Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: President Obama: Taliban is not our enemy, can have a place in Afghanistan's future

  1. #16
    Gold Member sharky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Siberia
    Posts
    1,248

    Default

    The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter[5] and Reagan administrations, the government of Saudi Arabia, Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan, Iran, the People's Republic of China and several Western European countries.

    At present the term "mujahideen" is sometimes used to describe insurgents groups (including Taliban and al-Qaeda) who are fighting NATO troops and the Military of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    They exist. We helped create them. They won't go away. So we need to deal with them intelligently.

    I suspect if people had something to live for, something to achieve, some hope, they wouldn't be drawn to religious fanaticism, oppression or destruction. Just a thought.

  2. #17
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    We can't untangle them because inside Afghanistan they are now one.

    That's why this new line 'we're fighting AQ but the Taliban is not our enemy' is off base. We are now, and have been, fighting the Taliban.

    For quite some time we've seen much less AQ in Afgahanistan, but the fighting has been heating up. Last month McChrystal was giving reports to the Dutch Defense Ministry that he sees no signs of a major AQ presence, but that AQ maintains close ties to Afghan insurgents- in this case, that means Taliban.

    His quotes at the time: "I do believe that Al-Qaeda intends to retain those relationships because they believe it is symbiotic ... where the Taliban has success, that provides a sanctuary from which Al-Qaeda can operate transnationally."

    That's the reason we attacked Afghanistan in the first place, Al-Qaeda being harbored in Afghanistan. So to withdraw now, and leave it in the hands of the Talibs, is to have spent 9 years for absolutely no reason.

    The President said in March:
    "The strategy was meant to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al-Qaeda safe haven that it was before 9/11. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

    So if we pull out and leave, exactly what he said we were trying to stop will happen.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  3. #18
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    I agree that the 'Taliban aren't the enemy' makes no sense if you can't untangle them from Al-Queda.

    And I know we attacked Afghanistan because they harbored Al-Queda. But how long are we supposed to wage a war in Afghanistan trying to rid the country of Al-Queda if we can't untangle them from the Taliban? I'm all for a short-term surge to do whatever mission you have to do. But if the goal is to keep Afghanistan from harboring terrorists then that's going to be a long-term project that we won't succeed in accomplishing. And neither our military or economy can sustain that kind of long-term action.

    And the quote Obama made in March was prior to the corrupt election in Afghanistan government, which showed that the government can't be relied on at all, despite the fact that we put that government in power. Which means his new strategy leaves open the very possibility that he warned about, which means he has to have serious anti-terrorism mechanisms in place to try and offset that. And you're going to have to get more international cooperation on trying to oversee Afghanistan.

    Now, prior to the war in Iraq, Al-Queda didn't exist there, but now they do. And we can't untangle Al-Queda from the Iraqi insurgents, either. So, if we choose not to leave Afghanistan until we can untangle the Taliban from Al-Queda, then we have to use that same strategy in Iraq. Because if McChrystal was right about the symbolic ties where Al-Queda makes footholds then they'll see Iraq as a sanctuary, too.

  4. #19
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    the mujahideen morphed into the taleban, that's what they became after. The regional warlords were tearing the country apart after the soviets left, trying to carve it up piecemeal and the fighters became the taliban after suckling at the teat of imported wahhabist islam. They offered a measure of government and control, and kept the warlords in check.

    Unfortunately, they had to sacrifice all their freedom to get it and women had to become illiterate slaves.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #20
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    The corrupt election was facilitated by us. The US had a hand in making sure that election turned out the way it did. I disagree that it happened despite the fact that we put Karzai in power, it was corrupt because we put Karzai in power, and we want to keep him there. I think the removal of Peter Galbraith- who dared speak out about the election being corrupt- is a pretty strong indicator that we and the UN support the fraud.

    The dishonest elections have undermined the government and its Western backers, and put Afghan trust in democracy in jeopardy, and given the Taliban more reason to claim they are winning. Due to this, the administration is now starting to publically rethink their previous position.

    We can all debate for days, and the administration can flip flop back and forth, and still people are dying......and from what we are seeing now, they're dying for nothing.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  6. #21
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    I agree with most of your points. But I don't think Afghanistan ever had any real trust in democracy to begin with. The big mistake the U.S. made was trying to 'spread democracy' in Afghanistan in the first place by acting as if every country has to be like the U.S. And that mistake is continually biting us in the ass as Afghanistan continues to spiral out of control.

  7. #22
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Agreed.

    The bigger objective is making sure that neither they, or Al-Qaeda, get anywhere near Pakistan's nukes.
    Right!

    This sounds like the best of the possible plans (though still a painful compromise).

  8. #23
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    Taliban Gunmen Assault Pakistan Army Headquarters, at Least 6 Troops Dead

    RAWALPINDI, Pakistan, Oct. 10 -- A brazen daylight militant attack on Pakistan's army headquarters evolved into a standoff Saturday, as at least two assailants who penetrated the fortified compound were holding several security officers hostage, according to news reports.

    Pakistan's influential military was still struggling to gain control more than eight hours after insurgents stormed the army's main complex in an assault that left at least six soldiers and four militants dead.

    Though Islamist militants have often attacked military targets in Pakistan, analysts said the raid in this garrison city offered the most forceful evidence yet of their ability to undermine the military's authority.

    The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assault, the third militant attack this week. It came one day after a car bombing killed at least 49 people at a market in Peshawar, and five days after a Taliban suicide bomber blew himself up at the United Nations' World Food Program office in the capital, killing five employees.

    Not long after the mid-day attack, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said the situation was under control. He later acknowledged that two militants had breached the headquarters' boundaries but said they had been "cornered and are under siege." By nightfall, however, a military official said "more than two" militants had taken "several personnel" hostage.

    "The hostages are being kept in an office near the second check post of army headquarters," said the military official, who requested anonymity because he is not allowed to speak publicly. "We are trying to release them and also to take out the militants."

    The brazen shows of force by militants served as warnings to the military, which has said it is planning an offensive in the volatile tribal region of South Waziristan, a Taliban stronghold along the porous border with Afghanistan.

    "We believe it could be a warning to the government and military to refrain from army action in Waziristan, and a demonstration of what they are capable of doing in preemption as well as retaliation for the military offensive," the military official said.

    Though previous military operations there had failed, the army was emboldened by a successful assault last spring against the Taliban in the Swat Valley and by the killing in August of the Pakistani Taliban chief in a U.S. missile strike.

    But security forces were caught off guard at about 11:30 a.m., when a band of fighters dressed in fatigues and carrying assault weapons ambushed an outer checkpoint at the secured headquarters here. An hour-long gun battle ensued, during which militants lobbed grenades before rushing a second, more interior checkpoint and being gunned down, according to Abbas, the army spokesman.

    A Taliban-affiliated militant group asserted responsibility for the attack, according to a Pakistani television station. The group listed several demands, including a halt to the planned operation in South Waziristan, the release of Taliban fighters and the closure of Western nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan.

    Mansoor Ahmed , a witness, told reporters he was driving by the military compound and saw a white van stop to unload armed men who then began firing at soldiers.

    "I saw one of the attackers hurling grenades at the soldiers amidst deafening firing," Ahmed said. He said he also saw an attacker fall to the ground after being shot by soldiers.

    After Friday's bombing in Peshawar, Interior Minister Rehman Malik reiterated the government's determination to take on insurgents in South Waziristan, but he did not say when the operation would begin. He had previously warned that the Taliban would be likely to increase its attacks to ward off a military assault.

    washingtonpost.com



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  9. #24
    Elite Member effie2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Where it all begun
    Posts
    16,291

    Default

    So,they found a satisfactory way to split the narco-money and share the trade..



    -



    -





    -

  10. #25
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,467

    Default

    Basically, we need to get the f**k out.

    People dying for no damned good reason. "Liberating" women? Well hell, how about the hundreds of other places around the world where women are brutalized, raped, mutilated, and aren't afforded the most basic of human and civil rights.

    Sickening.

  11. #26
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    Taliban Gunmen Assault Pakistan Army Headquarters, at Least 6 Troops Dead

    RAWALPINDI, Pakistan, Oct. 10 -- A brazen daylight militant attack on Pakistan's army headquarters evolved into a standoff Saturday, as at least two assailants who penetrated the fortified compound were holding several security officers hostage, according to news reports.

    Pakistan's influential military was still struggling to gain control more than eight hours after insurgents stormed the army's main complex in an assault that left at least six soldiers and four militants dead.

    Though Islamist militants have often attacked military targets in Pakistan, analysts said the raid in this garrison city offered the most forceful evidence yet of their ability to undermine the military's authority.

    The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assault, the third militant attack this week. It came one day after a car bombing killed at least 49 people at a market in Peshawar, and five days after a Taliban suicide bomber blew himself up at the United Nations' World Food Program office in the capital, killing five employees.

    Not long after the mid-day attack, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said the situation was under control. He later acknowledged that two militants had breached the headquarters' boundaries but said they had been "cornered and are under siege." By nightfall, however, a military official said "more than two" militants had taken "several personnel" hostage.

    "The hostages are being kept in an office near the second check post of army headquarters," said the military official, who requested anonymity because he is not allowed to speak publicly. "We are trying to release them and also to take out the militants."

    The brazen shows of force by militants served as warnings to the military, which has said it is planning an offensive in the volatile tribal region of South Waziristan, a Taliban stronghold along the porous border with Afghanistan.

    "We believe it could be a warning to the government and military to refrain from army action in Waziristan, and a demonstration of what they are capable of doing in preemption as well as retaliation for the military offensive," the military official said.

    Though previous military operations there had failed, the army was emboldened by a successful assault last spring against the Taliban in the Swat Valley and by the killing in August of the Pakistani Taliban chief in a U.S. missile strike.

    But security forces were caught off guard at about 11:30 a.m., when a band of fighters dressed in fatigues and carrying assault weapons ambushed an outer checkpoint at the secured headquarters here. An hour-long gun battle ensued, during which militants lobbed grenades before rushing a second, more interior checkpoint and being gunned down, according to Abbas, the army spokesman.

    A Taliban-affiliated militant group asserted responsibility for the attack, according to a Pakistani television station. The group listed several demands, including a halt to the planned operation in South Waziristan, the release of Taliban fighters and the closure of Western nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan.

    Mansoor Ahmed , a witness, told reporters he was driving by the military compound and saw a white van stop to unload armed men who then began firing at soldiers.

    "I saw one of the attackers hurling grenades at the soldiers amidst deafening firing," Ahmed said. He said he also saw an attacker fall to the ground after being shot by soldiers.

    After Friday's bombing in Peshawar, Interior Minister Rehman Malik reiterated the government's determination to take on insurgents in South Waziristan, but he did not say when the operation would begin. He had previously warned that the Taliban would be likely to increase its attacks to ward off a military assault.

    washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
    This is why the Taliban in Pakistan is becoming more of an issue than the Taliban in Afghanistan. If Pakistan's military can't protect their own army headquarters from the Taliban, or Al-Queda, then they definitely can't protect their nukes.

  12. #27
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    nukes are generally kept in incredibly hardened facilities that would take an army to assault. Then you have the problem of attempting to launch the nukes, and generally speaking most nuke facilities have standing procedures to destroy the codes needed to do so in the case of such an occurence. It's not something you can hack. I suppose at that point, if they managed to get through the 3 feet thick blast doors they could attempt to dismantle the nukes, but unless they have a highly specialized team ready to do that, and a secure way of transporting the fissionable material.....

    i mean come on. By the time they managed to get in the entire Pakistani army would have descended upon them and wiped them out. Pakistan DOES have a highly trained and quite deadly SEAL type force it can deploy as well.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  13. #28
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    And those hardened facilities are protected by military personal. If the military personal can't protect the facility, then it puts the security of the nukes at risk.

    And if someone gets into the facility and takes the nuke they don't have to try and launch it right there. They can attempt to sale it to the highest bidder, which creates the problem of loose nukes. Plus, if your nukes get compromised then it's not hard to imagine that the codes will get compromised, too.

    And if Pakistan's entire army was such a threat, then why has Pakistan easily conceded parts of their country to the Taliban without any fight?

  14. #29
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Yeah, that won't ever happen as long as the U.S., and every other Western nation, continues their addiction to oil from the Middle East. It's a little difficult to dismiss an entire region of the world when you're buying a massive amount of your fuel from them.
    But this is exactly why we should be spending the money on installing alternative energy sources rather than on fighting 2 wars. There should be wind turbines all over the midwest, at every airport and alongside all major train routes. There should be water tubines in every river. There should be solar collection panels all over the south and south west. Frankly, it's not even a question of not having the technology. My feeling is...you cut off the oil revenues, and the muslims are back to sitting in tents in the sand, without the money to cause trouble.

  15. #30
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    And those hardened facilities are protected by military personal. If the military personal can't protect the facility, then it puts the security of the nukes at risk.

    And if someone gets into the facility and takes the nuke they don't have to try and launch it right there. They can attempt to sale it to the highest bidder, which creates the problem of loose nukes. Plus, if your nukes get compromised then it's not hard to imagine that the codes will get compromised, too.

    And if Pakistan's entire army was such a threat, then why has Pakistan easily conceded parts of their country to the Taliban without any fight?
    King, it's a ridiculous concept. There's no way a frontal assault on a nuclear missile facility would work, there's too many layers of security. You can't just walk off with an ICBM.

    Also, a military headquarters is an administrative building! It has like 5 guards. It's not a hardened facility by any means.

    The more probable scenario is a bomb being cobbled together from bits and pieces and waste nuclear material dredged up from somewhere, a dirty bomb in effect.

    EDIT: ah, yeah. See? Much more logical: HowStuffWorks "Broken Arrow"
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. President Obama: Taliban and al-Qaida must be stopped
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 12:23 PM
  2. President Obama ponders outreach to elements of the Taliban
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 7th, 2009, 11:35 PM
  3. Fundies hard at work: depict disastrous future under Obama
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 27th, 2008, 10:18 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 27th, 2008, 12:10 AM
  5. Barack Obama pal is an enemy too
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 1st, 2008, 09:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •