[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sorry, I view al-Qaeda members as being murderous scum terrorists. The fact you don’t, speaks volumes of you but says nothing else.
[/quote]
So you don’t admit the possibility of certain ethnic groups, who simply don’t want foreigners in their country? They are allied with the jihadists for the same reason that we were during the Soviet invasion - “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sorry, I view al-Qaeda members as being murderous scum terrorists. The fact you don’t, speaks volumes of you but says nothing else.
I’m not surprised you don’t. Actually I’d expect you’d give them a blow job, and then ask whether they wanted a rim job and if they’d like to take you in the ass, before offering your wife and daughters to them.
Because leftists like you just love giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and worrying about how Saddam Hussein was “sovereign” and that precious sovereignty of his regime was “violated” and his tyranny – excuse me, benevolent rule – was brought to an end as were his slaughters, tortures, rape rooms etc. You just hate that, being a leftist. It should have continued, and America is evil for ending it. Of course (to a leftist.)[/quote]
Righists like you love sending other men off to die while you thump your chest from your computer chair, you gutless hawk faggot. I’m all for diplomacy or negotiations before the last step must be taken. Aside from that nothing merited an invasion or attack on Iraq, Saddam’s regime could have been toppled in much different means than an all out bombing campaign and invasion. Of course that’s not what the invasion was about at all, I don’t expect you to know that though.
You can’t group every resistance fighter in Iraq with AQ, the fact that you do, speaks volumes of you. You’re talking about a country that faced an onslaught of bombings and and an invading force, so you’re going to have a group of individuals fighting American forces with no ties to terrorist groups, and these people have every right to be fighting American forces. And speaking of AQ, Al Qaeda groups came in AFTER the invasion, which had NEVER been present in Iraq until that point. Do you get this?
It’s not America’s duty to police the world. Regardless of whether Saddam had slaughtered or tortured(hey, don’t we do that now?) people. Maybe you’re still hung up on the fictional testimony of the girl relating the story of Iraqi soldiers dumping babies on the floor from incubators? Funny how justifications for war always seem to come up bullshit? Aside from that, where’s your enthusiasm for intervention in Darfur?
[quote]tom8658 wrote:
I love this board.
Where else can you get “Bush got such a raw deal” and “Obama is a communist drug user intent on destroying America” in the same thread?
[/quote]
I love this board too. It’s amazing reading some of this stuff. My favorite is still the conspiracy stuff that went on right before the election. Too bad it’s toned down lately.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sorry, I view al-Qaeda members as being murderous scum terrorists. The fact you don’t, speaks volumes of you but says nothing else.
I’m not surprised you don’t. Actually I’d expect you’d give them a blow job, and then ask whether they wanted a rim job and if they’d like to take you in the ass, before offering your wife and daughters to them.
Because leftists like you just love giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and worrying about how Saddam Hussein was “sovereign” and that precious sovereignty of his regime was “violated” and his tyranny – excuse me, benevolent rule – was brought to an end as were his slaughters, tortures, rape rooms etc. You just hate that, being a leftist. It should have continued, and America is evil for ending it. Of course (to a leftist.)[/quote]
Ad hominem, personal attack, and gross overgeneralization. Three for three. And without answering the question. Well done.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Sorry, I view al-Qaeda members as being murderous scum terrorists. The fact you don’t, speaks volumes of you but says nothing else.
I’m not surprised you don’t. Actually I’d expect you’d give them a blow job, and then ask whether they wanted a rim job and if they’d like to take you in the ass, before offering your wife and daughters to them.
Because leftists like you just love giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and worrying about how Saddam Hussein was “sovereign” and that precious sovereignty of his regime was “violated” and his tyranny – excuse me, benevolent rule – was brought to an end as were his slaughters, tortures, rape rooms etc. You just hate that, being a leftist. It should have continued, and America is evil for ending it. Of course (to a leftist.)
Righists like you love sending other men off to die while you thump your chest from your computer chair, you gutless hawk faggot. I’m all for diplomacy or negotiations before the last step must be taken. Aside from that nothing merited an invasion or attack on Iraq, Saddam’s regime could have been toppled in much different means than an all out bombing campaign and invasion. Of course that’s not what the invasion was about at all, I don’t expect you to know that though.
You can’t group every resistance fighter in Iraq with AQ, the fact that you do, speaks volumes of you. You’re talking about a country that faced an onslaught of bombings and and an invading force, so you’re going to have a group of individuals fighting American forces with no ties to terrorist groups, and these people have every right to be fighting American forces. And speaking of AQ, Al Qaeda groups came in AFTER the invasion, which had NEVER been present in Iraq until that point. Do you get this?[/quote]
It’s funny, or maybe sad, that the people who were the loudest cheerleaders for “the surge” either don’t understand or won’t admit why it succeeded. Hint: Sons of Iraq.
[quote]pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let’s have a moment of silence…It just speaks for itself.
You’re having real trouble understanding this, huh?
There are multiple Talibans, all of whom may pledge nominal fealty to the same leaders. The “Quetta Shura” (because that’s where they’re presumed to be hiding) is led by Mullah Omar, the original leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are irreconcilables. They sheltered bin Laden and refused to give him up. They undoubtedly think they can wait us out and come back to power in Kabul. They may be right.
However, on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which has its own Taliban), there are undoubtedly many footsoldiers and more than a few commanders who are not fanatical jihadists. Some may be drug smugglers, some have lost a friend or family member to Coalition airstrikes, some are nationalists who don’t like foreign troops on their soil, some are Pashtuns who see the government in Kabul as a clique of Tajiks and Uzbeks, and some just like the excitement of violence (like young men for all of human history). Peeling some of these people off, through money or politics, makes plenty of sense. A press release, presumably from Mullah Omar’s folks, does not make a ton of difference either way. What do you think he would say?
Again, WE DID THIS EXACT THING IN IRAQ 18 MONTHS AGO. It may not work as well in Afghanistan. I suspect it won’t. But I don’t get why it is so hard to understand.
He said they’re multiple talibans!!! Oh shit you guys are killing me! LOL!!! LOL!!! I fucking crying!
As in any revolutionary movement, there are factions, and the strength and control of the central leadership varies. Witness the shootings in Ireland the last couple days…
Ah, forget it dude. I give up. Keep spreading your ignorance around this forum in big doses.
If you do ever become curious in learning what actually goes on over there, General Petraeus’ Australian strategist, David Kilcullen, wrote a book called ‘The Accidental Guerrilla’ recently.
Ok man, show us where these “moderate” taliban are… Just provide a link or something that shows there is a “moderate” taliban.
It doesn’t matter what we did in Iraq or in WW 2 or any other war. This ain’t Iraq.[/quote]
Agreed, that’s why I doubt this will work as well. But you keep mindlessly attacking Obama for trying to do the SAME THING Bush did (successfully so far) with arguably far more violent (more suicide bombings, more American soldiers killed, more attacks period) and less reconcilable (sectarianism, dispossessed rulers of the whole country) insurgents. So unless you were slamming the surge and the Sons of Iraq, you’re either a hypocrite or a moron. I can’t decide which.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
There are no “moderate” Taliban. But, since we can’t win against Jihadists anyways, why keep wasting so many resources?
If for no other reason than it’s so fuckin’ satisfying. Kill 'em all.
[i]By the last breath of the four winds blow
Better raise your ears
The sound of hooves knock at your door
Lock up your wife and children now
It’s time to wield the blade
For now you’ve got some company
The Horsemen are drawing nearer
On lathered steeds they ride
They come to take your life
On through the dead of night
We the four Horsemen ride
Or choose your fate and die
YEAH!!
You’ve been dying
since the day you were born
You know it’s all been planned
The quartet of deliverance rides
A sinner once, a sinner twice
No need for confession now
Cause now you’ve got the fight of your life
The Horsemen are drawing nearer
On lathered steeds they ride
They come to take your life
On through the dead of night
We the four Horsemen ride
Or choose your fate and die
OH, YEAH YEAH!!
TIME
Has taken its toll on you
The lines that crack your face
FAMINE
Your body, it has torn through
Withered in every place
PESTILENCE
For what you’ve had to endure
For what you have put others through
DEATH
Deliverance for you for sure
Now there’s nothing you can do
So gather round young warriors now
And saddle up your steeds
Killing scores with demon swords
Now’s the death of doers wrong
Swing the judgment hammer down
Safely inside armor blood guts and sweat
The Horsemen are drawing nearer
On lathered steeds they ride
They come to take your life
On through the dead of night
We the four Horsemen ride
Or choose your fate and die
[/i][/quote]
Metallica as foreign policy. No wonder you’re a Sarah Palin fan, about the same level of contemplation there. And you call yourself a Christian, is that right?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let’s have a moment of silence…It just speaks for itself.
You’re having real trouble understanding this, huh?
There are multiple Talibans, all of whom may pledge nominal fealty to the same leaders. The “Quetta Shura” (because that’s where they’re presumed to be hiding) is led by Mullah Omar, the original leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are irreconcilables. They sheltered bin Laden and refused to give him up. They undoubtedly think they can wait us out and come back to power in Kabul. They may be right.
However, on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which has its own Taliban), there are undoubtedly many footsoldiers and more than a few commanders who are not fanatical jihadists. Some may be drug smugglers, some have lost a friend or family member to Coalition airstrikes, some are nationalists who don’t like foreign troops on their soil, some are Pashtuns who see the government in Kabul as a clique of Tajiks and Uzbeks, and some just like the excitement of violence (like young men for all of human history). Peeling some of these people off, through money or politics, makes plenty of sense. A press release, presumably from Mullah Omar’s folks, does not make a ton of difference either way. What do you think he would say?
Again, WE DID THIS EXACT THING IN IRAQ 18 MONTHS AGO. It may not work as well in Afghanistan. I suspect it won’t. But I don’t get why it is so hard to understand.
He said they’re multiple talibans!!! Oh shit you guys are killing me! LOL!!! LOL!!! I fucking crying!
As in any revolutionary movement, there are factions, and the strength and control of the central leadership varies. Witness the shootings in Ireland the last couple days…
Ah, forget it dude. I give up. Keep spreading your ignorance around this forum in big doses.
If you do ever become curious in learning what actually goes on over there, General Petraeus’ Australian strategist, David Kilcullen, wrote a book called ‘The Accidental Guerrilla’ recently.
Ok man, show us where these “moderate” taliban are… Just provide a link or something that shows there is a “moderate” taliban.
It doesn’t matter what we did in Iraq or in WW 2 or any other war. This ain’t Iraq.
Agreed, that’s why I doubt this will work as well. But you keep mindlessly attacking Obama for trying to do the SAME THING Bush did (successfully so far) with arguably far more violent (more suicide bombings, more American soldiers killed, more attacks period) and less reconcilable (sectarianism, dispossessed rulers of the whole country) insurgents. So unless you were slamming the surge and the Sons of Iraq, you’re either a hypocrite or a moron. I can’t decide which.[/quote]
No I am criticizing obama for unbridled stupidity. There’s no gray area here. That was beyond stupid and he is getting the shame he deserves for it, actually not enough, his buddies in the media just swept that shit under the rug quickly. They do not want that to be to exposed.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
pat wrote:
I don’t need to read that book to know there aren’t any “moderate” taliban groups…There is only one.
LOL!
Who needs to read books written by experts on the subject when you have opinion based on…opinion?!
The amount of absurdity in your post is staggering.[/quote]
Absurdity? I didn’t say “moderate taliban”, because it doesn’t exist. But apparently you and obama are stupid enough to think there are…Ain’t nothin’ wrong wit ha little man love…Go on give him a hug. He needs it.
BTW, which expert said there is such thing as a “moderate taliban”. Name one Einstein.
If you knew the facts instead of just bleeding from your heart about poor Saddam Hussein’s rights as sovereign being violated, and jumping to the defense of terrorists when you see them called murderous scum, you’d know that the vast majority of those fighting the US in Iraq are NOT IRAQIS.
They are from outside terror organizations.
Of course, I’m sure you are so politically correct that you deny that they are terror organizations and that the members are terrorists, just as you deny that they are murderous scum.
If you wonder why you got the treatment you did, it’s because those that whine about Saddam Hussein losing his sovereign right to mass-murder, torture and rape and jump to the defense of terrorists and take umbrage to their being called murderous scum DESERVE the description I gave of you.
Those like you, just as I said, are out to denounce the actions of the United States at every opportunity, while simultaneously being out to defend murderous scum and worse. That is among the reasons your condition deserves to be considered a mental disorder.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Sorry, I view al-Qaeda members as being murderous scum terrorists. The fact you don’t, speaks volumes of you but says nothing else.
I’m not surprised you don’t. Actually I’d expect you’d give them a blow job, and then ask whether they wanted a rim job and if they’d like to take you in the ass, before offering your wife and daughters to them.
Because leftists like you just love giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and worrying about how Saddam Hussein was “sovereign” and that precious sovereignty of his regime was “violated” and his tyranny – excuse me, benevolent rule – was brought to an end as were his slaughters, tortures, rape rooms etc. You just hate that, being a leftist. It should have continued, and America is evil for ending it. Of course (to a leftist.)[/quote]
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If you knew the facts instead of just bleeding from your heart about poor Saddam Hussein’s rights as sovereign being violated, and jumping to the defense of terrorists when you see them called murderous scum, you’d know that the vast majority of those fighting the US in Iraq are NOT IRAQIS.
They are from outside terror organizations.
Of course, I’m sure you are so politically correct that you deny that they are terror organizations and that the members are terrorists, just as you deny that they are murderous scum.
If you wonder why you got the treatment you did, it’s because those that whine about Saddam Hussein losing his sovereign right to mass-murder, torture and rape and jump to the defense of terrorists and take umbrage to their being called murderous scum DESERVE the description I gave of you.
Inner Hulk wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Sorry, I view al-Qaeda members as being murderous scum terrorists. The fact you don’t, speaks volumes of you but says nothing else.
I’m not surprised you don’t. Actually I’d expect you’d give them a blow job, and then ask whether they wanted a rim job and if they’d like to take you in the ass, before offering your wife and daughters to them.
Because leftists like you just love giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and worrying about how Saddam Hussein was “sovereign” and that precious sovereignty of his regime was “violated” and his tyranny – excuse me, benevolent rule – was brought to an end as were his slaughters, tortures, rape rooms etc. You just hate that, being a leftist. It should have continued, and America is evil for ending it. Of course (to a leftist.)[/quote]
Don’t let fact get in the way of the march toward socialism and kissing the ass you your sworn enemies…It’s hope and change!
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Leftist rage and utter intolerance of anything different than their own views – while of course mouthing the virtues of “diversity,” “bipartisanship,” “unity,” “common ground” and so forth – is always so comical.
Did you even read the post I quoted? [/quote]
Did you comprehend mine?
By the way I was not saying you personally were mouthing those things as virtues simulataneously. Leftist impotent rage such as your post is always comical: it’s even better when, as is often the case, one knows the same person also – as most such do --talks out of the other side of their mouth on the points I mentioned there
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I just have the feeling, as a very very high odds bet, that over time you’ve posted and elsewhere written or expressed in any way far less hard feelings and objections to the Soviets invading Afghanistan and grinding the people under their boots – or ANY other Soviet action – than you have against the United States taking actions resulting in peoples being freed from dictators.
[/quote]
You are correct, Sir.
You guys wanting to invade and occupy Pakistan?
[quote]lixy wrote:
I see.
Pinochet was Chile’s savior, Suharto worked to protect “the interests” of the Indonesians and Israel actually did Palestinians a favor.
You must be on dope or something. “The interests of the Afghani people” never mattered. It’s all about “US interests” and you know it.[/quote]
If you think the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was a good thing, YOU are the one who’s on something, man.
How would you know if the interests of the Afghan people mattered? Do you suddenly make policy for the US government?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You guys wanting to invade and occupy Pakistan?[/quote]
Oh I hope so!!!1!!
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If you knew the facts instead of just bleeding from your heart about poor Saddam Hussein’s rights as sovereign being violated, and jumping to the defense of terrorists when you see them called murderous scum, you’d know that the vast majority of those fighting the US in Iraq are NOT IRAQIS.
They are from outside terror organizations.
[/quote]
That is possibly the case now. It was most definitely NOT the case prior to the Anbar Awakening of 2007-2008 and the decision of the Sunni tribes to fight on our side against Al Qaeda. Which is the whole point of the comparison. Like Pat, you either cannot comprehend this or you are so partisan you refuse to admit it.
And what the hell is a moderate Taliban? Do they only maim a woman for life?