Well, if that little kid had common sense, peraps he'd blame it on the psychopath who didn't like the fact that his mom and dad didn't follow the same sect of Islam.
I didn't say it was, but bombing the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't helped has it? I'm sure a little 5 year old kid who's just watched his mum and dad get bombed to little bits is going to grow up loving America isn't he?
are you serious? you dont think getting rid of the taliban in afghanistan was helpful? do you know anything about the taliban?
are you serious? you dont think getting rid of the taliban in afghanistan was helpful? do you know anything about the taliban?
Getting rid of the Taliban was a good idea, yes and has been somewhat helpful on the war on terror. However. The Taliban and al quada are the war on terror. We had them beat and then decided to go into Iraq. That is where we fucked up both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Because of our re-shifting of focus from one front to another we allowed both fronts to become very weak. Because both fronts are weak we now have terrorist attacks in both countries, it's debatable how much control the Taliban has in southern Afghanistan.
Basically what I am getting at is that we really fucked up the reigon, our attack on Iraq might as well had been a recruitment poster for extremists, and there is no end in sight to this snafu.
AFGHANISTAN WAS WON - No matter how much you wish this country would've failed - The Karzai goverment was much quicker to form than the Iraq govt' - The re-surgence of the Taliban is due to their in-ability to control their people - we're still fighting there , yes, and I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to send more troops there at some point to exterminate once again
Scream all you want I'm not intimidated by the "you" tactics, ok. The Afghanistan campaign was designed to remove the Taliban who were the country's ruling government sect, destroy the al-Qaeda terrorists, and capture bin Laden. The Taliban was not defeated, they moved their operation into and along the Pakistan border, with the aid of the Pakistan military who supported them and refused to allow the U.S. or coalition troops to cross their borders. As you have stated, the Taliban government has returned, the al-Qaeda terrorists are still operational and growing, and bin Laden is still free. You do the math.
C) The problem? The problem was this : Every piece of intell we had at our disposal was that stockpiles of WMD existed - you would've wanted to just leave him be because he wasn't bothering anyone - I would've chosen to remove the chance of those stockpiles ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda -
D) Iran & Syria - Are you that bent? These two are the biggest supporters of terrorism in the region - This is a war on terror - period
Bent, no. Just tried of the same old same old. If this is a war on terror - period and the objective is to go after countries who knowingly support and habor such terrorists. Then the U.S. should have invaded Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Side note these are only three nations that "formally" recognized the Taliban as the ruling government of Afghanistan. If you do a little unbias research and follow the money, the history and the real path to 9/11 you will see these countries repeatly funded bin Laden and the very terrorists who died on 9/11.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Getting rid of the Taliban was a good idea, yes and has been somewhat helpful on the war on terror. However. The Taliban and al quada are the war on terror. We had them beat and then decided to go into Iraq. That is where we fucked up both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Because of our re-shifting of focus from one front to another we allowed both fronts to become very weak. Because both fronts are weak we now have terrorist attacks in both countries, it's debatable how much control the Taliban has in southern Afghanistan.
Basically what I am getting at is that we really fucked up the reigon, our attack on Iraq might as well had been a recruitment poster for extremists, and there is no end in sight to this snafu.
someone cancel my account, I think I might agree with you. kind of.
at this point, I would be happy to see us leave iraq given iraqis can protect themselves from extremists taking over. I think they are close. taliban and el queda are in fact our enemies and that is who were are stuck fighting in iraq now.
"Scream all you want I'm not intimidated by the "you" tactics, ok. The Afghanistan campaign was designed to remove the Taliban who were the country's ruling government sect, destroy the al-Qaeda terrorists, and capture bin Laden. The Taliban was not defeated, they moved their operation into and along the Pakistan border, with the aid of the Pakistan military who supported them and refused to allow the U.S. or coalition troops to cross their borders. As you have stated, the Taliban government has returned, the al-Qaeda terrorists are still operational and growing, and bin Laden is still free. You do the math."
the taliban and el queda are hiding in caves and are constantly on the run. I wouldnt exactly say they have made a triumphant return to power. US actually had a few hundred more in their crosshairs but choose not to pull the trigger because of rules of engagement. would our enemies have done the same?
"Scream all you want I'm not intimidated by the "you" tactics, ok. The Afghanistan campaign was designed to remove the Taliban who were the country's ruling government sect, destroy the al-Qaeda terrorists, and capture bin Laden. The Taliban was not defeated, they moved their operation into and along the Pakistan border, with the aid of the Pakistan military who supported them and refused to allow the U.S. or coalition troops to cross their borders. As you have stated, the Taliban government has returned, the al-Qaeda terrorists are still operational and growing, and bin Laden is still free. You do the math."
the taliban and el queda are hiding in caves and are constantly on the run. I wouldnt exactly say they have made a triumphant return to power. US actually had a few hundred more in their crosshairs but choose not to pull the trigger because of rules of engagement. would our enemies have done the same?
I dont care who the source is. just because its fox news that means its not true? as you can see from the picture we had maybe a hundred taliban locked and didnt fire. these are the same taliban who would slice your daughter's throat and not blink an eye simply because you are not muslim
EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Sees Resurgence in Pakistani Tribal Areas
By BRIAN ROSS
Jan. 24, 2006 — Al Qaeda and its former protectors — the Taliban — are in the midst of a powerful resurgence, according to accounts by local officials and information contained in new al Qaeda videotapes obtained by ABC News.
U.S. troops are not permitted inside Pakistan, and the Pakistani army is barely seen in this part of Waziristan Province.
The new videotapes show open recruitment for the jihad, or holy war, to kill Americans and their allies.
The narrator says, "Come join the jihad caravan."
"The Taliban resurgence this year has been enormous and quite extraordinary," said Ahmed Rashid, author of the book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and the Fundamentalism in Central Asia."
The tape claims Taliban officials have taken over government functions. There is no date on the tape, but in the last month ABC News reporters have confirmed that Western aid organizations have been forced out, their headquarters burned, schools shut down, teachers and journalists killed, and music banned.
The tape shows men described as thieves being dragged through a village behind a truck, and later beheaded.
'Breakdown of Law and Order'
"We're seeing a complete breakdown of law and order," said Rashid. "The army is holed up in its barracks or in its bunkers."
A much rosier picture was described at the White House today as President Bush met with Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, thanking him for all his government is doing.
"We're working closely to defeat the terrorists who would like to harm America and harm Pakistan," Bush said during a news conference.
But there's no sense of defeat seen in a second tape obtained by ABC News, this one produced by al Qaeda.
The tape shows the planning of an attack on a government building across the border in Afghanistan.
The commander is identified as one of the four men who last year escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan — and are now back in action.
The commander is seen on tape, giving a Powerpoint presentation of how the attack was carried out.
It also shows scenes of fighters firing their automatic weapons and of buildings burning. The fighters seen on tape shout "bin Laden forever! Long live al Qaeda!"
"It has regrouped, reformed and re-emerged with new vigor," said Akbar Ahmed, professor of Islamic studies at American University, "and this is a very dangerous emergence."
EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Sees Resurgence in Pakistani Tribal Areas
By BRIAN ROSS
Jan. 24, 2006 — Al Qaeda and its former protectors — the Taliban — are in the midst of a powerful resurgence, according to accounts by local officials and information contained in new al Qaeda videotapes obtained by ABC News.
U.S. troops are not permitted inside Pakistan, and the Pakistani army is barely seen in this part of Waziristan Province.
The new videotapes show open recruitment for the jihad, or holy war, to kill Americans and their allies.
The narrator says, "Come join the jihad caravan."
"The Taliban resurgence this year has been enormous and quite extraordinary," said Ahmed Rashid, author of the book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and the Fundamentalism in Central Asia."
The tape claims Taliban officials have taken over government functions. There is no date on the tape, but in the last month ABC News reporters have confirmed that Western aid organizations have been forced out, their headquarters burned, schools shut down, teachers and journalists killed, and music banned.
The tape shows men described as thieves being dragged through a village behind a truck, and later beheaded.
'Breakdown of Law and Order'
"We're seeing a complete breakdown of law and order," said Rashid. "The army is holed up in its barracks or in its bunkers."
A much rosier picture was described at the White House today as President Bush met with Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, thanking him for all his government is doing.
"We're working closely to defeat the terrorists who would like to harm America and harm Pakistan," Bush said during a news conference.
But there's no sense of defeat seen in a second tape obtained by ABC News, this one produced by al Qaeda.
The tape shows the planning of an attack on a government building across the border in Afghanistan.
The commander is identified as one of the four men who last year escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan — and are now back in action.
The commander is seen on tape, giving a Powerpoint presentation of how the attack was carried out.
It also shows scenes of fighters firing their automatic weapons and of buildings burning. The fighters seen on tape shout "bin Laden forever! Long live al Qaeda!"
"It has regrouped, reformed and re-emerged with new vigor," said Akbar Ahmed, professor of Islamic studies at American University, "and this is a very dangerous emergence."
sounds like pakistan has a problem. if, however, they go to afhganastan or even iraq they will fight american and coalition soliders on the battlefield. they don't stand a chance.
sounds like pakistan has a problem. if, however, they go to afhganastan or even iraq they will fight american and coalition soliders on the battlefield. they don't stand a chance.
So they're sitting in Pakistan our ally in the "war against terror" and plotting what they're going to do here next and your happy with that? I think im just going to go outside and have a discussion with a tree; it would be much more fruitful.
So they're sitting in Pakistan our ally in the "war against terror" and plotting what they're going to do here next and your happy with that? I think im just going to go outside and have a discussion with a tree; it would be much more fruitful.
Pakistan can do alot more to stop certain things but they arent. there is so much going on in pakistan that i will never understand. whatever help they can give us, is needed. what should we do invade pakistan? i think its disgusting with what goes on there. the president of pakistan says we cant go in to get them, so we dont. i never said i was happy with it. personally I would fire on them whenever and whereever I saw them. but thats just me. our government plays by the rules of war. now I know someone will post some incident that happened about american soliders fucking up. its war but still fight by the rules, if we didnt, bombs would be falling on their heads in pakistan.
Pakistan can do alot more to stop certain things but they arent. there is so much going on in pakistan that i will never understand. whatever help they can give us, is needed. what should we do invade pakistan? i think its disgusting with what goes on there. the president of pakistan says we cant go in to get them, so we dont. i never said i was happy with it. personally I would fire on them whenever and whereever I saw them. but thats just me. our government plays by the rules of war. now I know someone will post some incident that happened about american soliders fucking up. its war but still fight by the rules, if we didnt, bombs would be falling on their heads in pakistan.
Thanks man, i see where your coming from a bit more clearly...thanks for clarifying.
Pakistan can do alot more to stop certain things but they arent. there is so much going on in pakistan that i will never understand. whatever help they can give us, is needed. what should we do invade pakistan? i think its disgusting with what goes on there. the president of pakistan says we cant go in to get them, so we dont. i never said i was happy with it. personally I would fire on them whenever and whereever I saw them. but thats just me. our government plays by the rules of war. now I know someone will post some incident that happened about american soliders fucking up. its war but still fight by the rules, if we didnt, bombs would be falling on their heads in pakistan.
Yeah, lets bomb some more countries! That'll solve the problem! And believe me, America doesn't play by the rules of war.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
Yeah, lets bomb some more countries! That'll solve the problem! And believe me, America doesn't play by the rules of war.
you really dont get it do you. I wasnt saying we should. I was responding to the other persons response on how we should handle pakistan's lack of cooperation. my answer: I don't know. me personally, I would bomb the taliban were ever I see them. but I dont work for the government. If I did wear the uniform, I would fight by the rules, because of the oath I would have taken to do so. I'm just an american citizen who hates islamic extremeists and wants them dead. our government however has to fight by the rules. why the hatred for america? the war on terror has created a gray area for rules of war, i.e, terrorists dont wear uniforms or fight for a specific country. like i said before, IF we didnt play by the rules, we would have bombed pakistan back to the stone age. O wait there are still there. but we would drop bombs on any taliban we see. pakistan says no, so we don't. We even had restaint on bombing the taliban in afghanistan, were we are allowed to be. We had 200 fighters in the crosshairs and didnt shoot becuase of rules of engagement. if you want the link and picture to that story, I will be happy to post it again.
you really dont get it do you. I wasnt saying we should. I was responding to the other persons response on how we should handle pakistan's lack of cooperation. my answer: I don't know. me personally, I would bomb the taliban were ever I see them. but I dont work for the government. If I did wear the uniform, I would fight by the rules, because of the oath I would have taken to do so. I'm just an american citizen who hates islamic extremeists and wants them dead. our government however has to fight by the rules. why the hatred for america? the war on terror has created a gray area for rules of war, i.e, terrorists dont wear uniforms or fight for a specific country. like i said before, IF we didnt play by the rules, we would have bombed pakistan back to the stone age. O wait there are still there. but we would drop bombs on any taliban we see. pakistan says no, so we don't. We even had restaint on bombing the taliban in afghanistan, were we are allowed to be. We had 200 fighters in the crosshairs and didnt shoot becuase of rules of engagement. if you want the link and picture to that story, I will be happy to post it again.
That's why the war on terror (which is fought using a nation state vs nation state scenerio) will never work.....
That's why the war on terror (which is fought using a nation state vs nation state scenerio) will never work.....
what do you mean it will never work? whether the rules are written or not, the fact remains that america is at war with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
what do you mean it will never work? whether the rules are written or not, the fact remains that america is at war with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
yeah n the jobs that fantastic they can't find him. your government asked for it cos they think cos they're so big they're untouchable. well theyv'e been proven otherwise n now are pissed.
champagne for my real friends & i'm a real pain for my sham friends..
yeah n the jobs that fantastic they can't find him. your government asked for it cos they think cos they're so big they're untouchable. well theyv'e been proven otherwise n now are pissed.
care to elaborate? we asked for it? asked for what? to be attacked?
what do you mean it will never work? whether the rules are written or not, the fact remains that america is at war with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
America rolled into Afganistan and Iraq with a strategy that would be used to attack an aggressive nation....for example the most petty arguement (or rebuttal) I hear from those that support the war to those that believe in peaceful measures is comparing this to Hitler in WW2.
The strategy adopted for the Middle East would be highly successful if they were combating a nation that had the vast majority of its populace supporting a ruthless government that was bent upon expansion (example Germany in WW2)....however that is not the case is the Middle East you are dealing with Fundanutalists that represent a very small minority of the populace...yet the strategy has been to attack the nation as if the entire country was a threat...which it is not....the threat is small (meaning numbers not the reality).....to combat terrorism will take another approach......if you continue to punish a nation, where the vast majority of nation supports no sort of Fundanutalism you will make enemies out of those who you should be making friends......sorry but people there don't view their friends and family deaths as a neccessry step to attain freedom as some here try to suggest that the losses are needed for the greater good...
America rolled into Afganistan and Iraq with a strategy that would be used to attack an aggressive nation....for example the most petty arguement (or rebuttal) I hear from those that support the war to those that believe in peaceful measures is comparing this to Hitler in WW2.
The strategy adopted for the Middle East would be highly successful if they were combating a nation that had the vast majority of its populace supporting a ruthless government that was bent upon expansion (example Germany in WW2)....however that is not the case is the Middle East you are dealing with Fundanutalists that represent a very small minority of the populace...yet the strategy has been to attack the nation as if the entire country was a threat...which it is not....the threat is small (meaning numbers not the reality).....to combat terrorism will take another approach......if you continue to punish a nation, where the vast majority of nation supports no sort of Fundanutalism you will make enemies out of those who you should be making friends......sorry but people there don't view their friends and family deaths as a neccessry step to attain freedom as some here try to suggest that the losses are needed for the greater good...
in terms of Iraq your are right. we went in fighting saddam, which even I question, but now we are fighting el queda in iraq. and the different sects are fighting themselves. (shite/sunni)
but as far as afhganistan, we were fighting a nation. we were fighting the government of that nation, the taliban. and we were highly successful in overthrowing them and allowing a free nation to be born.
in terms of Iraq your are right. we went in fighting saddam, which even I question, but now we are fighting el queda in iraq. and the different sects are fighting themselves. (shite/sunni)
correct on all points. Only I would add that there were no al queda in iraq before we deposed saddam
but as far as afhganistan, we were fighting a nation. we were fighting the government of that nation, the taliban. and we were highly successful in overthrowing them and allowing a free nation to be born.
right again. except now the taliban have regrouped in Afhganistan and are more powerful than ever.
America rolled into Afganistan and Iraq with a strategy that would be used to attack an aggressive nation....for example the most petty arguement (or rebuttal) I hear from those that support the war to those that believe in peaceful measures is comparing this to Hitler in WW2.
The strategy adopted for the Middle East would be highly successful if they were combating a nation that had the vast majority of its populace supporting a ruthless government that was bent upon expansion (example Germany in WW2)....however that is not the case is the Middle East you are dealing with Fundanutalists that represent a very small minority of the populace...yet the strategy has been to attack the nation as if the entire country was a threat...which it is not....the threat is small (meaning numbers not the reality).....to combat terrorism will take another approach......if you continue to punish a nation, where the vast majority of nation supports no sort of Fundanutalism you will make enemies out of those who you should be making friends......sorry but people there don't view their friends and family deaths as a neccessry step to attain freedom as some here try to suggest that the losses are needed for the greater good...
Comparing Sadamm to Hitler is quite silly - you are right about that
Yes Fundamentalists represent a small minority, but that does not make them any less dangerous , if they have the wrong intent. Now you can argue, and we probably have, about Sadamm's intentions, but you talk about attacking a nation as if we carpet bombed the Iraqi population and targeted civilians during the war and I would take issue with that. The picture there is far from pretty and it's probably getting worse by the day, but we didn't launch this mission to " quote on quote punish the Iraqi people. You can certainly look now and say that they are suffering a great price - I am only taking issue with your charge of intent ( if that is the case) if you are not suggesting intent then I will apologize now.
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
correct on all points. Only I would add that there were no al queda in iraq before we deposed saddam
right again. except now the taliban have regrouped in Afhganistan and are more powerful than ever.
ooops
more powerful then ever? that is very far from the truth. do they have an office? how about an embassy somewhere? are they holding new conferences proclaiming to control the country? are they driving around the streets on kabul hanging people for not praising allah?
sure they have regrouped in some lawless areas but more powerful then ever? you cant be serious.
they briefly held some small towns in southern afgah but where quickly defeated.
Comparing Sadamm to Hitler is quite silly - you are right about that
Yes Fundamentalists represent a small minority, but that does not make them any less dangerous , if they have the wrong intent. Now you can argue, and we probably have, about Sadamm's intentions, but you talk about attacking a nation as if we carpet bombed the Iraqi population and targeted civilians during the war and I would take issue with that. The picture there is far from pretty and it's probably getting worse by the day, but we did launch this mission to " quote on quote punish the Iraqi people. You can certainly look now and say that they are suffering a great price - I am only taking issue with your charge of intent ( if that is the case) if you are not suggesting intent then I will apologize now.
No I was not suggesting intent...it was to attack the method being used in Iraq...which is a nation state vs. nation state policy....which was invasion and continued occupation...my belief is that to combat cells of terrorists you can not take this approach because you deal with a small minority....which is, surprisingly but currently not shocking, maybe more difficult to combat than an entire nation state......because the ultimate reprecussion from an attack made on the minority is that the people that do desire peace and freedom get punished which will ultimately return back upon the attacking nation as their intent gets mislead as being directed towards the populace (which I hope it isn't)...these people then buy into the message of the Fundanutalists that, in this case, America is the enemy of Islam, and hence recruitments for the nut vision increases....this is what gets bred through combating terror in a nation vs. nation wartime strategy.....this was not thought of....I believe the US government thought it would be a cake walk (because they viewed it as American army vs Iraqi army)....that vision would certainly make one think it would be...but they forget to realize that they were essentially not fighting a country to say, but a small band of criminals....which can do a surprising amount of damage....
It is a disaster of epic proportions that is, unfortuantly and cannot say it enough, dragging the fine name of America through the mud.....
No I was not suggesting intent...it was to attack the method being used in Iraq...which is a nation state vs. nation state policy....which was invasion and continued occupation...my belief is that to combat cells of terrorists you can not take this approach because you deal with a small minority....which is, surprisingly but currently not shocking, maybe more difficult to combat than an entire nation state......because the ultimate reprecussion from an attack made on the minority is that the people that do desire peace and freedom get punished which will ultimately return back upon the attacking nation as their intent gets mislead as being directed towards the populace (which I hope it isn't)...these people then buy into the message of the Fundanutalists that, in this case, America is the enemy of Islam, and hence recruitments for the nut vision increases....this is what gets bred through combating terror in a nation vs. nation wartime strategy.....this was not thought of....I believe the US government thought it would be a cake walk (because they viewed it as American army vs Iraqi army)....that vision would certainly make one think it would be...but they forget to realize that they were essentially not fighting a country to say, but a small band of criminals....which can do a surprising amount of damage....
It is a disaster of epic proportions that is, unfortuantly and cannot say it enough, dragging the fine name of America through the mud.....
I understand you now - thanks
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
Comments
nice....:rolleyes:
WOW....this says it all.
Replace 5 year old with Bush and Allah with Jesus...and you will see what people in iraq are saying.
The truth...yup.
are you serious? you dont think getting rid of the taliban in afghanistan was helpful? do you know anything about the taliban?
Getting rid of the Taliban was a good idea, yes and has been somewhat helpful on the war on terror. However. The Taliban and al quada are the war on terror. We had them beat and then decided to go into Iraq. That is where we fucked up both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Because of our re-shifting of focus from one front to another we allowed both fronts to become very weak. Because both fronts are weak we now have terrorist attacks in both countries, it's debatable how much control the Taliban has in southern Afghanistan.
Basically what I am getting at is that we really fucked up the reigon, our attack on Iraq might as well had been a recruitment poster for extremists, and there is no end in sight to this snafu.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
People don't die over CRAP. Care to be a little more specific in your response.
Scream all you want I'm not intimidated by the "you" tactics, ok. The Afghanistan campaign was designed to remove the Taliban who were the country's ruling government sect, destroy the al-Qaeda terrorists, and capture bin Laden. The Taliban was not defeated, they moved their operation into and along the Pakistan border, with the aid of the Pakistan military who supported them and refused to allow the U.S. or coalition troops to cross their borders. As you have stated, the Taliban government has returned, the al-Qaeda terrorists are still operational and growing, and bin Laden is still free. You do the math.
That's all you got! ok.
Bent, no. Just tried of the same old same old. If this is a war on terror - period and the objective is to go after countries who knowingly support and habor such terrorists. Then the U.S. should have invaded Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Side note these are only three nations that "formally" recognized the Taliban as the ruling government of Afghanistan. If you do a little unbias research and follow the money, the history and the real path to 9/11 you will see these countries repeatly funded bin Laden and the very terrorists who died on 9/11.
Use these links as starting point
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2051
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2164
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-3821
someone cancel my account, I think I might agree with you. kind of.
at this point, I would be happy to see us leave iraq given iraqis can protect themselves from extremists taking over. I think they are close. taliban and el queda are in fact our enemies and that is who were are stuck fighting in iraq now.
"Scream all you want I'm not intimidated by the "you" tactics, ok. The Afghanistan campaign was designed to remove the Taliban who were the country's ruling government sect, destroy the al-Qaeda terrorists, and capture bin Laden. The Taliban was not defeated, they moved their operation into and along the Pakistan border, with the aid of the Pakistan military who supported them and refused to allow the U.S. or coalition troops to cross their borders. As you have stated, the Taliban government has returned, the al-Qaeda terrorists are still operational and growing, and bin Laden is still free. You do the math."
the taliban and el queda are hiding in caves and are constantly on the run. I wouldnt exactly say they have made a triumphant return to power. US actually had a few hundred more in their crosshairs but choose not to pull the trigger because of rules of engagement. would our enemies have done the same?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213641,00.html
You bash me earlier for my source and you post a source on something else and it is Fox News? Fair and balanced.
Here is how concerned we are about the rules of engagement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/ - War Crimes Memo
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/29503
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I dont care who the source is. just because its fox news that means its not true? as you can see from the picture we had maybe a hundred taliban locked and didnt fire. these are the same taliban who would slice your daughter's throat and not blink an eye simply because you are not muslim
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=1537040
EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Sees Resurgence in Pakistani Tribal Areas
By BRIAN ROSS
Jan. 24, 2006 — Al Qaeda and its former protectors — the Taliban — are in the midst of a powerful resurgence, according to accounts by local officials and information contained in new al Qaeda videotapes obtained by ABC News.
U.S. troops are not permitted inside Pakistan, and the Pakistani army is barely seen in this part of Waziristan Province.
The new videotapes show open recruitment for the jihad, or holy war, to kill Americans and their allies.
The narrator says, "Come join the jihad caravan."
"The Taliban resurgence this year has been enormous and quite extraordinary," said Ahmed Rashid, author of the book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and the Fundamentalism in Central Asia."
The tape claims Taliban officials have taken over government functions. There is no date on the tape, but in the last month ABC News reporters have confirmed that Western aid organizations have been forced out, their headquarters burned, schools shut down, teachers and journalists killed, and music banned.
The tape shows men described as thieves being dragged through a village behind a truck, and later beheaded.
'Breakdown of Law and Order'
"We're seeing a complete breakdown of law and order," said Rashid. "The army is holed up in its barracks or in its bunkers."
A much rosier picture was described at the White House today as President Bush met with Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, thanking him for all his government is doing.
"We're working closely to defeat the terrorists who would like to harm America and harm Pakistan," Bush said during a news conference.
But there's no sense of defeat seen in a second tape obtained by ABC News, this one produced by al Qaeda.
The tape shows the planning of an attack on a government building across the border in Afghanistan.
The commander is identified as one of the four men who last year escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan — and are now back in action.
The commander is seen on tape, giving a Powerpoint presentation of how the attack was carried out.
It also shows scenes of fighters firing their automatic weapons and of buildings burning. The fighters seen on tape shout "bin Laden forever! Long live al Qaeda!"
"It has regrouped, reformed and re-emerged with new vigor," said Akbar Ahmed, professor of Islamic studies at American University, "and this is a very dangerous emergence."
sounds like pakistan has a problem. if, however, they go to afhganastan or even iraq they will fight american and coalition soliders on the battlefield. they don't stand a chance.
So they're sitting in Pakistan our ally in the "war against terror" and plotting what they're going to do here next and your happy with that? I think im just going to go outside and have a discussion with a tree; it would be much more fruitful.
Pakistan can do alot more to stop certain things but they arent. there is so much going on in pakistan that i will never understand. whatever help they can give us, is needed. what should we do invade pakistan? i think its disgusting with what goes on there. the president of pakistan says we cant go in to get them, so we dont. i never said i was happy with it. personally I would fire on them whenever and whereever I saw them. but thats just me. our government plays by the rules of war. now I know someone will post some incident that happened about american soliders fucking up. its war but still fight by the rules, if we didnt, bombs would be falling on their heads in pakistan.
Thanks man, i see where your coming from a bit more clearly...thanks for clarifying.
Yeah, lets bomb some more countries! That'll solve the problem! And believe me, America doesn't play by the rules of war.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
you really dont get it do you. I wasnt saying we should. I was responding to the other persons response on how we should handle pakistan's lack of cooperation. my answer: I don't know. me personally, I would bomb the taliban were ever I see them. but I dont work for the government. If I did wear the uniform, I would fight by the rules, because of the oath I would have taken to do so. I'm just an american citizen who hates islamic extremeists and wants them dead. our government however has to fight by the rules. why the hatred for america? the war on terror has created a gray area for rules of war, i.e, terrorists dont wear uniforms or fight for a specific country. like i said before, IF we didnt play by the rules, we would have bombed pakistan back to the stone age. O wait there are still there. but we would drop bombs on any taliban we see. pakistan says no, so we don't. We even had restaint on bombing the taliban in afghanistan, were we are allowed to be. We had 200 fighters in the crosshairs and didnt shoot becuase of rules of engagement. if you want the link and picture to that story, I will be happy to post it again.
That's why the war on terror (which is fought using a nation state vs nation state scenerio) will never work.....
what do you mean it will never work? whether the rules are written or not, the fact remains that america is at war with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
freedom of speech. ooh just watch what ya say!!!!!!
care to elaborate? we asked for it? asked for what? to be attacked?
America rolled into Afganistan and Iraq with a strategy that would be used to attack an aggressive nation....for example the most petty arguement (or rebuttal) I hear from those that support the war to those that believe in peaceful measures is comparing this to Hitler in WW2.
The strategy adopted for the Middle East would be highly successful if they were combating a nation that had the vast majority of its populace supporting a ruthless government that was bent upon expansion (example Germany in WW2)....however that is not the case is the Middle East you are dealing with Fundanutalists that represent a very small minority of the populace...yet the strategy has been to attack the nation as if the entire country was a threat...which it is not....the threat is small (meaning numbers not the reality).....to combat terrorism will take another approach......if you continue to punish a nation, where the vast majority of nation supports no sort of Fundanutalism you will make enemies out of those who you should be making friends......sorry but people there don't view their friends and family deaths as a neccessry step to attain freedom as some here try to suggest that the losses are needed for the greater good...
in terms of Iraq your are right. we went in fighting saddam, which even I question, but now we are fighting el queda in iraq. and the different sects are fighting themselves. (shite/sunni)
but as far as afhganistan, we were fighting a nation. we were fighting the government of that nation, the taliban. and we were highly successful in overthrowing them and allowing a free nation to be born.
correct on all points. Only I would add that there were no al queda in iraq before we deposed saddam
right again. except now the taliban have regrouped in Afhganistan and are more powerful than ever.
ooops
Comparing Sadamm to Hitler is quite silly - you are right about that
Yes Fundamentalists represent a small minority, but that does not make them any less dangerous , if they have the wrong intent. Now you can argue, and we probably have, about Sadamm's intentions, but you talk about attacking a nation as if we carpet bombed the Iraqi population and targeted civilians during the war and I would take issue with that. The picture there is far from pretty and it's probably getting worse by the day, but we didn't launch this mission to " quote on quote punish the Iraqi people. You can certainly look now and say that they are suffering a great price - I am only taking issue with your charge of intent ( if that is the case) if you are not suggesting intent then I will apologize now.
Untill their will grows tired
more powerful then ever? that is very far from the truth. do they have an office? how about an embassy somewhere? are they holding new conferences proclaiming to control the country? are they driving around the streets on kabul hanging people for not praising allah?
sure they have regrouped in some lawless areas but more powerful then ever? you cant be serious.
they briefly held some small towns in southern afgah but where quickly defeated.
No I was not suggesting intent...it was to attack the method being used in Iraq...which is a nation state vs. nation state policy....which was invasion and continued occupation...my belief is that to combat cells of terrorists you can not take this approach because you deal with a small minority....which is, surprisingly but currently not shocking, maybe more difficult to combat than an entire nation state......because the ultimate reprecussion from an attack made on the minority is that the people that do desire peace and freedom get punished which will ultimately return back upon the attacking nation as their intent gets mislead as being directed towards the populace (which I hope it isn't)...these people then buy into the message of the Fundanutalists that, in this case, America is the enemy of Islam, and hence recruitments for the nut vision increases....this is what gets bred through combating terror in a nation vs. nation wartime strategy.....this was not thought of....I believe the US government thought it would be a cake walk (because they viewed it as American army vs Iraqi army)....that vision would certainly make one think it would be...but they forget to realize that they were essentially not fighting a country to say, but a small band of criminals....which can do a surprising amount of damage....
It is a disaster of epic proportions that is, unfortuantly and cannot say it enough, dragging the fine name of America through the mud.....
I understand you now - thanks
Untill their will grows tired