[quote]Makavali wrote:
pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pat wrote:
LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let’s have a moment of silence…It just speaks for itself.
Why would you lol about a failure with a terrorist group?
What failure of a terrorist group? What the hell are you talking about?
I LOL’d at the fact that this moron wanted to negotiate with the taliban and they told him to go fuck himself…I find that funny. I mean really, how can you not…I really truly laughed my ass off when I read the article…It was no e-comedy I laughed out loud.
You have to be dumber than mule-shit to think you can negotiate with taliban or to think somehow there are “moderate taliban”. There is only one taliban and they are very fucking far from moderate, in case you did not know.
Failure with, you idiot. Why would you lol at failed negotiation with a known terrorist group? Why in fucks name would you laugh at something that would likely provoke them into another wave of attacks?
Are you retarded? A normal person would be concerned that it failed, but no - you decide to use it as another example of Obamas “shortcomings”. It’s not really a lol moment.[/quote]
Nice try to turn it one me but you are unaware of the facts. It didn’t get to negotiation…Obama “reached out” and they told him to fuck off. Did you not read what had happened? There was no negotiation to fail.
It is a LOL moment because it’s stupidity at it’s finest.
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?
So it disturbs you that I wish to ruthlessly and efficiently destroy my/our enemies? Sorry, I shed no tears.
I’m not sure that Sarah shares my passion in this regard but if she does, hallelujah. If not, I could not care less.
And if you so desire the peaceful Millennium spoken of in the New Testament, specifically the Book of Revelation, then I suggest you read up and see exactly what Christ does to His enemies in order to usher in that 1000 years of tranquility.
Christ is the Prince of Peace. That being said, we have a Just War tradition for a reason. But can you tell me who said Christians are supposed to ENJOY killing? Is the above about the same level of Scriptural analysis that leads you to think the Lord wants you to sleep with all your neighbors’ wives?
GFabricator37, see if you can find a quote of mine where I said Christians should enjoy killing and while you’re at it find one where I even came close to saying I think the Lord wants me to sleep with all my neighbors’ wives.
You are but a boy, foolish and inept, trying to play a man’s game here. Step back and wait a few years. Your time has not yet come.[/quote]
“If for no other reason than it’s so fuckin’ satisfying. Kill 'em all.” Satisfying and enjoying don’t seem very far apart to me. As for your neighbors’ wives, I was exaggerating, my point is that the way you seem to interpret Scripture is pretty idiosyncratic, to say the least.
[quote]pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pat wrote:
LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let’s have a moment of silence…It just speaks for itself.
Why would you lol about a failure with a terrorist group?
What failure of a terrorist group? What the hell are you talking about?
I LOL’d at the fact that this moron wanted to negotiate with the taliban and they told him to go fuck himself…I find that funny. I mean really, how can you not…I really truly laughed my ass off when I read the article…It was no e-comedy I laughed out loud. You have to be dumber than mule-shit to think you can negotiate with taliban or to think somehow there are “moderate taliban”.
There is only one taliban and they are very fucking far from moderate, in case you did not know.
And you’re more of an expert on the Taliban than Ahmed Rashid, David Kilcullen, Sarah Chayes…all of whom have, for starters, actually BEEN to Afghanistan?
These guys says there is a moderate taliban? Oh please reference…
How close was old Sarah Chayes able to get to the taliban? This should be good…Please link us up…[/quote]
I’m not gonna find you neat little 500-word links to defend stuff that is almost common sense. Ever heard of Google?
But…
Sarah Chayes lives and works in Kandahar, which was where the Taliban was born. She is very anti-Taliban, being a Western woman working in Afghanistan, and may not even be in favor of reaching out to disaffected elements. However, I think she would say it is not one monolithic organization.
More importantly, Rashid has written several books, most recent is “Descent into Chaos.” As I said a couple pages ago, he had an interview with Fresh Air on NPR, within the last couple of months, where he was skeptical but expressed support for peeling off Taliban elements. Believe it or not, NPR has a website.
I have mentioned Kilcullen’s book. Man has fought and studied guerrillas on three continents. His main point, and hence the title (“The Accidental Guerrilla”) is that the majority, and quite possibly the vast majority, of the people fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan are not hardened jihadists, but locals who want to be left alone.
I have posted this probably a half dozen times in response to other partisan idiots like JeffR, but it sums it up:
"So here is a theory of counterinsurgency. In six paragraphs and the form of a parable. Set in the rural South, where we both live.
The house next door to you is sold, and the people who move in are white supremacist skinheads. You discover that they’ve started up a methamphetamine lab in their basement. You think about calling your County Sheriff’s Department, but you’re not so sure. The cops strike you as generally overweight and none too swift. The only time you ever see them is in the mall, two cruisers parked side by side, the deputies gossiping and waiting for the next radio call instead of being on patrol. You’re afraid that if you tell them about your neighbors the news will leak out and you’ll get your house burned down one night. After all, you have a wife and kids and a mortgage.
But one day the SWAT team shows up to serve a warrant and kicks down the neighbor’s door and drags them off to jail. You’re incredibly pleased and highly relieved. You vow that the next time the Department is doing some charity work you’ll write a check. And you tell one of the deputies that if he sees you out in the yard to stop and you’ll let him know what’s going on in the neighborhood.
Now let’s shift that scenario to a slightly alternate universe where the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply. The Sheriff’s Department gets the word that someone in the neighborhood is cooking meth. They don’t know who, but since no one in the neighborhood is telling them anything they think everyone might be white supremacists. So one night they kick down your door looking for the meth lab. They point guns at your kids and your wife and scare them half to death. While searching your home they break your furniture and throw your belongings everywhere. And they slap you around trying to get you to tell them where the meth lab is. By now you’ve forgotten all about your scary neighbors - you just want to get even with those cops.
Even worse, let’s say that the cops find out exactly where the meth lab is. But they’re afraid of the neighborhood, and they don’t want to get shot at taking down the lab. So they call in a fighter bomber and drop a 500 lb guided bomb on your neighbor’s house. That takes care of the meth lab, but it also blows down one wall of your house, breaks every window, and destroys the car you need to get to work every day. You don’t know what you’re going to do.
A couple of nights later, another neighbor comes to your door and says he’s making a bomb to blow up the next patrol car that comes down the road. And would you help him dig the hole for $100?
…But can you tell me who said Christians are supposed to ENJOY killing? Is the above about the same level of Scriptural analysis that leads you to think the Lord wants you to sleep with all your neighbors’ wives?
GFabricator37, see if you can find a quote of mine where I said Christians should enjoy killing and while you’re at it find one where I even came close to saying I think the Lord wants me to sleep with all my neighbors’ wives.
You are but a boy, foolish and inept, trying to play a man’s game here. Step back and wait a few years. Your time has not yet come.
“If for no other reason than it’s so fuckin’ satisfying. Kill 'em all.” Satisfying and enjoying don’t seem very far apart to me.
You proffered a general question, “But can you tell me who said Christians are supposed to ENJOY killing?”
But my statement was in the context of killing one’s enemies. Those two perspectives are world’s apart. You know this so therefore you must have woke up that day and thought to yourself, “Today I think I will be a cocksucker on PWI and twist someone’s words around and I think this time I’ll take on Push.”
[/quote]
Yes, it was in the context of killing one’s enemies. That changes things, but it’s still a stupid keyboard warrior thing to write. The few men I know who’ve been in combat don’t say anything about it being “so fuckin’ satisfying” to kill people, even their enemies.
I had tea (that’s how they do it over there) when I was living in England with an old veteran from my church who was in Slim’s 14th Army in Burma. He was an artillery forward observer, on the front lines. And his basic opinion of the Japanese, as brutal as they were, was “those poor men.”
Want another Christian example? Robert Runcie won the Military Cross at Normandy as a tank officer, and became the Archbishop of Canterbury decades later.
He was attacked in some quarters for telling Anglicans to pray for both British and Argentine war dead during the Falklands War. That’s Christianity, not “kill 'em all”.
Now, if you have purposely killed a human being, I apologize because you know much more about this than I do. Is that the case?
Struck a bit of a nerve? It’s an exaggeration, sure. My point is that words have meaning, they don’t mean whatever you want them to mean.
LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let’s have a moment of silence…It just speaks for itself.
Why would you lol about a failure with a terrorist group?
What failure of a terrorist group? What the hell are you talking about?
I LOL’d at the fact that this moron wanted to negotiate with the taliban and they told him to go fuck himself…I find that funny. I mean really, how can you not…I really truly laughed my ass off when I read the article…It was no e-comedy I laughed out loud. You have to be dumber than mule-shit to think you can negotiate with taliban or to think somehow there are “moderate taliban”.
There is only one taliban and they are very fucking far from moderate, in case you did not know.
And you’re more of an expert on the Taliban than Ahmed Rashid, David Kilcullen, Sarah Chayes…all of whom have, for starters, actually BEEN to Afghanistan?
These guys says there is a moderate taliban? Oh please reference…
How close was old Sarah Chayes able to get to the taliban? This should be good…Please link us up…
I’m not gonna find you neat little 500-word links to defend stuff that is almost common sense. Ever heard of Google?
[/quote]
There is no evidence of any “moderate taliaban” Ok wiat, let me put moderate taliban in google…
I could go on…but not one link popped up indicating there is such a thing.
So? Considering they’d beat the fucking shit out of her if she were to attempt to speak to them, I highly doubt she knows shit about them. Since you cannot provide any evidence she does, I do not see the point of mentioning her name. Lot’s of people live there, who cares?
So dig it up and find me something. You have provided nothing. I sure as fuck cannot find even the remotest shred of evidence such a thing as a moderate taliban existing.
We have already employed the counter insurgency…None of which are taliban or, and this may come as a shock too, al qaeda.
[quote]
The house next door to you is sold, and the people who move in are white supremacist skinheads. You discover that they’ve started up a methamphetamine lab in their basement. You think about calling your County Sheriff’s Department, but you’re not so sure. The cops strike you as generally overweight and none too swift. The only time you ever see them is in the mall, two cruisers parked side by side, the deputies gossiping and waiting for the next radio call instead of being on patrol. You’re afraid that if you tell them about your neighbors the news will leak out and you’ll get your house burned down one night. After all, you have a wife and kids and a mortgage.
But one day the SWAT team shows up to serve a warrant and kicks down the neighbor’s door and drags them off to jail. You’re incredibly pleased and highly relieved. You vow that the next time the Department is doing some charity work you’ll write a check. And you tell one of the deputies that if he sees you out in the yard to stop and you’ll let him know what’s going on in the neighborhood.
Now let’s shift that scenario to a slightly alternate universe where the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply. The Sheriff’s Department gets the word that someone in the neighborhood is cooking meth. They don’t know who, but since no one in the neighborhood is telling them anything they think everyone might be white supremacists. So one night they kick down your door looking for the meth lab. They point guns at your kids and your wife and scare them half to death. While searching your home they break your furniture and throw your belongings everywhere. And they slap you around trying to get you to tell them where the meth lab is. By now you’ve forgotten all about your scary neighbors - you just want to get even with those cops.
Even worse, let’s say that the cops find out exactly where the meth lab is. But they’re afraid of the neighborhood, and they don’t want to get shot at taking down the lab. So they call in a fighter bomber and drop a 500 lb guided bomb on your neighbor’s house. That takes care of the meth lab, but it also blows down one wall of your house, breaks every window, and destroys the car you need to get to work every day. You don’t know what you’re going to do.
A couple of nights later, another neighbor comes to your door and says he’s making a bomb to blow up the next patrol car that comes down the road. And would you help him dig the hole for $100?
Uh, what? That made absolutely no sense. For all I know my neighbor has a meth lab in his basement and quite frankly, I don’t give a fuck it he does. It’s his house. What’s that got to do with the fact that there is no such thing as a “moderate taliban”? Was that supposed to be an analogy?
I’m not going to crucify Obama for attempting to talk to our enemies. While the result in this case was predictable, it might have been worth it to at least try.
Escalation or continuation of force isn’t always the best course of action, and negotiation isn’t always a sign of weakness.
Now that the Taliban has slapped him in the face, Obama is left with only one option: attack them with extreme aggression.
To do otherwise would, in my mind, be a complete failure and demonstrate to the world that we’ve gone limp.
If he fails to respond to this dismissal with overwhelming force, then Obama deserves to be crucified for his weakness.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I’m not going to crucify Obama for attempting to talk to our enemies. While the result in this case was predictable, it might have been worth it to at least try.
[/quote]
Dude, I’m not attacking you, but its common fucking sense. What did he expect. For these hellbent extremists to say, “Gee, guys, this is guy is swell.” followed by “Maybe he’s right fellas, maybe we are taking this too far.” concluded with “We were taking this so far that we forgot what Islam is really about: loving brotherhood.” Then they would all gather round and sing “Cumbaya” eating pulled-pork sandwiches, right? Prosecution, containment, extermination: That is our final solution.
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
I’m not going to crucify Obama for attempting to talk to our enemies. While the result in this case was predictable, it might have been worth it to at least try.
Dude, I’m not attacking you, but its common fucking sense. What did he expect. For these hellbent extremists to say, “Gee, guys, this is guy is swell.” followed by “Maybe he’s right fellas, maybe we are taking this too far.” concluded with “We were taking this so far that we forgot what Islam is really about: loving brotherhood.” Then they would all gather round and sing “Cumbaya” eating pulled-pork sandwiches, right? Prosecution, containment, extermination: That is our final solution. [/quote]
Attempting to negotiate without ever showing a willingness to attack shows your enemy that you are weak, and that they should increase their efforts to defeat you.
Attempting to attack without ever showing a willingness to negotiate encourages desperation in your enemy, pushing them to fight even harder.
A good leader must be able to demonstrate a willingness to do both: attack when you must, negotiate when you can. In this situation, we lose nothing by offering to talk so long as we follow it up by grinding them into the dirt for rebuffing our offer.
If Obama responds to this dismissal with extreme aggression, I’ll think he handled this situation well. If he fails to fight back, I’ll think he just demonstrated his limp wrist to the entire world, and it would’ve been better if he hadn’t done anything at all.
But you see, the key to this whole thing is the second part. Obama hasn’t failed yet. He fails if (when?) he declines to punish the Taliban for their mistake.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
I’m not going to crucify Obama for attempting to talk to our enemies. While the result in this case was predictable, it might have been worth it to at least try.
Dude, I’m not attacking you, but its common fucking sense. What did he expect. For these hellbent extremists to say, “Gee, guys, this is guy is swell.” followed by “Maybe he’s right fellas, maybe we are taking this too far.” concluded with “We were taking this so far that we forgot what Islam is really about: loving brotherhood.” Then they would all gather round and sing “Cumbaya” eating pulled-pork sandwiches, right? Prosecution, containment, extermination: That is our final solution.
Attempting to negotiate without ever showing a willingness to attack shows your enemy that you are weak, and that they should increase their efforts to defeat you.
Attempting to attack without ever showing a willingness to negotiate encourages desperation in your enemy, pushing them to fight even harder.
A good leader must be able to demonstrate a willingness to do both: attack when you must, negotiate when you can. In this situation, we lose nothing by offering to talk so long as we follow it up by grinding them into the dirt for rebuffing our offer.
If Obama responds to this dismissal with extreme aggression, I’ll think he handled this situation well. If he fails to fight back, I’ll think he just demonstrated his limp wrist to the entire world, and it would’ve been better if he hadn’t done anything at all.
But you see, the key to this whole thing is the second part. Obama hasn’t failed yet. He fails if (when?) he declines to punish the Taliban for their mistake.
That’s all that I’m saying.[/quote]
Only time will tell, my friend (fading away into darkness) only time will tell…
This thread was a good read it made me giggle, they beat the russians and they will beat the yanks.
Unless other arab nations crack down on them they will not stop.
The usa will have to invade Iran and the pakies to have any chance of stoping them and the usa dosnt have that kinda muscle. And you will drag us aussies with you unless we get stronger ties with china which wont be happening any time soon.
Our pm just told us that the war will go on there for another 10 years min so its going to be very intersting to see how it all pans out.
On Obama he has actually done anything yet? All he is done from this end is promise the world but has done nothing.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I’m not going to crucify Obama for attempting to talk to our enemies. While the result in this case was predictable, it might have been worth it to at least try.
Escalation or continuation of force isn’t always the best course of action, and negotiation isn’t always a sign of weakness.
Now that the Taliban has slapped him in the face, Obama is left with only one option: attack them with extreme aggression.
To do otherwise would, in my mind, be a complete failure and demonstrate to the world that we’ve gone limp.
If he fails to respond to this dismissal with overwhelming force, then Obama deserves to be crucified for his weakness.[/quote]
Since when has negotiating with terrorists been a U.S. policy? The “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” has been around a long time, Bush did not invent that. The idea should never have been even entertained, Obama weakened our stance and position with this crap.
…But can you tell me who said Christians are supposed to ENJOY killing? Is the above about the same level of Scriptural analysis that leads you to think the Lord wants you to sleep with all your neighbors’ wives?
GFabricator37, see if you can find a quote of mine where I said Christians should enjoy killing and while you’re at it find one where I even came close to saying I think the Lord wants me to sleep with all my neighbors’ wives.
You are but a boy, foolish and inept, trying to play a man’s game here. Step back and wait a few years. Your time has not yet come.
“If for no other reason than it’s so fuckin’ satisfying. Kill 'em all.” Satisfying and enjoying don’t seem very far apart to me.
You proffered a general question, “But can you tell me who said Christians are supposed to ENJOY killing?”
But my statement was in the context of killing one’s enemies. Those two perspectives are world’s apart. You know this so therefore you must have woke up that day and thought to yourself, “Today I think I will be a cocksucker on PWI and twist someone’s words around and I think this time I’ll take on Push.”
Yes, it was in the context of killing one’s enemies. That changes things, but it’s still a stupid keyboard warrior thing to write.
The few men I know who’ve been in combat don’t say anything about it being “so fuckin’ satisfying” to kill people, even their enemies. I had tea (that’s how they do it over there) when I was living in England with an old veteran from my church who was in Slim’s 14th Army in Burma. He was an artillery forward observer, on the front lines. And his basic opinion of the Japanese, as brutal as they were, was “those poor men.”
Want another Christian example? Robert Runcie won the Military Cross at Normandy as a tank officer, and became the Archbishop of Canterbury decades later.
He was attacked in some quarters for telling Anglicans to pray for both British and Argentine war dead during the Falklands War. That’s Christianity, not “kill 'em all”.
Now, if you have purposely killed a human being, I apologize because you know much more about this than I do. Is that the case?
You’re completely entitled to your opinion here and I respect that. I happen to be entitled to mine as well. However, whether you respect mine is of little import to me because you proved yourself “the classic internet ass”.
As for your neighbors’ wives, I was exaggerating, my point is that the way you seem to interpret Scripture is pretty idiosyncratic, to say the least.
In fact it was a gross exaggeration seeking effect. It was so extremely overstated it lost all semblance of truth. This disqualifies you from participating in the debate and presents you as the classic internet ass.
Struck a bit of a nerve? It’s an exaggeration, sure. My point is that words have meaning, they don’t mean whatever you want them to mean.
Sure it strikes a nerve. It was fiction and you know it but you saw it as an opportunity to hit someone below the belt. And it wasn’t even close to being relevant to the topic on hand - killing one’s enemies in Afghanistan. This marks you an instant loser in this debate.
If I were similarly respond to you in a debate about ohhhhhhh…
Let’s say the legitimacy of the Iraq war for example, then I could interject something like this into the conversation… “Bush…blah…blah…blah… Hussein…blah…blah…blah… sanctions…blah…blah…blah… By the way, GDollars, do you think it’s right that you molest your own children like you do and how do you square that with your Christian beliefs?”
In fact, maybe I should pop into a thread anywhere on TN and lob the child molestation charge at you? Surely it wouldn’t strike a nerve, would it? I hope not because you wouldn’t want the reputation as a hypocrite in addition to that of a child molester.[/quote]
Whatever, if you want to be sensitive, knock yourself out. But I have a hard time considering something a cheap shot or below the belt when it’s a topic you’ve proudly covered in considerable detail on these same forums.
[quote]pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pat wrote:
LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let’s have a moment of silence…It just speaks for itself.
Why would you lol about a failure with a terrorist group?
What failure of a terrorist group? What the hell are you talking about?
I LOL’d at the fact that this moron wanted to negotiate with the taliban and they told him to go fuck himself…I find that funny. I mean really, how can you not…I really truly laughed my ass off when I read the article…It was no e-comedy I laughed out loud. You have to be dumber than mule-shit to think you can negotiate with taliban or to think somehow there are “moderate taliban”.
There is only one taliban and they are very fucking far from moderate, in case you did not know.
And you’re more of an expert on the Taliban than Ahmed Rashid, David Kilcullen, Sarah Chayes…all of whom have, for starters, actually BEEN to Afghanistan?
These guys says there is a moderate taliban? Oh please reference…
How close was old Sarah Chayes able to get to the taliban? This should be good…Please link us up…
I’m not gonna find you neat little 500-word links to defend stuff that is almost common sense. Ever heard of Google?
There is no evidence of any “moderate taliaban” Ok wiat, let me put moderate taliban in google…
I could go on…but not one link popped up indicating there is such a thing.
But…
Sarah Chayes lives and works in Kandahar, which was where the Taliban was born. She is very anti-Taliban, being a Western woman working in Afghanistan, and may not even be in favor of reaching out to disaffected elements. However, I think she would say it is not one monolithic organization.
So? Considering they’d beat the fucking shit out of her if she were to attempt to speak to them, I highly doubt she knows shit about them. Since you cannot provide any evidence she does, I do not see the point of mentioning her name. Lot’s of people live there, who cares?
More importantly, Rashid has written several books, most recent is “Descent into Chaos.” As I said a couple pages ago, he had an interview with Fresh Air on NPR, within the last couple of months, where he was skeptical but expressed support for peeling off Taliban elements. Believe it or not, NPR has a website.
So dig it up and find me something. You have provided nothing. I sure as fuck cannot find even the remotest shred of evidence such a thing as a moderate taliban existing.
I have mentioned Kilcullen’s book. Man has fought and studied guerrillas on three continents. His main point, and hence the title (“The Accidental Guerrilla”) is that the majority, and quite possibly the vast majority, of the people fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan are not hardened jihadists, but locals who want to be left alone.
I have posted this probably a half dozen times in response to other partisan idiots like JeffR, but it sums it up:
"So here is a theory of counterinsurgency. In six paragraphs and the form of a parable. Set in the rural South, where we both live.
We have already employed the counter insurgency…None of which are taliban or, and this may come as a shock too, al qaeda.
The house next door to you is sold, and the people who move in are white supremacist skinheads. You discover that they’ve started up a methamphetamine lab in their basement. You think about calling your County Sheriff’s Department, but you’re not so sure. The cops strike you as generally overweight and none too swift. The only time you ever see them is in the mall, two cruisers parked side by side, the deputies gossiping and waiting for the next radio call instead of being on patrol. You’re afraid that if you tell them about your neighbors the news will leak out and you’ll get your house burned down one night. After all, you have a wife and kids and a mortgage.
But one day the SWAT team shows up to serve a warrant and kicks down the neighbor’s door and drags them off to jail. You’re incredibly pleased and highly relieved. You vow that the next time the Department is doing some charity work you’ll write a check. And you tell one of the deputies that if he sees you out in the yard to stop and you’ll let him know what’s going on in the neighborhood.
Now let’s shift that scenario to a slightly alternate universe where the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply. The Sheriff’s Department gets the word that someone in the neighborhood is cooking meth. They don’t know who, but since no one in the neighborhood is telling them anything they think everyone might be white supremacists. So one night they kick down your door looking for the meth lab. They point guns at your kids and your wife and scare them half to death. While searching your home they break your furniture and throw your belongings everywhere. And they slap you around trying to get you to tell them where the meth lab is. By now you’ve forgotten all about your scary neighbors - you just want to get even with those cops.
Even worse, let’s say that the cops find out exactly where the meth lab is. But they’re afraid of the neighborhood, and they don’t want to get shot at taking down the lab. So they call in a fighter bomber and drop a 500 lb guided bomb on your neighbor’s house. That takes care of the meth lab, but it also blows down one wall of your house, breaks every window, and destroys the car you need to get to work every day. You don’t know what you’re going to do.
A couple of nights later, another neighbor comes to your door and says he’s making a bomb to blow up the next patrol car that comes down the road. And would you help him dig the hole for $100?
Uh, what? That made absolutely no sense. For all I know my neighbor has a meth lab in his basement and quite frankly, I don’t give a fuck it he does. It’s his house. What’s that got to do with the fact that there is no such thing as a “moderate taliban”? Was that supposed to be an analogy?
[/quote]
Come on, you’re not really this dumb. You’re baiting me, right? You don’t understand a basic analogy?
I’ve given you multiple sources to educate yourself. If you’re too lazy to navigate NPR’s website for 90 seconds and then listen to an interview for 30 minutes, or, God forbid, read a book, then I don’t know what else to say. It is worrisome that in a democracy there an awful lot of voters like you.