who have perpetually been telling us how horrible than taliban is, and that same taliban seems to have more popular support in both Afghanistan and Pakistan than the US, the Brits, and Nato put together.

And at the same time we are supposed to believe that the US, the Brits, and Nato are the competent entities who know what they are doing after compiling a 5 year plus record of dismal failure. And therefore we should escalate this conflict and destabilize Pakistan also?

When sheer logic dictates we should get rid of that miserable lot of failures, drop back 20 yards, and get better leadership.

There is something horribly wrong when the taliban is more popular than the Nato alliance in Afghanistan. And it can only speak to a bungled occupation conducted by defective Nato leadership that is totally out of touch with with the local people and with reality.

You don't know shit so why the fuck do you spew this shit you have no idea about.

Maybe if your daughter got repetedly raped and then shot in the vagina and left to bleed to death you would have TAD mor compassion you sick twisted lowlife of a human being.

Don't you FUCKING blame the ones who are trying to do something about it, blame yourself for sitting on your fat fucking arse and not caring about ANYTHING but when we fail, it's a one in a thousand mission we fail and you love it, you love that people get killed for it, don't you you sick fuck.

The Taliban is universally hated, if you knew ANYTHING about them, you idiot, you would know why, they take over the land, they take over the rights of all humans and every right you have is delegated from the Talibans down to the people.

Last week, five klan leaders met to discuss Islamic violence by the Talibans, these are leaders who have their peoples support, a suicide bomber struck and killed 28 people, none of them were the leaders.

NATO protects a society that is free, we have refugees from Taliban controlled areas in Pakistan, so shove your fucking idiocy up your arse.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Am I to understand we want the UN to solve something other than speaking and doing nothing?

The same UN who cannot field 24 F'ing helicopters in Sudan?

Funny, I didn't think this was April 1st.....

Chuck

If each nation was to cooperate fully and use the UN as it was intended there would be over 15000 helicopters to go to Sudan, an equal amount to some other place too.

What you don't get is that the UN isn't a country, it's an entity that depends on other countries, without their support, it's nothing.

So shall we support it? It instituted the human rights, the conduct of war and a lot of other good things, to abandon it would be idiotic.

But i could be arguing for this all my life, if some idiot wants to start a war without the UN support, they will still do so... Not everyone have respect for the human rights and the war crimes acts.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Why is NATO having such a difficult time mustering enough troops to combat these scumbags?

You know, son, i'm done taking this insults from your sorry arse, you know better, or rather, if you are who you say you are you damn well should know better.

We don't have the problem, the US does.

You KNOW that, and yet you spew this bullshit.

WTF?!? I think you seriously misunderstood that question... how was it an insult to you?

Canada has threatened to withdraw because of a lack of NATO support. Several nations have fallen short of their promised troop levels, and the U.S. is not fvcking one of them. Since day one, the U.S. has had the undeniable majority of troops throughout Afghanistan, especially in combat roles.... NATO's 26 members provide roughly 20,000 troops, while the US itself provides about the same; and the majority of our wonderful NATO partners refuse to go south!

UK, Poland, Canada, and a few others have consistently stepped up to the plate; but the majority of NATO's 26 members have not!

so, with all due respect, WTF are you talking about!?

March 1st, 2008 - Bush pushes for more NATO troops in Afghanistan

Britain, Canada, Poland and others have backed the U.S. demand. In what would be a major blow to the 43,000-strong NATO mission, Canada has warned that it will not renew its deployment past 2009 unless other NATO allies come up with 1,000 troops to support its operation in Kandahar.

Germany, under pressure from Washington, has recently softened a longstanding insistence that it cannot exceed a self-imposed limit of 3,500 troops in Afghanistan, and no longer excludes reinforcements this year.

France has also signaled a willingness to send more troops, but appears to be balking about sending them south.

March 4th, 2008 - France pushing for focused NATO front against Taliban

Canada has waged a high-pressure diplomatic effort to convince NATO allies, and in particular France, to come up with the 1,000 troops Canada says it needs to continue its mission beyond 2009 in the dangerous Kandahar region of Afghanistan.

My point was that only a handful of NATO countries have contributed to the Afghan effort in any meaningful way (UK, Poland, Canada, and a few others) -- and the question you seemed to take issue with was "why is that!?"

Seriously, "son," I know exactly what it is I am talking about, so wtf is your problem with my question again!?

Please tell me that you misunderstood my original point... or that my sarcasm meter is broken.. or... something!?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And here we have a poo poo alliance in palehorse74 and JOS who have perpetually been telling us how horrible than taliban is, and that same taliban seems to have more popular support in both Afghanistan and Pakistan than the US, the Brits, and Nato put together.

On a longggg list of stupid sh*t, that just might be the most ridiculous thing you've ever written.

There is something horribly wrong when the taliban is more popular than the Nato alliance in Afghanistan. And it can only speak to a bungled occupation conducted by defective Nato leadership that is totally out of touch with with the local people and with reality.

nope, I was wrong.... THAT is the dumbest sh*t you've ever written!

Once again, you've proven that you have absolutely no clue about Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the Taliban.

Congrats.

 

[event8horizon]

inquiring minds want to know when the hell is our cia going to interogate the money man behind 9-11.....Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad. ohhhh wait, hes was the leader of the ISI and musharaff right hand man....damn.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
inquiring minds want to know when the hell is our cia going to interogate the money man behind 9-11.....Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad. ohhhh wait, hes was the leader of the ISI and musharaff right hand man....damn.

Please take your tinfoil elsewhere... seriously, please?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: event8horizon
inquiring minds want to know when the hell is our cia going to interogate the money man behind 9-11.....Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad. ohhhh wait, hes was the leader of the ISI and musharaff right hand man....damn.

Please take your tinfoil elsewhere... seriously, please?

hahaha....u have got to be kidding.

 

[event8horizon]

so palehorse-

is it true that u would NOT like to see Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad the former leader of the ISI interogated????? and if not, why not??

 

[Lemon law]

We see the deep in denial predictable response of demonise the critic with the Plaehorse74 outrage with---nope, I was wrong.... THAT is the dumbest sh*t you've ever written!

Once again, you've proven that you have absolutely no clue about Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the Taliban.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Palehorse74, has it ever occurred to you that you might be more credible if you could deliver an iota of success? Your claim is is that its going to take at least 40 years of constant effort for your military option to even turn a corner at your collective incompetent rate of speed.

If you think the American people will sustain your delusional level of commitment, you have to be the dumbest idiot on planet earth. What part of five years of your failure don't you understand?

Don't get me wrong, I am not rooting for the taliban, but idiots like you are the best thing that ever happened to the taliban.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Why is NATO having such a difficult time mustering enough troops to combat these scumbags?

You know, son, i'm done taking this insults from your sorry arse, you know better, or rather, if you are who you say you are you damn well should know better.

We don't have the problem, the US does.

You KNOW that, and yet you spew this bullshit.

WTF?!? I think you seriously misunderstood that question... how was it an insult to you?

Canada has threatened to withdraw because of a lack of NATO support. Several nations have fallen short of their promised troop levels, and the U.S. is not fvcking one of them. Since day one, the U.S. has had the undeniable majority of troops throughout Afghanistan, especially in combat roles.... NATO's 26 members provide roughly 20,000 troops, while the US itself provides about the same; and the majority of our wonderful NATO partners refuse to go south!

UK, Poland, Canada, and a few others have consistently stepped up to the plate; but the majority of NATO's 26 members have not!

so, with all due respect, WTF are you talking about!?

March 1st, 2008 - Bush pushes for more NATO troops in Afghanistan

Britain, Canada, Poland and others have backed the U.S. demand. In what would be a major blow to the 43,000-strong NATO mission, Canada has warned that it will not renew its deployment past 2009 unless other NATO allies come up with 1,000 troops to support its operation in Kandahar.

Germany, under pressure from Washington, has recently softened a longstanding insistence that it cannot exceed a self-imposed limit of 3,500 troops in Afghanistan, and no longer excludes reinforcements this year.

France has also signaled a willingness to send more troops, but appears to be balking about sending them south.

March 4th, 2008 - France pushing for focused NATO front against Taliban

Canada has waged a high-pressure diplomatic effort to convince NATO allies, and in particular France, to come up with the 1,000 troops Canada says it needs to continue its mission beyond 2009 in the dangerous Kandahar region of Afghanistan.

My point was that only a handful of NATO countries have contributed to the Afghan effort in any meaningful way (UK, Poland, Canada, and a few others) -- and the question you seemed to take issue with was "why is that!?"

Seriously, "son," I know exactly what it is I am talking about, so wtf is your problem with my question again!?

Please tell me that you misunderstood my original point... or that my sarcasm meter is broken.. or... something!?

Well why the fuck didn't you say so in the first place? I can't guess what you're thinking when i'm on my fucking toes myself, either that or i misunderstood, you choose.

NATO is stepping up, the EU should stup up more, we're fucking doing everything we can, but EU has to go fancy by themselves and send troops to other places, like Tchad and Kosovo.... Not thet they are not needed but this shit could be better coordinated through... what? A world forum? Well let's fucking create one, WHAT, we already have one?

Could've fooled me.

So basically, i guess we agree, but just in case, fuck you.

 

[The Green Bean]

I agree that this is getting ridiculous but I disagree with any of the suggested solutions. I believe we must make peace with the Pakistani taliban and tell them to hand over all foreign elements. Next we need to pour in millions of dollars worth of "development" money into that region over a period of 5 years. Next, we need to form a local police system instead of having Punjabi and Sindhi Paramilitary fighting the Paktuns brewing more violence. As soon as the area is on par with the rest of the country in terms of development and education things will become better. We need to do the same with Balochistan and the insurgency there. Most of the fighting and Bombings have a nationalist cause not a religious one. Most of the bombers are Uzbeks and Afghans who need to be dealt with.

As far as any American help is concerned, it will only help fuel the anger of devout muslims who have so far been peaceful. You must remember that Pakistan's population is almost half that of America. That is a lot of people. If even 1% of those people took up arms that would be 1.6million people and I'm sure nobody wants that to happen.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The issue in my mind, is, will the Pakistanis recognize that radical Islam is a cancer and that the Taliban and their ilk need to be mercilessly exterminated? I doubt it.

You mean just like Hitler "recognized" radical jews were a cancer and that jews and there ilk need to be mercilessly exterminated. It's really scary when we have people here that think like Hitler.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
So basically, i guess we agree, but just in case, fuck you.

LOL! welllll fuck you too... brother!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I agree that this is getting ridiculous but I disagree with any of the suggested solutions. I believe we must make peace with the Pakistani taliban and tell them to hand over all foreign elements. Next we need to pour in millions of dollars worth of "development" money into that region over a period of 5 years. Next, we need to form a local police system instead of having Punjabi and Sindhi Paramilitary fighting the Paktuns brewing more violence. As soon as the area is on par with the rest of the country in terms of development and education things will become better. We need to do the same with Balochistan and the insurgency there. Most of the fighting and Bombings have a nationalist cause not a religious one. Most of the bombers are Uzbeks and Afghans who need to be dealt with.

As far as any American help is concerned, it will only help fuel the anger of devout muslims who have so far been peaceful. You must remember that Pakistan's population is almost half that of America. That is a lot of people. If even 1% of those people took up arms that would be 1.6million people and I'm sure nobody wants that to happen.

So, why haven't "1% of those people" gotten angry and taken up arms against the Taliban?

That is the question you need to answer!

It's not U.S. troops who have been killing Pakistanis...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The issue in my mind, is, will the Pakistanis recognize that radical Islam is a cancer and that the Taliban and their ilk need to be mercilessly exterminated? I doubt it.

You mean just like Hitler "recognized" radical jews were a cancer and that jews and there ilk need to be mercilessly exterminated. It's really scary when we have people here that think like Hitler.

Silly me, I didn't realize that the Jews were using violence to push their beliefs off/intimidate everyone else in Germany.

 

[Lemon law]

As Palehorse74 unwittingly points out something crucial---It's not U.S. troops who have been killing Pakistanis...

Its not really quite as clear cut. But US troops are certainly killing any and all innocent civilians in Afghanistan unlucky enough to get in the way. And destabilizing the entire country in the process. Disrupting their former existence and making their country into a dangerous battle ground.

Its precisely that Afghani treatment Pakistan hopes to avoid, and sadly in the process of the US occupation, many of the Taliban have been pushed into Pakistan dragging Pakistanis into a battle they don't want. Its not rocket science for them to associate the US as causing most of the problems including a good part of Pakistani civil discord.

Read the polls, you may have a perception that you are not anti Islamic, but something on the order of 80%+ of the people in Pakistan and Afghanistan believe the US is engaged in a war against their religion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Palehorse74 unwittingly points out something crucial---It's not U.S. troops who have been killing Pakistanis...

Its not really quite as clear cut. But US troops are certainly killing any and all innocent civilians in Afghanistan unlucky enough to get in the way. And destabilizing the entire country in the process. Disrupting their former existence and making their country into a dangerous battle ground.

Its precisely that Afghani treatment Pakistan hopes to avoid

Is it really?

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I agree that this is getting ridiculous but I disagree with any of the suggested solutions. I believe we must make peace with the Pakistani taliban and tell them to hand over all foreign elements.

Sounds like, from their own words, they want to incorporate the Taliban itself into Pakistan as a legitimate and protected entity of Pakistan.

Merging and becoming the very entity that struck us on September 11th IS NOT the proper way to avoid us going in and killing them. Pakistan wanting to protect and assume the Taliban?s responsibilities does not sound like they want to avoid our wrath. It sounds precisely like they want to become the object of our wrath.

I can understand your views Lemon, if you do not want to peruse and persecute our killers, but perhaps THAT should be the focus of your argument instead of the post I quoted.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Palehorse74 unwittingly points out something crucial---It's not U.S. troops who have been killing Pakistanis...

Its not really quite as clear cut. But US troops are certainly killing any and all innocent civilians in Afghanistan unlucky enough to get in the way.

I think I can speak for every NATO and US soldier who ever served in Afghanistan when I say this:

Go Fvck Yourself.

And destabilizing the entire country in the process. Disrupting their former existence and making their country into a dangerous battle ground. [/b]

LOL!!

I guess the rampant (read: daily, indiscriminant, and widespread) rape and muder that the Taliban wrought upon the people of Afghanistan, and northwest Pakistan, prior to our arrival in 2001, was of the "peaceful" variety, eh?

What a clueless fvcking twit...

 

[Lemon law]

Jaskalas seems confused on one crucial point when he says--Merging and becoming the very entity that struck us on September 11th IS NOT the proper way to avoid us going in and killing them.

The point being, it was not the taliban that struck us on 911, it was AL-Quida. I don't even think the taliban had a clue about what Ossama Bin Laden&friends were planning until after it happened. The taliban then refused to hand Ossama over to the US after 911. And Al-Quida is mainly made up of foreign Arab fighters the US helped recruit and train to expel the Russians from Afghanistan so they were owed some degree of gratitude by custom. But as we can see, the taliban refused to hand Ossama over, and the rest is history. And after 5+ years, Ossama is still at large, and its Pakistan that has caught more Al-Quida operatives than the US, the British, and everyone else combined. And I think thats what The Green Bean
was mentioning when he indicated a desire to get rid of foreign elements.

And the taliban was a basically homegrown movement that came about long after the anarchy created from the Russian withdrawal. And after a long period of Afghani civil war, the
Taliban finally came to power partly due to the oppression and corruption that resulted when the Northern alliance briefly held the Afghani hegemony. And part of our current problems in Afghanistan can be traced to allying our selves to the Northern alliance who are now back in all there corrupt glory. We may think we brought democracy to Afghanistan, it may be true that Karzi is the de facto mayor of Kabul, but its thugs and war lords ruling most of the rest of Afghanistan. Afghanistan should be used to it by now, they have not had a stable government since 1937, and the US is not making any progress either.

 

[Jaskalas]

Lemon, you do catch me on a technicality.

Do you suggest as Green Bean does, that we should pursue peace with the Taliban?

I do tend to scoff at the differences between one violent Islamic Supremacist group and the next when both are at war against us. So then maybe you?d like us to treat them differently, is that it? Perhaps the Taliban were a peaceful people minding to themselves until American aggressors attacked them?

 

[event8horizon]

let me repost since palehorse didnt respond last time.

so palehorse-

is it true that u would NOT like to see Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad the former leader of the ISI interogated????? and if not, why not??

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
let me repost since palehorse didnt respond last time.

so palehorse-

is it true that u would NOT like to see Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad the former leader of the ISI interogated????? and if not, why not??

take the hint...