Thread: CIA station taken out by Taliban suicide bomber.

Originally Posted by robuzo

"If not, did you support the last president who not only fucked up royally at Tora Bora, but also managed basically to neglect Afghanistan thereafter in favor of his Grand Imperial Adventure in Iraq, which you probably know was one country where Al Qaeda was not welcome?"

That keda pretends to find that question too complex or ambiguous kind of says it all. Nice try at a dodge, hypocrite.

Brilliant, and that ought to earn you senior membership at TeDIA (TD Inbreds' Association).

Were you seriously expecting an agreement or rejection of all your imposed and assumed conditions with a single-word answer? Can a living breathing adult really be that thick?

In case that's too deep for you, as I said before your question had a number of conditions, only some of which I took the trouble to address earlier, expecting fair play on your part to figure out the rest for yourself. Clearly the fault was mine for expecting too much from you.

Did I support Bush, did I support his fcuk up, do I agree he fcuked up and/or fcuked up at Tora Bora? Not sure where 'royally' fits into the blanket equation but it's yours not mine, so if you try real hard perhaps you can read something into its omission too! Then, do I agree that after Tora Bora he neglected Afghanistan, and that that neglect was in favour of his Grand Imperial Adventure in Iraq? Do you even know what Imperial means, or did you include that because it sounds good and might get you another hip-hip at the swamp...?

What kind of person poses such blanket assumptions with unqualified conditions? But wait, we're not finished yet, now we come to the masterstroke...that entire heap of conditionals is <sigh> itself conditional upon the answer to whatever you originally posted in the previous sentence, which you thoughtfully excluded from quoting, viz...IF NOT!

If not, did you support...

Still, my fault also for taking the bait, but if I supported Bush going into Iraq does this imply support for everything else you kindly added, including your wild and untenable assumptions on neglect and Imperialism? Or would I be agreeing only on Tora Bora, or whatever you deem to be a fcuk up, and his subsequent neglect of Afghanistan, and specifically for his "Imperial Adventure" in Iraq?

So, I am not prepared to give you a one-word answer. If you want or expect simplicity to satisfy all of those idiotic conditions and more, you should ask the other TeDIAs and they'll be delighted to return a resounding yes, with no qualifiers, probably a few expletives to boot since after all it's a Bush-bash so it doesn't really matter how delirious one gets, and then you can all enjoy a round of backslapping on a job well done and deserving of a collective wank.


If you need more ammo or a trigger for another dumbass multi-part question, then yes I did support Bush. If you wish to read this to mean I supported everything he said or did within every conceivable window of his presidency, including Tora Bora, and whatever you deem to be neglect in Afghanistan, then off you go and have fun...as for his "Imperial" Adventure, that too, whatever gets you hard.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

...What worries me more is Pakistan.
The CIA could not hold up the Taliban! That is scary. How the hell is Pakistan going to protect its nuclears plants and weapons ?
Bombs are going off on daily basis. The country is falling apart.

Could be why the pakis are getting heaps of aid, even if it's known chunks are going to the terrorists they're supposed to be confronting.

It's a failed nation, has been for a long time, and within the confines of democratic niceties the best the West can do is try and delay the inevitable, at least in that particular Islamic cesspit.

Originally Posted by sabang

One of the few places it is possible to get decent information on the real situation in Pakistan is the Asia Times- no doubt because many of their contributors are ethnically from the Indian subcontinent.

Paki has many problems, not least amongst them corruption and nepotism. The various ethnic groups in Paki do not seem to indulge in love fests either- the Punjabi's of Lahore and Islamabad (political capital) don't much like the Sindhi's of Karachi (economic powerhouse), and vice versa- and Pakistan proper looks upon the northern tribal regions as being backward and, well, Tribal. The Taliban/ AQ radical Moslem thing gets a lot of media attention right now, given the porous borders and human traffic between the tribal regions of Paki and Afghanistan.

To then make a 'logical connection' between this, and the danger of Pakistan becoming a Taliban style Islamic state is a fallacy however. The northern tribal regions of Paki are a small fraction of the countries large population, around 170 million. They pose no serious threat to the Pakistani government- which is basically carved up between a more militarist leaning, secular alliance, and a more civilian based, Islamic leaning (or courting) alliance, which holds the balance of power now. Both are equally corrupt. Neither has a vision for Pakistan remotely resembling a Taliban style theocracy, and the percentage of the population that would support this is tiny anyway- being mainly people from the tribal departments of the NW frontier/ Waziristan areas- a small fraction of the population, and with negligible political power.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani government and security forces happily play off the Islamics and the West, and squabble between themselves over the crumbs from the corruption cake. It is well known the current government tacitly permits drone strikes and special op's on Pakistani soil- but given it's domestic Islamic political leanings/ alliances, it hardly broadcasts this. Like India, if you actually look at the key figures in Pakistan politics you will find they are overwhelmingly concentrated amongst a few influential families.

There is absolutely no threat of Pakistan falling to the Taliban, not even remote.

Pakistan does not need to fall to the Taliban, it's unlikely that will happen anytime soon, and not sure that's what the Taliban would want for Christmas. Whether specifically targeted or not, though, I'm sure they wouldn't say no to a few nukes.

Also, quite aside from military conditions and religious determination, as long as the Taliban are receiving aid from the US, via Pakistan, it makes sense for them to pursue a course of continued warfare and disruption. Instability in that region is precisely what the West does not want, which makes it obvious that's what any enemy of the West should strive for.

Originally Posted by keda

the Taliban are receiving aid from the US, via Pakistan,

Via Afghanistan too for that matter- foreign funded infrastructural contractors pay 'protection money' to the Tali so they can get the job done, and collect their reward. In return, the Tali won't blow it up until after they've gone- if ever, and won't harass the workers. Apparently, thats one good thing about the Tali as opposed to the cockroaches in the Karzai government- they keep their word.

The other thing, that may be critical, is that there are relatively moderate and hardline elements within the Taliban- it is not a monolith, it is an ethnically Pashtun tribal/ religious affiliation. They recently made an offer that has been largely downplayed in the Western media- being to promise they would not support any Jihad type activities outside Ghan, neither harbour wanted "terrorists"' in Ghan- if Nato gets out, that is. The fact it is being downpalyed is probably significant- as often, it is what is happening behind the scenes that is the most interesting.

The fact that 'weak' president Obama has trebled the foreign troop commitment to Afghanistan within a year in office is hardly lost on them. The fact that Obama is a pragmatist is not lost on me, either. He knows he can no more smash the Taliban with the current level of commitment than he could the Chinese or Russians. But he can make life rather unpleasant for them, especially the Hardliners who tend to meet their celestial virgins when still quite young and virile. So now signs are emerging the Tali are fishing for a deal- I think the real gambit here may well be an iron fist, leading to diplomacy. The Taliban won't listen to anything else.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by keda

the Taliban are receiving aid from the US, via Pakistan,

Via Afghanistan too for that matter- foreign funded infrastructural contractors pay 'protection money' to the Tali so they can get the job done, and collect their reward. In return, the Tali won't blow it up until after they've gone- if ever, and won't harass the workers. Apparently, thats one good thing about the Tali as opposed to the cockroaches in the Karzai government- they keep their word.

I wouldn't agree that they keep their word, but the redistrubution of wealth their way is much like feeding the croc in the hope it eats you last.

The other thing, that may be critical, is that there are relatively moderate and hardline elements within the Taliban- it is not a monolith, it is an ethnically Pashtun tribal/ religious affiliation. They recently made an offer that has been largely downplayed in the Western media- being to promise they would not support any Jihad type activities outside Ghan, neither harbour wanted "terrorists"' in Ghan- if Nato gets out, that is. The fact it is being downpalyed is probably significant- as often, it is what is happening behind the scenes that is the most interesting.

Hmm, if you believe they keep their word, then that sounds like a tempting offer, but I wouldn't let them babysit my kids on a promise of good conduct. More likely is they're weak or feel weak, and under these conditions the Koran sanctions a 'temporary' peace with the enemy during which the good Muslim will regroup and strengthen.

The fact that 'weak' president Obama has trebled the foreign troop commitment to Afghanistan within a year in office is hardly lost on them. The fact that Obama is a pragmatist is not lost on me, either. He knows he can no more smash the Taliban with the current level of commitment than he could the Chinese or Russians. But he can make life rather unpleasant for them, especially the Hardliners who tend to meet their celestial virgins when still quite young and virile. So now signs are emerging the Tali are fishing for a deal- I think the real gambit here may well be an iron fist, leading to diplomacy. The Taliban won't listen to anything else.

He knows he cannot smash the Taliban just as he cannot stem the tide of radical Islam anywhere else in the world, period.

You are entitled to your view, and fwiw mine is that Western leaders (bambam included) are either unaware of the threats to Western civilisation by Islam (unlikely), or (likely) they are aware but so concerned with self interest and political expediency that they simply cannot publicly acknowledge the evil ideology of Islam has anything to do the thousands of Islamic terror attacks and the hundreds of billions devoted by the West in trying to protect against them.

Originally Posted by keda

if you believe they keep their word, then that sounds like a tempting offer

Sure, but I don't. They will keep their word, longer term, for one reason only- namely the carrot is a lot more palatable than the Stick currently being made real to them. I'm absolutely no fan of the Tali, unfortunately I hold the Karzai clowns in similar contempt.

Easy choice for the lesser when faced with two evils.

Why would the CIA be immune to casualties in a war they are an active part in? Their 'intelligence' is used to kill the enemy, quite simple, and that makes them a legitimate target.

To try and obfuscate the issue by changing the designation of the foe is rather simple-minded and disingenuous . . . much like the US classifying the bearded weirdos to suit their political and military aims.

These guys were, luckily, ousted and their country brought forward into the 14th century . . . that gives them a (in their eyes) credible reason to fight for their country.

The Taliban do NOT equal Al Quaeda, and the sooner people realise that the better.

AQ is in a war against what they perceive to be the defense of their religion, the Taliban are in a war to regain their country.

May neither ever succeed.

obfuscate- no sooner are you released and you start making difficulties, had to google that one Welcome back.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

obfuscate- no sooner are you released and you start making difficulties, had to google that one Welcome back.

Thank you!

Close to eight years at University . . . you learn big words and how to change the wording of what you read for your submissions . . . so plagiarism can't be proven!

Troublemaker . . . I have indeed turned over a new leaf . . . and am now kind and soft-hearted (Well, always was, really . . . hence my dislike for bullies)

One of the few places it is possible to get decent information on the real situation in Pakistan is the Asia Times- no doubt because many of their contributors are ethnically from the Indian subcontinent.

But they are very patriotic and sometimes see things a bit too bright.

There is absolutely no threat of Pakistan falling to the Taliban, not even remote.

Sabang ! Are you Paki ? Or are you Trolling me!!???

Bombs are going off like Hot Cakes in Paki. By my own judgement I would maybe even say more then in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Paki has become a Land with NO security. Thats why the UN is withdrawing most of its workes from Paki. People who work for Health Organization, Technical Help, Teachers, Businessmen are leaving the country. There will be no major Sports or Cultural events taking place in the future.
Lets face it, the Taliban (or call them Al Quaeda or muslim terrorists) have achieved already one major goal....terrorism in Pakistan. People are afraid !