FYI- Al Qaeda is still in Afghanistan and making a come back

[NJmaverick]

Another potential danger is that al Qaida-linked foreign extremists could use Taliban sanctuaries in the north to stir up trouble in the adjacent former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, whose authoritarian rulers have brutalized their Muslim populations.

"Al Qaida wants to have a base there," said retired Afghan Gen. Hillaluddin Hillal, a parliamentarian from Baghlan. "Al Qaida's support is behind them (the Taliban). Al Qaida has an interest in Central Asia."

A senior U.S. intelligence official confirmed that Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks and Pakistanis affiliated with al Qaida have been making their way into Baghlan and Kunduz from Pakistan's tribal areas.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/336/story/74543.html

[gratuitous]

1. Why, that's unpossible!

It's almost like the military is the wrong tool for this job, but that can't be right. Eight years of violence hasn't worked? Maybe the answer is to cluster more and fuck harder.

[Windy]

2. Um, we pulled out of Afghanistan prematurely and went into Iraq needlessly

We made the situation worse and then left... and it was all put in Obama's lap.
Naivety will get this country nowhere.

[NJmaverick]

4. Very well said

although seeing the unreccs this thread got, I think willful ignorance might be a better description than naivety

[MNDemNY]

78. Why is it that your posts lately seem to sound as if they were coming directly ...

from the previous administration?? Your rhetoric seems to mirror that of the neo-cons, is that on purpose? I'm I miss reading your posts? So many seem to have that same slant.

[NJmaverick]

3. The original invasion was a success. Unfortunately the last

administration then badly managed the war and even neglected the gains made in favor of their Iraq ventures.

[bigtree]

15. Our military stayed too long and accomplished little to stifle or flush out the 9-11 fugitives

Our military activity in Afghanistan and in the region has allowed the mobilization of these pockets of resistance to NATO and the U.S. military aggression across sovereign borders. Our military will never be the ultimate solution to the violence from the Afghan insurgency because it is the main catalyst of the Afghan insurgency. Our military will never be seen by the majority of the millions of Afghans as a passive, friendly, helpful force because we are invaders bent on propping up a corrupt, unpopular regime which assumes to exercise control over the population from their U.S. military-enabled perch in Kabul.

Most of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan involves the Afghan resistance - not al-Qaeda. The initial invasion's 'success' was in routing the bulk of them to Pakistan. The rest of the effort to 'finish' that job has been bungled with destabilizing drone strikes that have achieved more collateral killings than 'al-Qaeda' hits. The other consequence has been a timid Pakistani government response to our entreaties to take up our war on terror within their borders. That timidity has almost everything to do with the unpopularity of the terror war American politicians and others in the country assume is such a righteous one. Whatever its virtue or bane, it's a perpetually counterproductive effort that our military is engaged in, with a limited arc of success which has already passed its peak.

Our 'war' in Afghanistan can only deepen the animosity which has generated whatever support the 'al-Qaeda' moniker has tragically achieved throughout the world as a symbol of resistance to American military aggression.

[NJmaverick]

31. Our military was winning, until that idiot George Bush much of their

critical resources to fight his war in Iraq.

While it's true that the longer one stays in a nation the less popular one is, we unfortunately need to correct the mistakes that were made before we depart.

[bigtree]

57. Even this president admits that our military can only do so much

What you fail to acknowledge are the limits of that military force in achieving a 'stable' government or influencing an occupied population to take up America's 'war on terror' within their borders. You're all bent on advocating the 'military for military sake' in Afghanistan without bothering to explain at all what the consequences of that force will be on the very goals you express. All you've provided is a 'hoo-rah', a bogeyman, and some dubious conclusions you call 'truth' rendered from a section clipped from an article. Fascinating stuff. All part of your unfailing defense and promotion of every shit sandwich this administration and their holdover military leadership offer up, I presume.

[NJmaverick]

60. Strawman, we all know that the military has limits

However that in no way shape of form precludes it from being needed and used.


Military alone will not solve the problem in Afghanistan. However if we pull the military out, it a sure thing our problem will get much worse.

[bigtree]

71. so the solution is to stay and deepen the animosity and resistance; generate more enemies

How long do you think our nation's defenders can hold all of that back? Don't look now, but it appears that the al-Qaeda bubble we've inflated with our reckless militarism is bursting across the globe. So much for the notion that we're defending against the spread of 'al-Qaeda' with our Afghanistan stand. If anything, it looks to be fueling even more resistance. How long before the war hawks admit that they're really no good at this nation-building? Hundreds of thousands have been killed by unrest and civil strife in the wake of our opportunistic occupations; many innocents by our own forces. And, you still say, 'bring it on'. Where will you (and other war supporters) ever find enough temerity to admit that our military is doing more harm than good in Afghanistan?

[NJmaverick]

74. No, this is the solution that is being put into action

The time table is set for 18 months (give or take). In that time
the hope is the extra troops will turn the tide of battle and start handing the Taliban defeats. Along with those military efforts there will be efforts made to stabilize and improve the government, bribe or work with the many tribes to undermine Tabilan/Al Qaeda support and a native Afghan army and police force trained and equipped. If all goes well after 18 months the Taliban will once again be weakened to the point that they don't pose a threat and the Afghan government will be strong enough to take care of itself.

There is always a possibility of failure and that at the end of that time we may very well end up defeated, but the stakes are too high not to at least put in the effort.

[NNN0LHI]

5. I suspect these new Afghan fighters are the little kids of the fathers we slaughtered 9 years ago

They have grown up now. And are looking for revenge for what was done to their daddies. Thanks Bush.

Don

[NJmaverick]

7. Let me see if I understand this line of thinking

Al-Qaeda killed thousands of Americans and are our sworn enemy. Yet we shouldn't touch them because if we kill any of them their kids may also grow up to be part of Al-Qaeda. I am not sure I share your helpless world view.

[NNN0LHI]

9. You don't have it right. The people who killed 3000 people are dead. Eating dirt sandwiches dead

You think all the Afghan people we have tortured and/or killed so far over there were all in on planning 9/11?

Is that what you think?

I would say the majority of Afghan fighters we are trying to kill today were little 9 and 10 year old kids on 9/11/01.

You think they were in on it too?

Don

[NJmaverick]

11. The Taliban hosted and are close allies of Al-Qaeda

as long as they are trying to regain control of Afghanistan I don't see we have much choice (in terms of fighting them).

[NNN0LHI]

12. You avoided my question

You think all the Afghan people we have tortured and/or killed so far over there were all in on planning 9/11?

Don

[NJmaverick]

13. No you tried to use a question that give incorrect framing

however when it comes to terrorist and fighting them, there is little room for political framing games. It's a matter of getting to the truth of things. Pragmatism rules on the battle field.

[bigtree]

20. It's inconceivable

. . . that the Taliban we're fighting in Afghanistan knew ANYTHING about plane crashes before 9-11. Like NNN0LHI very astutely pointed out, many of the 'insurgents' and 'militants' our forces are killing and detaining (and being killed and maimed by) are children who were in no position at all to have any influence on what the 9-11 fugitive suspects were involved in; much less have any knowledge of their activities. What we are fighting there is the natural resistance to the propping up of a corrupt regime and the resistance to our military forces' assaults across the country's sovereign borders. Anyone can call themselves 'al-Qaeda'. Many will, in their resistance to our military advance on their homeland. This is a foolish, self-perpetuating cycle of attacks and reprisals which is only deepening the violent resistance and fracturing the country and the region. If this is what you proscribe for the future there, I'd suggest that we don't look to be very good at this nation-building behind our own nation's defenders.


from AFP:http://news.malaysia.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3767115

Figures released to AFP by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) put civilian deaths in the Afghan war at 2,038 for the first 10 months of 2009, up from 1,838 for the same period of 2008 -- an increase of 10.8 percent.

The figures were released a day after President Hamid Karzai launched an investigation into reports that 10 people, most of them school children, were killed in a raid by foreign troops near the Pakistan border.

The UN calculations show the vast majority, or 1,404 civilians, were killed by insurgents fighting for the overthrow of Karzai's government and to eject Western troops.

UNAMA said 468 deaths were caused by pro-government forces, including NATO and US-led forces, and 166 by "other actors".

[NJmaverick]

24. Taliban know what Al Qaeda has done and wants to do

but that hasn't stopped them from working with and welcoming them.

[bigtree]

27. that just doesn't make sense on it's face. What's more, it's reckless propaganda

Conflating all Afghan resistance with 'al-Qaeda' is ill-informed and tragically flawed reasoning. Further conflating every Afghan who identifies themselves with the Taliban with 9-11 fugitive suspects is just parroting nonsense.

[NJmaverick]

28. The truth is not reckless propaganda

the stuff you're pushing on the other hand would lead to our nation to make unwise decisions that will result in future loss of American lives.

[tekisui]

30. Bullshit. Our increase in targets on an insurgent battlefield will guarantee

a future loss of American lives. You are living in a 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' fantasy.

[NJmaverick]

33. You can't play the framing game when it comes to fighting a war

The battle field is about results. We should be out of Afghanistan already, but the last idiot in the White House screwed things up badly and lost all our hard faught gains. If we pulled out the Taliban WILL (not might) take over in under a month. As close allies and friends Al Qaeda will be right there with them. With a secure nation to operate in Al Qaeda will be able to once again centralize their operations and pool manpower and resources so they could plan and carry out attacks on the scale of 9/11 rather than have to settle for shoe or crotch bombers.

[tekisui]

36. You still play the false frame of conflating all Taliban

as extremists and close allies of al-qeada. Terror, terror, terror! I don't buy it anymore.

[NJmaverick]

38. I understand you don't buy that. You have made it more than clear

your position is desire based rather than fact based.

[bigtree]

43. which 'truth' is that?

You're all over the place on this thread.

It's amazing how disconnected you seem from the recent history of America's military interventionism. The 'stuff' I'm pushing would lead to an end to the destabilizing, antithetical, counterproductive militarism were practicing in Afghanistan and Iraq. You are promoting military policies which are a prescription for a wider, bloodier war with no clear path to achieving even the most modest of the goals you've expressed. Truth.

[NJmaverick]

51. You guys don't want to admit the truth about Al_Qaeda's presense in Afghanistan

we can start with that. (oh before you try to deny that, your unreccs make my case).

[bigtree]

66. Not even Pres. Obama's military believes 'al-Qaeda in Afghanistan pose a threat

. . . to the government or the U.S.. Their reasoning is that a U.S. friendly regime and military in Afghanistan would provide a buffer to whatever threat might come from whatever fugitive, rouge group of combatants might aspire to perpetrate.

Thing is, what we are really fighting is an ideology based on resistance to America's military presence and activity in that country and region of millions. The antidote you proscribe is more militarism and more American targets for that resistance. To what end? The violent resistance is escalating in proportion to our own escalation of force. The animosity is increasing as well. If we are to actually stifle or 'defeat' the ideology of al-Qaeda (or resistance forces adopting al-Qaeda's moniker and cause), it won't be achieved by the cowing of resisting Afghans and the feathering of Karzai's objectionable regime.

But, you go on believing we're best defending America by generating more enemies abroad. I'll end with that.

[NJmaverick]

69. Do you have a link to the source of your assertion about the military's beliefs?

As for the rest of your post way to many labels. You have bured the what is going on there in a pile of labels like "ideology", "militarism" and the like. Here is what is going to happen:

The time table is set for 18 months (give or take). In that time
the hope is the extra troops will turn the tide of battle and start handing the Taliban defeats. Along with those military efforts there will be efforts made to stabilize and improve the government, bribe or work with the many tribes to undermine Tabilan/Al Qaeda support and a native Afghan army and police force trained and equipped. If all goes well after 18 months the Taliban will once again be weakened to the point that they don't pose a threat and the Afghan government will be strong enough to take care of itself.

There is always a possibility of failure and that at the end of that time we may very well end up defeated, but the stakes are too high not to at least put in the effort.

[bigtree]

75. the 'stakes' are a widened war and a swelling of the resistance

It's not as if its a situation where we either 'win' or pull back to status quo. There is a very real counterproductive effect to our military presence and activity which is evidenced by the swelling of ranks of the resistance and the increase in the numbers of individuals around the globe who are willing to identify their resistance against the U.S. with our al-Qaeda nemesis.

By the way, al-Qaeda is an ideology; a label. Most of what we're fighting in Afghanistan is an insurgent resistance to our occupation and against the Karzai regime; not the organization of al-Qaeda. If we expect Afghans to adopt our terror war, we'll need to do better than intimidating and killing the resistance with our military raids and strikes. In my opinion, we've already lost the battle for their support and are well on the way toward creating a new generation of enemies to 'defend' against.


oh yeah, your 'link' . . .


__ The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan, with its senior leadership having moved to the western region of Pakistan.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/petraeus-al-qaeda-threat-afghanistan


McChrystal: No Major Al-Qaeda Signs In Afghanistan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/mcchrystal-no-major-al-qa_n_283634.html


In Afghanistan, Taliban leaving al-Qaeda behind -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111019644.html

[tkmorris]

72. Yeah, unrecs prove there is Al Qaeda in Afghanistan....

Fuck's sake.

[Forkboy]

77. That about sums up the depth of logic.

:crazy:

[NJmaverick]

80. Thanks for the kick, it counters those that want to bury the truth

:hi:

[Forkboy]

84. And by your logic above....

Had you posted a racist screed and everybody unrecced it, those unrecs would prove it's truth. :crazy:

[NJmaverick]

94. So now you are subtly suggesting my posts are racist

that is pretty slimy of you. Still I ALERT on racist posts and posters (fortunately most are shown the door).

[Forkboy]

106. Oy vey.

:eyes:

I wasn't saying your OP was racist. I wasn't saying you were racist. It was a hypothetical to illustrate the idiocy of your logic that because your OP is getting unrecs that it equates to it being true.

Try thinking for a change. It'll be a great thing for both of us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Mr. Rumsfeld is that you?

Yes, what you are parroting is exactly what Don Rumsfeld used to say to his pressers every so often. The same kind of words that many of us used to make fun off.

I guess since it is OUR guy the propaganda is fine now.

I recommend you pick up, and chiefly read, a good history book on Afghan history. It may help you understand why conflating every Afghan with Al Qaida (which is Ronnie Reagan's creation by the way) is just plain out wrong.

By the way we call this... BLOWBACK... and the Taliban are ALSO our creation... from the war against the Soviets. Go Watch Charlie Wilson's War for the Cliff notes on this.

Now here is a quick clue... 9.11 was not planned in the back regions of Afghanistan but in places like Germany, England and yes the good ol' US of A. So when are we starting those bombing campaigns and chiefly, when are you enlisting?

I hate brave talk, don't care from whom.

Jeezus age, this reminds me of oh the AOL boards where the RIGHT WING applauded their Presnit, and fell onto line, out of jingoistic fervor.

Yes I do recommend you look the word Jingoism in a dictionary too. The REAL world is not as black and white as you think it is.

[NJmaverick]

87. You lost me after the Rumsfeld attack

when you lead with that sort of attack, you discredit whatever you had to say. I stopped after the attack and couldn't be bothered reading further. If you want to be heard you need to be a bit more respectful and start with a strong factual statement.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Of course you could not

after all hearing that you are parroting propaganda, my apologies to the conures, is not something you want to hear.

[Flaneur]

86. These guys are not Al Qaeda. They're Afghan Taliban.

And we've made war on the Afghans for the past nine years. Where's Osama?

[Xenotime]

6. What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?!? I guess * lied?

[NJmaverick]

10. Technically he lied about Iraq's mission accomplished

in Afghanistan he just mismanaged and neglected things until all the hard fought gains (paid with the blood of our soldiers) were squandered away.

[NJmaverick]

8. Less than zero recs, looks like the truth is not very popular here at DU

might explain a lot of people's views though.

[goldcanyonaz]

16. The majority here are very against our being there, regardless of the reasons.

It's not you.

:hug:

[NJmaverick]

19. Thanks, but I don't take it personally.

You are right though. There are people that hold positions that are independent of the facts.

[MNDemNY]

83. No, it's him.

[timeforpeace]

100. Her, I believe. It's her.

[harun]

68. Don't believe everything you read on the Interwebs.

But I do give you credit for linking to a source.

[independentpiney]

70. I gave you a rec, not that it will make a difference

There are alot of people who won't let truth, reality or pragmatism get in the way of ideology. That being said I think the window for a military solution in Afghanistan may have closed in 2002/2003, when the resources were pulled out and shipped to Iraq. It needed to be a quick in/out operation so the the Afghan people wouldn't view us as a foreign occupation. Six years on, we are most definitely an occupying army, and one supporting a weak, corrupt government at that. I fear that's going to make the 'winning hearts and minds' part of the equation very difficult.

[NJmaverick]

73. You may be right, there is no doubt the last guy in charge screwed up royally

You may also be right that our endeavor will still end in failure. To me the stakes are too high not to give it this last effort though. The idea of a Taliban run Afghanistan with Al Qaeda operating freely is not a very pleasant one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. I wish simple black and white thinking was real

but it is not.

It is sheer propaganda.

I highly, ONCE AGAIN, recommend you pick up a history book or two.

[Mari333]

14. It is their country, not ours.

and we have no right to be there.

[NJmaverick]

23. So would you have used that reasoning during WW 2?

we had no right to be in Germany or Japan, because they weren't our Countries?

[Mari333]

40. I am against all wars. period. even that one.

and this is not a war in afghanistan. It is the USA occupying someone's country with mercenaries and soldiers just to protect oil company interests and make a lot of defense contractors and corporations wealthy.

Its a racket.
Its a scam.
and it is wrong.

we are the bad guys.

[NJmaverick]

42. I am sure their are many Jews, Gypsies and Chinese that are happy you weren't in charge

during WW 2. I am sure there are many African Americans that are happy you wern't in charge during the Civil War.

[Mari333]

45. I just prefer Gandhi.

and MLK.

in the meantime, this is not a war, it is the USA occupying someone else's country for profit..

and Im a Jew btw.

I dont want to argue with you, Im too tired and my mom is very ill.

so I will not be able to respond again.

Love you.

[laststeamtrain]

89. Af/Pak: Is it good for the Gypsies? I certainly want happy Gypsies in this narrative.

Very truly yours,
Walt Disney

[proteus_lives]

91. +1

[dmallind]

17. So more troops to stop this would be a .......bad idea? NT

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. "Smoke 'em out", "Bring it on", not just for Republicans any more.

According to the article we're (that is our magnificent military) is losing. In fact, it's obvious we lost. Time to get out and get over it, instead of playing political CYA by pretending that it can be won so the Prez can appear to be "tough".

[NJmaverick]

21. FDR declared war in WW 2. Sometimes a leader has no choice

ever a Democrat

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Al Queda isn't a country. And, Congress declared war, not FDR.

Whereas, LBJ didn't go to congress for his "tough on Communism" war and Nixon escalated it to cover his ass. Both warned of "falling dominoes" just as the article in the OP does.

Ring any bells?

[NJmaverick]

35. Very good and you are not a Country either. Still Al Qaeda is officially

hosted by the Taliban which rules a COUNTRY and want to rule it again. Don't delude yourself into thinking a Taliban victory will convince them to stop hosting Al Qaeda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Which country? Yemen? Nigeria? Pakistan? Germany? Britian?

Financed by which country? Saudi Arabia? The U.A.E? Indonesia? Grand Fenwick?

[NJmaverick]

49. There is no doubt we face a daunting challenge

but the size of the task nor the difficulty of the problem should hinder us from making every effort to deal with it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Meanwhile our "dealing with it" is producing more recruits for Al Queda and similar orgs.

What should be an international police effort in dealing with criminals is instead fruitless wars that only increases their power and appeal.

[NJmaverick]

56. There is a good reason the last general was fired

there were mistakes made. That fact, however doesn't preclude us from doing what needs to be done, before we leave.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. And, when will that be? And, how will it be done?

So far, we've accomplished nothing except to reinvigorate the Taliban, not only among the Afghans, but in neighboring countries. The more we attack them, the more resistance. Do we now escalate into the neighboring "Stans" to eliminate their supplies and recruits? See Cambodia for historical results of such efforts.

In fact, to see Vietnam how the policy of fighting a population who doesn't want us in their country works out. Or, ask the Brits how well they fared when they took on the Afghan tribes. Or, the Soviet Union.

[NJmaverick]

67. The time table is set for 18 months (give or take). In that time

the hope is the extra troops will turn the tide of battle and start handing the Taliban defeats. Along with those military efforts there will be efforts made to stabilize and improve the government, bribe or work with the many tribes to undermine Tabilan/Al Qaeda support and a native Afghan army and police force trained and equipped. If all goes well after 18 months the Taliban will once again be weakened to the point that they don't pose a threat and the Afghan government will be strong enough to take care of itself.

There is always a possibility of failure and that at the end of that time we may very well end up defeated, but the stakes are too high not to at least put in the effort.

[tekisui]

88. And, the same line can be parroted again in 18 months.

You would never say the stakes aren't too high, unless the administration told you that.

[tekisui]

22. "al Qaida-linked foreign extremists". If recent events are any indication

anyone who is an al-qeada sympathizer will be lumped into this group. Al-qeada is not a highly organized institution. It has splintered and is all over the world in various forms. They don't follow one leader or share one objective. None of them are good guys, don't get me wrong. But, to suggest that this group in Afghanistan is anymore a threat than a group from Yemen or even one that is home grown is not reality-based.

These are disjointed bands of criminals. Using the full might of the US military against them only serves their cause and gives them legitimacy.

[NJmaverick]

25. The Yemen group has already shown they are a threat, so I don't

think you are helping your case by comparing the Afghanistan Al Qaeda members with those in Yemen.

[tekisui]

26. Well, that can be debated.

They had the material and the motivation, but not the proper training.

Besides, there are threats just as real in Somalia, London, Pakistan, Germany and here in the US.

War is not the proper response to the gangs. War is their recruitment poster. The Yemeni said as much. Just as 9/11 was in response to our presence in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen attempt was in response to our actions there. We will be dealing with the ramifications of Iraq and Afghanistan for decades.

[NJmaverick]

29. Our nation can never secure itself from terrorist attacks

so we need to address the problem both by going after the terrorists as well as hardening ourselves as wbest we can (with in the confines of our civil liberties). Beyond that we need to wage a world wide campaign to win hearts and minds and deny Al Qaeda the popularity they need to continue to recruit new members and gain material support.

[tekisui]

34. Going after the terrorists pre-emptively?

Are you suggesting we attack those who we perceive as potential terrorists? Anywhere in the world they may be?

Terrorism is the weapon. You cannot fight or win a war against a weapon.

If you were serious about a 'campaign to win hearts and minds and deny Al Qaeda the popularity they need to continue to recruit new members and gain material support', you would not be supportive of the military policies currently being used. Hearts and minds are not won over through bombs and strikes.

[NJmaverick]

37. Let's start with your terminology. Terrorism is not a weapon, it's a tactic

Secondly Al Qaeda is neither a tactic nor a weapon, but rather an army who's goal is our nation's destruction and uses terrorism as it's primary tactic in carrying out their mission.


As for dealing with terrorist, it would certainly be fool hardy to wait and respond to attacks. As the old saying goes (and like most old sayings there is more than a grain of truth in them) the best defense is a good offense. In other words where we confirm Al-Qaeda activity and terorist cells we must act to eliminate the threat.

[tekisui]

39. You lose all credibility when call al-qeada an army.

:rofl:

You crack me up.

ETA: That was a glowing endorsement of the Bush Doctrine, BTW.

[NJmaverick]

41. I have no doubt considering your positions are desire based rather than fact based

that you would have real problems with my position. I am sure you laughter is the best defense against the real world intruding into your self made construct.

[tekisui]

44. Pimp your Bush Doctrine elsewhere.

You are the one truly blinded to the reality. You twist like a pretzel to defend the party line. The funny thing is, you don't even know what your next position will be, because you haven't been told yet.

I can't figure out how you are able to turn off critical thought so readily for.....what exactly? Defense of a party or the President?

[NJmaverick]

47. I will not stop telling the truth or stating fact

no matter what bullshit titles you give it. The stakes are too high to listen to your demands that the facts and the truth be silenced.

[tekisui]

48. !

:rofl:

They really got you scared. I'm trying to silence you, but I will expose you and ridicule you for your pretzel logic defense of Bush policies.

[NJmaverick]

50. You can have your last word, because it's clear you having nothing

left to add to the debate. So enjoy your last word and your deluded sense of victory. flame away

[tekisui]

59. When we label every criminal act by Muslim men as terrorsim,

be give an elevated legitimacy to the radical extremists. We give a group or an individual the power to alter our domestic and foreign policies. We hand over our standards and civil liberties to a few disturbed and violent bigots. When we spend days discussing the ideology and any possible, tenuous connection to radical organizations, we expose ourselves to the desperation of acknowledging the political message in the attack.

These are criminal acts, and should be dealt with as such. Labels of terrorism lead to downward spirals and cycles of violence. Labels of criminal activity lead to arrests and good police work.

War will never end criminal acts.

[MNDemNY]

90. You always "run and hide" when your "House" mentality fails you.

:rofl: :rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. Both but mostly defense of the president. It's okay if Obama does it.

:crazy:

[NJmaverick]

55. I am looking for some substance or even a trace of the debate topic

instead I see you are just on some sort of mindless anti-Obama crusade. Well carry on I guess. Be sure to put up your "mission accomplished" banner in your flamer's hall of fame.

[Greyhound]

105. Yeah, he blew his balls off and ruined a perfectly good seat. Be afraid, be very afraid!

How can America recover from a blow like that?
:rofl:

[asdjrocky]

54. The truth doesn't really matter to you much, does it?

[NJmaverick]

58. says the guy who unrecs the facts

:eyes:

I guess that afghan general was lying, as was the author of the article as is the generals in the war as is our President. The only one that isn't lying, according to you, is conviently you.

[asdjrocky]

63. Gee, a general that would lie.

Imagine that. God you are a sad person.

[NJmaverick]

65. I take great comfort in your disdain

as I learned a long time ago one can be judge just as effectively by those that don't agree with you as those that do.

[MNDemNY]

92. Is that a "House" quote????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

61. Please explain to me --

how you defeat an idealogy with a gun? This is a serious question.

[NJmaverick]

62. Ideology is defeated with the winning of hearts and minds

Al Qaeda is defeated by making them unpopular and eliminating them where possible and denying them safe havens.

[MNDemNY]

79. And this is done through occupation and bombing?

:rofl:

[tekisui]

81. Of course, don't you know!

:crazy:

Those that we occupy always come around to love and trust us.

[MNDemNY]

82. What I do know...

is that that poster sounds like he just crawled out of the previous administration.

[NJmaverick]

93. You two are acting like a two person echo chamber

[MNDemNY]

95. ..

:cry: :cry:

[WT Fuheck]

76. We commit more violence in Afghanistan than all other countries

and organizations on earth combined.

[whatchamacallit]

96. Thanks for all your good work

Sincerely,

Dick Cheney

[NJmaverick]

97. Oh I get it and now I am suppose to respond to your post with

thanks for the good work

Osama Bin Laden



That is one silly and immature game if you ask me.

[MNDemNY]

101. No, you're supposed to go back and watch more TV, House is on.

[robdogbucky]

102. Hmmm......

Source: ABC

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al-Qaeda Now in Afghanistan
With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al-Qaeda Fighter
By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Dec. 2, 2009

As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al-Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al-Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al-Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al-Qaeda presence in his speech at West Point, when he said, "al-Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border."

A spokesperson at the White House's National Security Council, Chris Hensman, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-1...





100

How many dishonest brokers/securities dealers on Wall St.?


Shouldn't we redeploy our resources where they will do the most good eliminating those that want to do the most harm to Americans?



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Greyhound]

103. LOL!

LISTEN SHEEPLE!

THE BOGEYMAN IS STILL OUT THERE COMING FOR YOU!

THE PIPELINE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS WAR!

YOUR LIVES ARE NOT BEING WASTED PROTECTING OUR PROFITS!

HAVE FAITH, WE CAN WIN IF ONLY WE SPEND ENOUGH OF YOUR BLOOD AND $$$!

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

ALL IS WELL, THE ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE NOW.

THAT IS ALL, RETURN TO YOUR TV.

[robdogbucky]

104. Dear Bertie Wooster:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html
U.S. official resigns over Afghan war
Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.

A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.
But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.

"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."


Read the whole article at link.



Just more centavos

robdogbucky

[KG]

107. do some still believe 9-11 (official version) was conceived, planned, and controlled from a cave

in one of the most undeveloped countries on the face of the planet? :eyes: