Taliban Tells Obama to F** Off

[quote]pat wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

No one says “moderate Taliban” because it’s a stupid phrase. If you want experts who endorse trying to peel off and co-opt less radical Taliban forces, where to begin? Google Ahmed Rashid [edit, getting my Rashids confused], a Pakistani journalist who is one of the biggest authorities on Al Qaeda in the world today. He is hesitant about whether this would work, but he thinks it is a good idea. You can use Google or iTunes to find an interview he did on NPR in the last couple months where he said this, I can’t seem to find it on my iPod.

But as with decent books, I highly doubt you’ll do this.

Laying off Fox would do some of you some good.

stockzy wrote: Sounds like he’s just making all the right moves in the eyes of the world and the history books.

“We tried to negotiate”

“We offered them solutions and they didn’t want to co-operate”

then you’ll hear

“We had no choice but to use force”

I think out of anyone, your Government is the most clued in to how determined the Taliban is.

This may or may not be what Obama had in mind but Israel has tried this line of reasoning with their “neighbors” many of whom are islamic extremists, and it’s never
worked to favorably influence world opinion for them. I may be comparing apples to oranges here but that’s my take on it. I think Obama did lose face as a result of this offer and it’s rejection.

Gkhan wrote: “He flooded them with weapons to drive out the Russians who were exterminating the Afghan people. Not our fault they turned on their benefactors.”

I agree, what Reagan did was akin to Roocevelt and Churchill fighting on the side of Stalin in WWII. As soon as the war
with Germany was over, the alliance with Russia ended. In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Charlie Wilson’s war, etc it seems ill advised in retrospect but what was it some Dem president once said about
any ten yr old’s hindsight being superior to a president’s foresight? We have elcted a novice.

A lot of people are very naive about Jihadists like the Taliban. Make no mistake, they are in it to win it.

Sifu wrote: "That we would even think to talk to them demonstrates to them that we have gone soft and we are not willing to sacrifice for what we believe in.

The next four to eight years are going to be very dangerous now because the fools in power have encouraged them by showing so much weakness.

To all of you who thought that Obama was going to make things better. Better than Bush made them. I told you so."

I’m with you, especially those last 4 words."

Prowlcat wrote: "Let’s just strap in for an eight year freakshow, folks. We’ve elected an arrogant, America hating race-baiter president. What did anyone expect? He was the most liberal member of the most liberal senate of all time? We were hoping for Barry Goldwater instead of Barry Obama?

The press lied for him and our society’s losers turned out to vote for their goody-bag. And they’re getting it. Free money for having kids you can’t support! Homes you dont’ actually have to pay for! Free health care! Jobs! A cure for cancer! HOPE! At long last, HOPE!

We KNEW he hated America. We KNEW he hated the UK. Read his freaking books! We knew he’d done drugs, you know, a ‘little blow’. We knew he surrounded himself with America-hating terrorists. And we expected him to NOT try and be pals with Hamas (he gave 'em a billion dollars), the Taliban, et al?

We got what we deserve for being a nation of idiots. Got hope? Hell…I don’t even see those t-shirts any more. I’ll probably bust out laughing if I do."

It was mind boggling to me that people
read his books and still voted for him. Now they’re surprised at what they’ve elected. Not hope but hopeless. He didn’t even bother to lie. They just basked in
his “intellect” and “rhetoric” and “nuanced
responses”. Notice how every picture the press runs shows him deep in thought. Give us a break. This guy is like a kid “playing
like” he’s president.

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?

I don’t suppose anyone has considered that his actions may buy him much needed political capital in the Muslim world? Also, many of the fighters in Afghanistan did not start out as idealists, they started out as very poor people who wanted a leg up, and unfortunately, that is the easiest way to get a socioeconomic boost in that particular part of the world. His professed willingness to negotiate may give some of those people pause.

I’m not defending him. In the long run it was probably a bad choice, but the amount of Obama-hate I’ve seen in the past three months is just staggering. You’re acting just like the liberals who railed against Bush, and it’s just as constructive.

Two wrongs don’t make a ______ (fill in the blank)."

I filled in the blank with “Wright”. As for the Obama hate, we’re just trying to offset the Obama love of guys like Olbermann
and Matthews.

Believe me, most of us want to see Obama
get it right for the sake of our own futures but we just don’t see much HOPE.

Gambit_Lost wrote: “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.”

You don’t hink there’s ever been a conspiracy? You think JFK was gunned down by a lone nut who was known to be a lousy shot? With a rifle that was known as “the humanitarian”? That couldn’t be sighted in to fire accurately?

You think all these catastrophes “just happen”? Sorry, I believe in intelligent
design.

You don’t see anythinjg suspicious about the timing of recent financial collapses?

Read what Mac Arthur, Goldwater, Churchill,
Lindbergh, Mac Fadden, etc said about conspiracy and the last depression.

Read “Tragedy and Hope” by Dr. Carroll Quigley who was one of Clinton’s mentors.

tom8658 wrote "I agree. In that culture, attempt at negotiation would likely be considered a sign of weakness. On the other hand, if more troops do start making a positive impact on the situation in Afghanistan, some local warlords and tribal leaders may start thinking twice about fighting the US, and will remember this offer, because, as you point out, they are basically rational people who just wanted to be on the winning side.

I think he is betting on the troop surge in Afghanistan going well and being a tipping point in the war, but by making that bet, he has likely increased the odds of failure."

That is a possibility. I sincerely hope
you’re right. So many have written about
the factions among the taliban. Of course there are factions even among us Republicans in the US. What worries me
is the fanaticism these people display.
I’m afraid this will overcome any tendency of a reasonable reaction. Ever read about
the cult of the assassins and the Old Man of the Mountain? These people live their whole lives in misery and have held out to them a promise of paradise in exchange for martyrdom.

Sloth wrote: "You guys wanting to invade and occupy Pakistan? "

I don’t want to invade anything but the Pres of the US suggested it during his campaign.

With the possible exception of Nigeria,
Pakistan and Afghanistan have to be 2 of the
craziest places on earth. Where else can a
judge sentence a girl to be gang raped because her brother committed a crime?
And remember what he did might not even be considered a crime in a civilized country.
How would you like to be publicly whipped for being late to prayer? (If you don’t have a sister.) Not missing prayer—being late. Ref those factions again, one faction would probably like to not even be muslim but are given no choice. Probably a lot of those in Iran right now.

Amazing that people who were perfectly willing for Saddam Hussein to live out his life and then pass the reins to Uday and Qusay but couldn’t wait to see that tyrant Musharaff ousted. Granted he wasn’t the greatest but way ahead of the guy who’s in power now. Wait till Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan and then have Pakistan and Russia cut their supply
lines. Afghanistan is known as the land where great nations go to die (England and Russia). We don’t know what a quagmire is yet.

And why are we supposed to believe Bin Laden is in either country? Or even still alive?

I hope I’m wrong but I fear the worst is yet to come.

In the past men like Kissinger dominated
US foreign policy. They were known as “realpolitik” which I understand is a word of German derivation and their philosophy briefly summarized was “stability
in a region above all else”. Forget about human rights, don’t go all the way to Baghdad in 91 and remove Saddam. Better the devil we know than the one we don’t know.

The same might even have been their
attitude toward the former Soviet Union.
Then came the Neocons with ideas of regime change. Neither side is all wrong or all right, in my opinion anyway. (I was on a plane with some Darfur refugees and was
moved by their plight but we can’t help everybody who needs help.)

What I’ve noticed is that some of the same people who cursed Kissinger are now cursing
Wolfowitz.

If was president I wouldn’t know what to do.
Recognition of my own limitations may well be my only strong point. That’s why I didn’t enter the primaries. For over 2 yrs Obama has been assuring us that it would all be a piece of cake for him. Let’s see if it is.

[quote]pat wrote:

LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let’s have a moment of silence…It just speaks for itself.[/quote]

Fools like the new messiah have a degree of arrogance based on the " I’ll reason with them approach". These fellows are mostly lawyers and lawyers talk and negotiate with each other.

However, they have never negotiated with a guy with a machine gun, bombs and tanks.

The you have fools like Jimmy Carter who still thinks he’s relevant . Even though those hostages sat on their hands in captivity for 444 days, he still thinks talking is the answer.

They were on a plane as soon as Reagan was inaugurated.

Carter doesn’t seem to be willing to fade away. Keeps coming up with more stupidity.

Obama is definitely coming across as weak.
Someone posted a picture of him eating his waffle. Maybe the waffle will become the symbol of his administration the way the rocking chair did for JFK. "Can’t I just finish my waffle? The people have no bread, then let them eat waffles. They can name the first dog “Waffles”. Don’t like pork, have a waffle.

Maybe we should start a list of things he’s reversed himself on. "My church is not that controversial…I could never disown Rev Wright…NAFTA may have to be renegotiated (but tell the Canadians not to
worry, this is just campaign rhetoric)…I’ll pull out of Iraq in 16 months but of course I’ll listen to commanders on the ground…I’ll go after
Bin Laden in Afghanistan…or maybe I won’t.
No earmarks…well, maybe only 9000…
This list is far from complete and his administration is only 7 weeks old.
He seems to wake up in a new world each day.
But of course, that’s because of his soaring intellect and thoughtful approach.
It is literally anybody’s guess what he
will do.

I do think we can rule out going after
Bin Laden in Afghanistan for one reason. He will only take military action if the whole world (190 countries?) agree,
including the country to be “invaded”.

That, in itself, is a relief since there is less evidence Bin Laden is in Afghanistan
than there was for WMD in Iraq.

What bothers me more than anything else is that groups like the Taliban and Al Quaeda
see weakness not only in Obama but in the US
as a whole for seeking instant gratification, taking the path of least resistance, lacking the resolve to follow thru on anything that proves difficult.


cartoon

Here is how Obama’s strategy will work out.

Freed to wage war on British troops: Guantanamo prisoner is now a Taliban chief

A Taliban chief responsible for deadly bomb attacks against British troops in Afghanistan was a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay just 15 months ago.

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released from the camp in Cuba after U.S. officials decided he was no longer a threat.

He was handed over to the Afghan government who then freed him in Kabul early last year, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

Rasoul was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to Hamid Karzai’s government. He is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir - the Taliban’s new operations chief in Helmand and the architect of a new offensive against British troops.

Since then, the threat from the Taliban has soared as they deploy more sophisticated and powerful roadside bombs against British troops.

More than 40 British troops have been killed by roadside bombs since last year. One Whitehall official told The Times: ‘He is a serious player.’

Sources at the Pentagon said that Rasoul, who spent six years at Guantanamo Bay where he was Detainee 008, has joined a growing faction of former inmates of the camp who have rejoined militant groups.

It is thought that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on the battlefields.

Rasoul was captured in 2001, according to documents assembled by the U.S. military for a 2005 review of his combatant status at Guantanamo.

Armed with a gun and sitting in the car of an alleged Taliban leader, he insisted to the U.S. authorities that he had been forced to carry the gun by the Taliban.

Rasoul told the tribunal in 2005 that in fact he had surrendered with other Taliban members to the Northern Alliance in Konduz on December 12, 2001.

British officials and Taliban sources said that Rasoul was believed to be based in Quetta, Pakistan.

‘He is back in Helmand since his release,’ said a Taliban commander.

‘He is in the border area now, sometimes in Pakistan and sometimes in Afghanistan. He is a very big commander.’

Rasoul was flown home to Kabul on December 12, 2007.

He was then held in Pul-e-Charkhi maximum security prison in a block that had been specially renovated by the Americans for the detention of prisoners transferred from jails at Bagram airbase, near Kabul, and Guantanamo.

He was freed early in 2008, but the circumstances of his release remain unclear.

Although the full text of the decision to release him has not been declassified, documents show that the decision was unanimous.

Some of the factors that helped his release were that he denied knowledge of Osama Bin Laden, said he had been conscripted into the Taliban and denied that he had ever been to a training camp.

He also promised that he intended to return to a peaceful life in Afghanistan.

‘I want to go back home and join my family and work on my land and help my family,’ he said.

He did admit having joined the Taliban twice - once, under duress, in 1995, and the second time in 1997, to get proper treatment for injuries sustained in a bombing.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
pat wrote:

LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let’s have a moment of silence…It just speaks for itself.

Fools like the new messiah have a degree of arrogance based on the " I’ll reason with them approach". These fellows are mostly lawyers and lawyers talk and negotiate with each other.

However, they have never negotiated with a guy with a machine gun, bombs and tanks.

The you have fools like Jimmy Carter who still thinks he’s relevant . Even though those hostages sat on their hands in captivity for 444 days, he still thinks talking is the answer.

They were on a plane as soon as Reagan was inaugurated.
[/quote]

As I remember it, the coverage of Reagan’s inauguration cut away to show the hostages getting off of the plane in Germany.

The Iranians are thugs and they only will respond positively to people who will stand up to them.

Wow, a lot of people here have no idea of the world, or politics, or what it is like in these countries, or what is going on, or anything in fact. Why am I not surprised?

These countries are 50-100 or even 200 years behind USA / UK as far as their culture is concerned. Go back that far in USA / UK and you get very similar situations. (although some of these places are 500-700 years behind it seems).

In 50 - 100 years they will sort themselves out so long as they are allowed to develop and are exposed to outside information in some way, even if that is just exposure limited to the wealthy and through trade.

You can’t waltz in and re-educate everyone in 1 year. 2 years, 4 years, 10 years.

You certainly can’t waltz in, screw up the country, kill a lot of people and expect things to work out nicely and not expect your 10 year education in vengeance and hate to not foster something really cruddy. Stuff like that has been going on in the region constantly for ONE HUNDRED years.

Why did you remove Saddam? What a stupid waste of time and money. You think he was the sole reason the place was a shitehole? He wasn’t. The people there hate each other and want each others’ blood - if anything he kept it toned down. You forget that Saddam replaced someone much, much worse - someone the west also put in power. You forget, or maybe you weren’t born yet and never learnt no history. You had Saddam BY THE BALLS. That coward would have done anything to not be invaded. You could have played him along with threats for decades. Eventually the place would stabilise and modernise it might take 50 years but what makes you think it is being sped up?

Afgan - why the f23ck are you there? Oh yeah, the pipeline. The one the Taliban might not have let you have, coz they were dragging their feet. WTF? What a waste of time and money. What’s the plan now - get out and hope the people who take over (Taliban) don’t break the pipe? There’s no moderate Taliban you say - coz the Northern Alliance are such angels!

Iranians are thugs? you have no idea. none at all. USA still bitter their man in Iran was booted out? Is that what drives the endless drivel of media based opinion on the place? that was decades ago, get over it.

[quote]The you have fools like Jimmy Carter who still thinks he’s relevant . Even though those hostages sat on their hands in captivity for 444 days, he still thinks talking is the answer.

They were on a plane as soon as Reagan was inaugurated.[/quote]

The hostage release was delayed by Bush to make Reagan look good. The fact that you don’t know that is an example of the incredible ignorance that sweeps across America - you don’t know your own history, you only know the party line that is fed to you. Carter sent marines to get the hostages and their choppers failed in a dust storm. If they had succeeded would Carter be a great leader? What bum licking deal was done to free the hostages?

"The Algiers Accords called for Iran’s immediate freeing of the hostages, the unfreezing of $7.9 billion of Iranian assets and immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced in America, and a pledge by the United States that “it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”

And was this delayed to make Reagan look good?

blah blah blah go learn something. Or don’t, the USA is prob. itself 50 years from getting its act together.

Sifu, you remember correctly. People knew
Carter was a wimp and Reagan would take no
guff. Made a believer out of Qadaffi.

It’s not just the Taliban and Al Quaeda that are taking Obama’s measure. Look at
the North Koreans and the Chinese in these last few days. “These people are mean”
“This country is downright mean.”

Michelle may find out who really is mean.

Magarhe wrote: "Why did you remove Saddam? What a stupid waste of time and money. You think he was the sole reason the place was a shitehole? He wasn’t. The people there hate each other and want each others’ blood - if anything he kept it toned down. You forget that Saddam replaced someone much, much worse - someone the west also put in power. You forget, or maybe you weren’t born yet and never learnt no history. You had Saddam BY THE BALLS.

That coward would have done anything to not be invaded. You could have played him along with threats for decades. Eventually the place would stabilise and modernise it might take 50 years but what makes you think it is being sped up? "

I agree with parts of your post here but
I can’t see this part about Saddam being willing to do anything to not be invaded.
Maybe I’m being dense but it seems to me all he had to do was go along with one or more of the 17 or so UN resolutions demanding that he give the inspectors access
to his palaces and other suspicious spots.

I have never been a fan of the UN but if that slow moving bunch of appeasers finally
makes a move you’d think it would be enforced. It’s sort of analogous to those
folks who say you should never spank a kid—just put him in the corner. My folks usually had to spank me to keep me in the corner once they put me in it.