# "Peace talks with the Taliban"??? Are you shitting me?



## koshergrl (Jan 12, 2012)

"The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."

Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.

Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post


----------



## JStone (Jan 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> 
> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.
> 
> Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post



Well, the US has negotiated with the Soviet Union and Japan today is an ally.  Problem is islime teaches that deception and lying in the way of allah is a virtue.  Also, the Russians were equally fearful of death whereas muslimes worship death


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> 
> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.
> 
> Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post


Only the GOP are allowed to kiss up with the Taliban.







Rogue Statesman September 6 - 12, 2002
Rogue Statesman

by R. Scott Moxley

"[Rohrabacher] says *the Taliban are devout traditionalistsnot terrorists* or revolutionaries. He believes a Taliban takeover [of Afghanistan] would be a positive development."

... "Listen! Hold on!" said Rohrabacher. "I am a bigger expert on Afghanistan than any member of Congress." ...

A November/December 1996 article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported, "The potential rise of power of the Taliban does not alarm Rohrabacher" because the congressman believes *the "Taliban could provide stability in an area where chaos was creating a real threat to the U.S."* Later in the article, Rohrabacher claimed that:

* Taliban leaders are "not terrorists or revolutionaries."*

* Media reports documenting the Talibans harsh, radical beliefs were "nonsense."*

* The Taliban would develop a "disciplined, moral society" that did not harbor terrorists.*

*The Taliban posed no threat to the U.S.*


----------



## FuelRod (Jan 13, 2012)

So much for the long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.
More concerning is how do you hold a rogue organization without borders accountable?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 13, 2012)

Because they have a large political influence in Afghanistan.

The Taliban need to be part of any government or political solution for that countries future.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> 
> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.
> 
> Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post



It's not going to work, the Taliban are not going to honor any agreements that come out of this anyways.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 13, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> It's not going to work, the Taliban are not going to honor any agreements that come out of this anyways.


On what basis do you draw that conclusion?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 13, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > It's not going to work, the Taliban are not going to honor any agreements that come out of this anyways.
> ...



Why would they? they will just say and promise whatever they have to so US Troops can leave the country and they can start running things the way they used to, thats what I would do if I were them.


----------



## JStone (Jan 13, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Because they have a large political influence in Afghanistan.
> 
> The Taliban need to be part of any government or political solution for that countries future.



The degenerate pedophile-worshipping muhammadan invaded Afghanistan when it was a Buddhist country and turned it into another muslime shithole like every other muslime shithole.

Go back to arabia where you trash came from


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 25, 2012)

Taliban Peace Talks: U.S. Eyes Options To Restart Negotiations








> WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's administration, seeking to revive stalled Afghan peace talks, may alter plans to transfer Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison after its initial proposal fell foul of political opponents at home and the insurgents themselves.
> 
> As foreign forces prepare to exit Afghanistan, the White House had hoped to lay the groundwork for peace talks by sending five Taliban prisoners, some seen as among the most threatening detainees at Guantanamo, to Qatar to rejoin other Taliban members opening a political office there.
> 
> ...



Taliban Peace Talks: U.S. Eyes Options To Restart Negotiations


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 25, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Because they have a large political influence in Afghanistan.
> 
> The Taliban need to be part of any government or political solution for that countries future.



bullshit... they need to be eradicated like the roaches they are


----------



## Mr Natural (Apr 25, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Because they have a large political influence in Afghanistan.
> 
> The Taliban need to be part of any government or political solution for that countries future.



They should have been put out of business when they destroyed those ancient Buddha statues.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 25, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > It's not going to work, the Taliban are not going to honor any agreements that come out of this anyways.
> ...



If you have to ask... the answer wont be sufficient for you.

Too stupid of a question to waste time answering IMO.






And I am sure these guys families will appreciate this move by the Obama regime as well....


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 25, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Because they have a large political influence in Afghanistan.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 25, 2012)

Please don't tell me you righties don't know about all the truces and money Bush gave to the Taliban and Mook Tada El Sadr and many other warlords for a truce or to get them to stop killing our troops with snipers and roadside bombs.  Righties still don't even know who we were fighting in Iraq.  Or that we were fighting several different enemies at the same time and how they were different.  Some Sunni's, some Shiites, some Iranians, some Al Queda, some just Iraqi patriots who didn't like being invaded.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 25, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> Please don't tell me you righties don't know about all the truces and money Bush gave to the Taliban and Mook Tada El Sadr and many other warlords for a truce or to get them to stop killing our troops with snipers and roadside bombs.  Righties still don't even know who we were fighting in Iraq.  Or that we were fighting several different enemies at the same time and how they were different.  Some Sunni's, some Shiites, some Iranians, some Al Queda, some just Iraqi patriots who didn't like being invaded.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 25, 2012)

We really need to return the tried and tested methods of fighting a war. Hit first, hit hard, walk away. None of this 'hearts and minds' shit. You send in the troops, without tying their hands with bullshit RoEs, you 'unleash the hounds', and when your enemy is dead, you walk away. Job done.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 25, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Because they have a large political influence in Afghanistan.
> ...



I agree.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 25, 2012)

California Girl said:


> We really need to return the tried and tested methods of fighting a war. Hit first, hit hard, walk away. None of this 'hearts and minds' shit. You send in the troops, without tying their hands with bullshit RoEs, you 'unleash the hounds', and when your enemy is dead, you walk away. Job done.





Exactly..!


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 25, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> Please don't tell me you righties don't know about all the truces and money Bush gave to the Taliban and Mook Tada El Sadr and many other warlords for a truce or to get them to stop killing our troops with snipers and roadside bombs.  Righties still don't even know who we were fighting in Iraq.  Or that we were fighting several different enemies at the same time and how they were different.  Some Sunni's, some Shiites, some Iranians, some Al Queda, some just Iraqi patriots who didn't like being invaded.



You came way out of left field with this post, what does any of this have to with a peace deal with the Taliban?


----------



## California Girl (Apr 25, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't tell me you righties don't know about all the truces and money Bush gave to the Taliban and Mook Tada El Sadr and many other warlords for a truce or to get them to stop killing our troops with snipers and roadside bombs.  Righties still don't even know who we were fighting in Iraq.  Or that we were fighting several different enemies at the same time and how they were different.  Some Sunni's, some Shiites, some Iranians, some Al Queda, some just Iraqi patriots who didn't like being invaded.
> ...



It was a forlorn attempt to 'blame Bush'.


----------



## Sunni Man (Apr 25, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


Why? 

Are you a Buddhist??


----------



## Mr Natural (Apr 25, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



(A) They were antiquities and (B) they weren't in the way of anything or bothering anybody.


----------



## Sunni Man (Apr 25, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


I had an old growth tree on my property that I cut down. 

Didn't like the shape or looks of it.

My land; my tree; my right.

The Afghan people had an eye sore on their land that they didn't like and got rid of it.

Their land; their statue, their right.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 25, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Guess you will be OK if The Muslim Brotherhood destroys the Egyptian Pyramids as well?

Nevermind... dont answer. I already know the answer.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> 
> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.
> 
> Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post



i agree... fuck the taliban.


----------



## Peach (Apr 25, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> ...



Yes, Reagan supported the ouster of the Soviets, way back when...................


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2012)

History of Taliban 
            Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Taliban emerged as a resistance movement aiming to eject the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. With the United States and Pakistan providing considerable financial and military support, the Afghan Mujahideen were able to inflict heavy losses on the Soviet troops. According to The New York Times, the Soviet Union lost about 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. In 1989, the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan, and the Afghan Mujahideen, under the leadership of Ahmed Shah Massoud, surrounded the Afghan capital, Kabul, and took over the rule three years after the departure of the Soviets. The Afghan government that was backed by the Soviet Union and led by President Sayid Mohammed Najibullah was subsequently overthrown. The Mujahideen alliance forming the new Afghan government, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president, failed to reach political unity and ended up fighting one another 

History of the Taliban

Reagan called them "Freedom fighters"  His words.


----------



## Peach (Apr 25, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> History of Taliban
> Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Taliban emerged as a resistance movement aiming to eject the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. With the United States and Pakistan providing considerable financial and military support, the Afghan Mujahideen were able to inflict heavy losses on the Soviet troops. According to The New York Times, the Soviet Union lost about 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. In 1989, the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan, and the Afghan Mujahideen, under the leadership of Ahmed Shah Massoud, surrounded the Afghan capital, Kabul, and took over the rule three years after the departure of the Soviets. The Afghan government that was backed by the Soviet Union and led by President Sayid Mohammed Najibullah was subsequently overthrown. The Mujahideen alliance forming the new Afghan government, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president, failed to reach political unity and ended up fighting one another
> 
> History of the Taliban
> ...



Yes, ONCE upon a time, the US WANTED the Taliban in power. al Qaeda is a spin off of radical nut jobs.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2012)

Peach said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > History of Taliban
> ...



From the same link:

Following a public condemnation of the Saudi monarchy for allowing U.S. troops to enter and operate in Saudi Arabia, Osama Bin Laden moved to Sudan and eventually, in 1996, to Afghanistan, where he had fought against the Soviet troops and where he was warmly welcomed by the Taliban and its top leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. As the Afghan Taliban had allowed Bin Laden to recruit militants and run training camps, the United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), asking the Taliban to cease its support for terrorism and hand over Bin Laden. The Taliban took no action to end Bin Ladens training activities and recruitment of militants and displayed no positive response to the Security Council resolutions. After the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, the United States asked the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden and ignored the U.S. demands, and the United States, in response, bombed Talibans strategic military sites in Afghanistan. Consequently, the Taliban lost control over the Afghan Capital, Kabul, and was completely routed in December 9, 2001 (Moreau).


----------



## Peach (Apr 25, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Thus the extremists were made.........................................


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 26, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



No I'm not a Buddhist but those statues should not have been destroyed they were a valuable part of the Afghans history.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> History of Taliban
> Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Taliban emerged as a resistance movement aiming to eject the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. With the United States and Pakistan providing considerable financial and military support, the Afghan Mujahideen were able to inflict heavy losses on the Soviet troops. According to The New York Times, the Soviet Union lost about 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. In 1989, the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan, and the Afghan Mujahideen, under the leadership of Ahmed Shah Massoud, surrounded the Afghan capital, Kabul, and took over the rule three years after the departure of the Soviets. The Afghan government that was backed by the Soviet Union and led by President Sayid Mohammed Najibullah was subsequently overthrown. The Mujahideen alliance forming the new Afghan government, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president, failed to reach political unity and ended up fighting one another
> 
> History of the Taliban
> ...



That was a mistake we should have just let the Soviets have Afghanistan.


----------



## JStone (Apr 26, 2012)

Peach said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > History of Taliban
> ...



al Qaeda is a spinoff of Muslim Brotherhood which controls egypt.


----------



## jillian (Apr 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.



Golda Meir once said something to the effect of "with whom are we going to talk peace, our friends??

Of course you talk.

On the other hand, you can continue to sink our money into a war that will end the same way whether it ends today, tomorrow or ten years from now.

So you might want to get some of that fauxrage into check, love.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 26, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > History of Taliban
> ...



The US never supported the Taliban. This is simply a lie by people who are ignorant about the wars in Afghanistan.


----------



## JStone (Apr 26, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



The US is in bed with terrorists.  They're called Saudis.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 26, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



That may be the case but we never should have gotten involved in Afghanistan in the first place, the after math of our involvement there was the birth of the Taliban. Afghanistan would have been a much better place under the Russians boots.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 26, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I disagree. 
It never was fully under the Russian boot in any event.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 26, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Maybe, maybe not, I just wish we had stayed out, the Afghans were not our friends, they aren't now, and they never will be.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 26, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Of course!  Why would you doubt it.  Not only destroy the pyramids but burn the museums to the ground and melt the gold to sell for weapons.    There is no history but the history of the prophet.  In islam there is no depiction of iving things.

The world will owe a debt to the looters, thieves and grave robbers as their centuries of work will have prevented the destruction of the entirety of the Egyptian heritage.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



The Egyptians themselves don't give a shit about the Pyramids, they only keep them around for all the tourist cash, I would be surprised to see that change.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 26, 2012)

Muslims destroy everything they come in contact with.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Muslims destroy everything they come in contact with.



Come on Katz, thats a bit over the top.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 26, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


That's not the Taliban, dumbass, it's al Qaeda.

Secondly, that took place in Iraq, not Afghanistan.


----------



## Peach (Apr 26, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



The Mujahideen became the Taliban, like or not. Reagan wanted the "evil empire" OUT of Afghanistan.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 27, 2012)

Peach said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



That is nonsense. The Taliban emerged as a force to fight the Mujahideen after they had taken over control and the Taliban drove the Mujahideen from Kabul.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 27, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Muslims destroy everything they come in contact with.
> ...



Indeed. More than a bit.


----------



## Douger (Apr 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> 
> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.
> 
> Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post


First and foremost you must understand double speak from the Luciferian illuminati.
Define: Freedom fighter. OK. I will. Those that fight AGAINST freedom(freedumb)
Do you have any idea how much money your masters have made due to the existance(created) " Taliban" ? Of course you don't. Do you have any idea how much money your masters have made of of the'talibans" agricultural efforts ?
Of course you don't.
Until you understand the motives of The Great Satan, you'll simply be part of the problem.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_gOaPeSCME]We Tolerate The Cultivation Of Opium Poppies - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JStone (Apr 27, 2012)

Douger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> ...



The taliban offers more human rights than the shitbags in cuba.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 27, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I believe you are right but at the same time, I just wish we had never went there because at the end of the day the Taliban was formed in the ashes of our intervention in that country.


----------



## JStone (Apr 27, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Afghanistan was nice when a Buddhist country before the muhammadan invaded and turned it into another islimic shithole.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 27, 2012)

Iran was very nice before the muslims invaded.  Not only did they invade, but they assumed the innovations and accomplishments of the Persians for their own.


----------



## JStone (Apr 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Iran was very nice before the muslims invaded.  Not only did they invade, but they assumed the innovations and accomplishments of the Persians for their own.



Tru dat.  The iranian muslimes have taken a massive stinking shit all over Persia.


----------



## rus2012 (May 18, 2012)

The sooner USA leave the country - better for everyone.


----------



## ima (May 18, 2012)

We shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan, Irak, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Nam or Korea. Did I miss any?


----------



## Katzndogz (May 19, 2012)

The United States might be having peace talks with the Taliban but that doesn't automatically  mean that the Taliban is having peace talks with us.  They are having terms of surrender talks.


----------



## ima (May 21, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The United States might be having peace talks with the Taliban but that doesn't automatically  mean that the Taliban is having peace talks with us.  They are having terms of surrender talks.



You must mean that the US is surrendering. We can't even take a shit hole like Afghanistan. Man, do we suck!


----------



## Peter Dow (Aug 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The United States might be having peace talks with the Taliban but that doesn't automatically  mean that the Taliban is having peace talks with us.  They are having terms of surrender talks.


In another topic, a few months ago, I opposed peace talks with the Taliban (or a surrender to them).

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXMHnu-7ZZk]Peter Dow's "no" to Taliban's surrender terms. Afpak strategy for victory in war on terror. - YouTube[/ame]

Here's a transcript of the video.



Peter Dow said:


> CBS News said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then later I went on to explain my strategy for victory.



Peter Dow said:


> *Bomb Taliban Jihadi indoctrination bases in Pakistan.*
> 
> I want to tell you all how to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
> 
> ...





ima said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The United States might be having peace talks with the Taliban but that doesn't automatically  mean that the Taliban is having peace talks with us.  They are having terms of surrender talks.
> ...



Taking all of Afghanistan is not that easy and not a wise thing to attempt to do militarily. In particular, the mountains are natural defensive structures, difficult to secure and are not really worth the effort of taking. That's why the jihadis made such a point of advertising their bases there - to lure us into those mountains where the terrain favours an infantry skirmishing type of war.

Strategically, to win the war on terror, we would have been better driving our tanks from Iraq to occupy the Arabian oil fields and cut off the source of financial support for the jihadis. That's what the jihadis feared we might do sooner or later after Saddam was ousted from Kuwait. That's why the Jihadis wanted us out of Arabia and into the mountains of Afghanistan - where there's little of value worth fighting for and where the terrain favours their infantry rather than our tanks.

On the other hand, taking certain parts of Afghanistan, say enough to set up a few NATO air bases so we can hit the enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan when we need to, makes some military sense, even if it was never the best move, it wasn't a losing move if we see the Afghanistan mission in proportion to its minor importance in the overall war on terror.

What has sucked is weak strategic thinking and planning by US and then NATO generals which has dragged out the Western intervention in Afghanistan since 2001 and caused far more casualties to our soldiers than was ever necessary.

The military general staff have lacked vision about the enemy and failed to comprehend and react appropriately to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other jihadi terror groups are proxies for hostile states, typically managed from Pakistan and funded from Saudi Arabia.

Military strategic essentials have been neglected, such as - when occupying territory, always ensure secure supply routes from one strong point to another.

Instead NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan have been deployed in isolated bases, deployed more like tethered goats as bait for the enemy than a conquering or liberating army.

Some combination of military incompetence by the generals and a preference for appeasement on the part of the civilian political leadership has perversely left the West bribing our enemies within the Pakistani terrorist-proxy-controlling state and continuing business-as-usual with our enemies in the Saudi jihadi-financing state.

Its never too late to learn lessons and adopt an alternative competent and aggressive military strategy and to that end, I have published a detailed improved AfPak military strategy.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 5, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



It shows how wrong Obama was to support rebels in Libya and Syria.


----------



## ima (Aug 10, 2012)

We're losing, the only way out is peace talks.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 10, 2012)

ima said:


> We're losing, the only way out is peace talks.



Um no, we can just leave. Handing over the keys to the Taliban is crazy.


----------



## ima (Aug 10, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > We're losing, the only way out is peace talks.
> ...



And just leaving does what? Not hand over the keys to the Tals?


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 10, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Fuck em, lets just leave. Why should we help the Taliban do anything? I suggest one huge bombing campaign on their spots in Afghanistan and Pakistan too as a good bye present, fuck them.


----------



## ima (Aug 13, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



We should at least acknowledge their superior war tactics and their amazing victory over the world's biggest military. We could put up a monument next to the Nam wall of names, where all the losers are.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 13, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



You are one hideous bitch.


----------



## Peter Dow (Aug 13, 2012)

Hey guys if you want to beat the Taliban and win the war on terror, I have a plan, a strategy for victory.

I mean, if you really want to win, there's no secret about how to do it. But it is up to Americans to get your American president to take up my plan or order his generals to take it up or something. I've not been able to get the UK government to take notice. It's all very well having a plan for victory but if it gets ignored it is not of much use.

See my post #59 above http://www.usmessageboard.com/afgha...aliban-are-you-shitting-me-4.html#post5753116


*My 4-point plan to beat the Taliban and win the war on terror*

Its never too late to learn lessons and adopt an alternative competent and aggressive military strategy. I have already mentioned the outline points of my plan but I will explain those in a little more detail here. I can provide a lot more detail in subsequent posts if you like?


Point 1

* The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism". We ought to name in addition, the other oil-rich Arab kingdoms who are also financial state sponsors of terrorism. This has implications such as ending bribes and deals with back-stabbing hostile countries and instead waging war against our enemies with the aim of regime change or incapacitating the enemy so that they can do us little more harm. The war could be of varying intensity depending on the enemy concerned and how they respond to our initial attacks, whether they wish to escalate the war or surrender to our reasonable demands. 


Point 2

* There ought to be drone strikes on the University of Jihad. (Darul Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, Pakistan) In addition, we ought to employ aerial bombing of all other bases for the Taliban in Pakistan. This may have to be extended to include certain Pakistani state bases which are supporting the Taliban - such as the Pakistani ISI headquarters mentioned a lot in the BBC documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN". If this is not handled very carefully, it could escalate into open war with the Pakistani military. I have explained how to manage Pakistan in earlier posts.


Point 3

* We ought to seize control of Pakistani and Saudi TV satellites and use them to broadcast propaganda calling for the arrest of all involved in waging terrorist war against the West. These satellites are made, launched and maintained by Western companies and should be easy to take over. Other satellites provided to the enemy by non-Western countries could be jammed or destroyed. Air strikes against the enemy's main terrestrial TV transmitter aerials is another option to silence enemy propaganda. 


Point 4

* When occupying territory, always ensure secure supply routes from one strong point to another. There are a lot of details I can provide about how this can be done militarily.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> 
> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.
> 
> Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post




Dumbass koshergirl thinks we were attacked by the Taliban on 9/11.  

Yeah, that's it:  the Taliban and Saddam Hussein!!!  Evil-doers!!!


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




I know from experience posting with you for years that you are NOT a dumbfuck.

So why are you posting pics of al Qaeda in a thread about the Taliban?


----------



## Peter Dow (Aug 13, 2012)

This 2-hour video is of a British TV programme which explains in great detail the role of the Pakistani state via the ISI (Inter-services intelligence) has in supporting the Taliban's war against our forces in Afghanistan. 


VIDEO: BBC Documentary - "SECRET PAKISTAN - Double Cross / Backlash" (2 hours) 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_SkNUorWhc]Secret BBC - Pakistan Double Cross on Terrorism - Full - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2012)

California Girl said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Because, no matter the subject, Bush is always blameless in your eyes?

Failed intel:  Clinton's fault
9/11:  Clinton's fault
No WMDs?  CIA's fault
Katrina?  Nagin's fault
Financial collapse?  Democrats fault.

This is why no one takes you seriously.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 13, 2012)

loinboy said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


That's what I actually wanted to say, but Infidel is a friend.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> 
> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.
> 
> Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post



you will be joining the marines and shipping over when?


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 13, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> ...



Hypocritical behavior, GOP  12,787
DNC  0


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 13, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


 
We only let them lose because we need a ready crop of disease-riddled whores to teach our young soldiers about how important penicillin is.

And that's just the guys.

Their "superior war tactics" consist of treachery, terrorism and a variety of other disgusting practices that aren't exactly tactics but just a willingness to really grovel in the slime of everything loathesome, and the ability to always..take it...to a lower...level.

Scabs  don't get a monument for being scabs, just because they know how to kill people, and like to do it.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration is trying to resume peace talks with the Taliban but is awaiting formal approval from Karzai, who torpedoed an earlier attempt at negotiations."
> 
> Fuck the Taliban. Fuck their dumbass corpses. Fuck Obama. What a bunch of pigs. They were made for each other.
> 
> Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is &lsquo;utterly deplorable&rsquo; - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post



well, and there is this;


Afghan officials held secret Peace talks with Top Taliban leader in Pakistan.

Peshawar : Pakistan | Aug 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM PDT 

By ihsandawar 



> Top Afghan officials have met key Taliban leader in Pakistan, and second in command in the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, Mullah Abdul Ghani Brother(Baradar in persian), who is in detention of Pakistani security agencies since 2010 when he was arrested from Karachi.
> 
> It has been confirmed by both the countries high ups that Rangin Spanta, the national security adviser to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a key figure of peace-building efforts, had met Mullah Baradar with a delegation of Afghan high ups so as to know his views about peace talks with the Afghan Government.
> 
> On the other hand interior minister of Pakistan Rehman Malik have admitted that their government has granted access to Afghan Delegation to meet Baradar some two months back.





> Afghan officials hope Baradar could play a key role in any negotiations to end the Afghan conflict, acting as a go-between with senior Taliban leaders including the movement's reclusive leader and former Ameer Ul Momeneen (chief of the believers), Mullah Mohammed Omar.
> 
> *Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed last month to resume regular talks on Afghanistan's peace process, *with the new Pakistani prime minister promising to help arrange meetings between Afghan and Taliban representatives



Afghan officials held secret Peace talks with Top Taliban leader in Pakistan.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 13, 2012)

koshergrl, when are you joining the marines so you can get in the fighting?

you want everybody else to fight and die, how about you?


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 13, 2012)

She does not understand international diplomacy.


----------

