T Nation

Taliban Tells Obama to F** Off


#1

http://in.reuters.com/article/email/idINIndia-38433020090310

LOL! Yet another embarrassing moment, there are so many! Let's have a moment of silence...It just speaks for itself.


#2

A lot of people are very naive about Jihadists like the Taliban. Make no mistake, they are in it to win it.

That we would even think to talk to them demonstrates to them that we have gone soft and we are not willing to sacrifice for what we believe in.

The next four to eight years are going to be very dangerous now because the fools in power have encouraged them by showing so much weakness.

To all of you who thought that Obama was going to make things better. Better than Bush made them. I told you so.


#3

Sounds like he’s just making all the right moves in the eyes of the world and the history books.

“We tried to negotiate”

“We offered them solutions and they didn’t want to co-operate”

then you’ll hear

“We had no choice but to use force”

I think out of anyone, your Government is the most clued in to how determined the Taliban is.


#4

Whats this? You mean the Taliban don’t believe in change?


#5

[quote]stockzy wrote:
Sounds like he’s just making all the right moves in the eyes of the world and the history books.

“We tried to negotiate”

“We offered them solutions and they didn’t want to co-operate”

then you’ll hear

“We had no choice but to use force”

I think out of anyone, your Government is the most clued in to how determined the Taliban is.[/quote]

No, the world was not looking to the stupid idea of negotiating with “moderate Taliban.”

It took a couple of hundred pairs of American boots on the ground – together of course with Afghanis and with Peace Through Superior Airpower, courtesy of the US Air Force – to rout the Taliban.

So of course it need not be the case that the Taliban must inevitably regain power.

But now it may all too likely be impossible to prevent the Taliban from resuming power.

I was concerned there was risk, now, of a more spectacular American defeat by sending in more troops to, on account of requirements/restrictions from Washington, no success and having thus an even more dramatic loss; relative to that, if Obama merely snatches defeat from the jaws of victory that would be not as bad.


#6

Reagan floods Afghanistan with weapons and “Mujahideen” and he’s a hero.

Obama merely talks to them and he should be ridiculed as the traitor he is.


#7

Of course, Lixy will now demonstrate his usual grasp of reality by showing us how the Mujahideen – btw that is a completely accepted spelling, so your attempt at ridiculing another with a spelling flame just continues your work in making yourself look dumb – had been in any way supporting terrorism against the US, against US allies, or in any way doing anything contrary to US interests. Or whether their opposition to the Soviets or activities at the time were against the interests of the Afghani people.


#8

He flooded them with weapons to drive out the Russians who were exterminating the Afghan people. Not our fault they turned on their benefactors.


#9

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course, Lixy will now demonstrate his usual grasp of reality by showing us how the Mujahideen – btw that is a completely accepted spelling, so your attempt at ridiculing another with a spelling flame just continues your work in making yourself look dumb [/quote]

You’re the one making yourself look dumb, seeing how I’m the first to use the term in the thread. I put it in quotes because it’s one of those terms just about everybody claims. “Insurgents” in Iraq uses it to describe themselves. Iraqis shooting at the “insurgents” use it. The Al-Sauds use it. Ben Laden & co use it. The Talibans use it. The “moderates” Obama reached out to use it.

Screw that! “The US”, “US allies” or “US interests” had no business wrecking Afghanistan or unleashing that Taliban golem.

Mind your own freakin’ business next time.

I see.

Pinochet was Chile’s savior, Suharto worked to protect “the interests” of the Indonesians and Israel actually did Palestinians a favor.

You must be on dope or something. “The interests of the Afghani people” never mattered. It’s all about “US interests” and you know it.


#10

Not a matter of looking dumb, but rather a matter of generally not reading all your posts. They get read if they are the last in the thread, but I don’t go back and read any that are further back. Not ideal, but how I do it where after a while I decide things are pretty predictable.

Peculiar that you see something odd or remarkable about the common reference to the persons in question as the Mujahideen, but there’s no shortage of peculiar and odd in what you see, so I guess that just adds to the collection.

As to your concept that Soviet oppression was in the interests of the Afghani people and their liberation from it was a bad thing, frankly it’s no surprise that you would think that.


#11

[quote]lixy wrote:
Reagan floods Afghanistan with weapons and “Mujahideen” and he’s a hero.

Obama merely talks to them and he should be ridiculed as the traitor he is.[/quote]

Over 25 years ago they were friends, ie fighting the Russians who were our enemies. We wanted to break the back of communism which this helped to do.

You really are this clueless. How’s the price of oil doing?


#12

[quote]lixy wrote:
Reagan floods Afghanistan with weapons and “Mujahideen” and he’s a hero.

Obama merely talks to them and he should be ridiculed as the traitor he is.[/quote]

Stawman…Do you ever tire of arguing from the point of fallacy?


#13

[quote]stockzy wrote:
Sounds like he’s just making all the right moves in the eyes of the world and the history books.

“We tried to negotiate”

“We offered them solutions and they didn’t want to co-operate”

then you’ll hear

“We had no choice but to use force”

I think out of anyone, your Government is the most clued in to how determined the Taliban is.[/quote]

You give him waaay to much credit…If he didn’t compound mistake with more and worse mistakes, that might be believable. Trust me on this, he just fucked up…Ironic how all the major media pulled the story from the front page very quickly.
Imagine if Bush said that?


#14

[quote]pat wrote:
stockzy wrote:
Sounds like he’s just making all the right moves in the eyes of the world and the history books.

“We tried to negotiate”

“We offered them solutions and they didn’t want to co-operate”

then you’ll hear

“We had no choice but to use force”

I think out of anyone, your Government is the most clued in to how determined the Taliban is.

You give him waaay to much credit…If he didn’t compound mistake with more and worse mistakes, that might be believable. Trust me on this, he just fucked up…Ironic how all the major media pulled the story from the front page very quickly.
Imagine if Bush said that?[/quote]

It would be the talk of the town for weeks. Believe me, this guy will fuck up and they won’t be able to switch to something else. Here in Pa. I don’t see any obama voters anymore, hahaha!


#15

The Obama Bi(n la)den ticket will get much more leeway from the press, inevitably.


#16

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not a matter of looking dumb, but rather a matter of generally not reading all your posts. They get read if they are the last in the thread, but I don’t go back and read any that are further back. Not ideal, but how I do it where after a while I decide things are pretty predictable. [/quote]

That was my first post. Besides, the issue was rather about “another” using the term and misspelling it (if that’s even possible when transcribing from Arabic).

Read my posts or don’t. I couldn’t possibly care less. But when you respond to them, try to read what was written before. That would stir the debate away from squabbles such as this one, and into something more constructive.

Yes, I find something remarkable in this “terrorism”, “freedom fighter”, “insurgency” or “peace” newspeak.

However, my post was not about that. But way to linger on double-quotes, to get out of addressing the real issue: Stupid partisanship!

I never implied that. It’s Washington sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong that I think is “a bad thing”.

But that’s a hard concept to understand for the Masters of the Known Universe, isn’t it?


#17

Let’s just strap in for an eight year freakshow, folks. We’ve elected an arrogant, America hating race-baiter president. What did anyone expect? He was the most liberal member of the most liberal senate of all time? We were hoping for Barry Goldwater instead of Barry Obama?

The press lied for him and our society’s losers turned out to vote for their goody-bag. And they’re getting it. Free money for having kids you can’t support! Homes you dont’ actually have to pay for! Free health care! Jobs! A cure for cancer! HOPE! At long last, HOPE!

We KNEW he hated America. We KNEW he hated the UK. Read his freaking books! We knew he’d done drugs, you know, a ‘little blow’. We knew he surrounded himself with America-hating terrorists. And we expected him to NOT try and be pals with Hamas (he gave 'em a billion dollars), the Taliban, et al?

We got what we deserve for being a nation of idiots. Got hope? Hell…I don’t even see those t-shirts any more. I’ll probably bust out laughing if I do.


#18

How to Tell if You’re Taliban:

"10. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

  1. You own a $300 machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can?t afford shoes.

  2. You have more wives than teeth.

  3. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

  4. You can?t think of anyone you HAVEN?T declared Jihad against.

  5. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry ammunition in your robe.

  6. You?ve never been asked, ?Does this burka make my butt look big??

  7. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

  8. A common compliment is, ?I love what you?ve done with your cave.?

And, the NUMBER ONE SIGN you might be a member of the Taliban:

  1. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon unclean."

The link is gone. Above is a c & p.


#19

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
Let’s just strap in for an eight year freakshow, folks. We’ve elected an arrogant, America hating race-baiter president. What did anyone expect? He was the most liberal member of the most liberal senate of all time? We were hoping for Barry Goldwater instead of Barry Obama?

The press lied for him and our society’s losers turned out to vote for their goody-bag. And they’re getting it. Free money for having kids you can’t support! Homes you dont’ actually have to pay for! Free health care! Jobs! A cure for cancer! HOPE! At long last, HOPE!

We KNEW he hated America. We KNEW he hated the UK. Read his freaking books! We knew he’d done drugs, you know, a ‘little blow’. We knew he surrounded himself with America-hating terrorists. And we expected him to NOT try and be pals with Hamas (he gave 'em a billion dollars), the Taliban, et al?

We got what we deserve for being a nation of idiots. Got hope? Hell…I don’t even see those t-shirts any more. I’ll probably bust out laughing if I do.[/quote]

Amen brother.


#20

[quote]lixy wrote:
Read my posts or don’t. I couldn’t possibly care less. But when you respond to them, try to read what was written before. That would stir the debate away from squabbles such as this one, and into something more constructive.[/quote]

Yes, it would be ideal to read every post in a thread before replying to any of them, but it isn’t going to happen, at least in my case. Back in the Usenet days, the news reader I used was very good and convenient, and simply by hitting the space bar repeatedly I could read everything very, very quickly. On this board it is a slower process; additionally for some reason I find the layout and colors to slow reading.

So while what you ask would be ideal, occasionally there will be cases where I will take something that on a stand-alone basis has one appearance, but if one scoured the entire thread one would dedude “Ah hah, no one used this word before but Lixy, therefore he is not making a point of the spelling,” unforunately I don’t find it practical. Surely such occasioanal and easily and immediately corrected misunderstanding is not such a big deal.

[quote]As to your concept that Soviet oppression was in the interests of the Afghani people and their liberation from it was a bad thing, frankly it’s no surprise that you would think that.

I never implied that. It’s Washington sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong that I think is “a bad thing”.

But that’s a hard concept to understand for the Masters of the Known Universe, isn’t it?[/quote]

I just have the feeling, as a very very high odds bet, that over time you’ve posted and elsewhere written or expressed in any way far less hard feelings and objections to the Soviets invading Afghanistan and grinding the people under their boots – or ANY other Soviet action – than you have against the United States taking actions resulting in peoples being freed from dictators.

Somehow the first sort of thing just doesn’t seem to register with you very much, while the latter plainly sticks in your craw a lot.

I was simply noting this pattern which I’m sure many others have noted from your posts.

Anyway, as you view all our actions in and regarding Afghanistan to be “sticking our nose where it doesn’t belong,” paraphrase, and regard all such actions (as you characterize them) of ours as bad, then I was not wrong in saying that you viewed our action in question helping to free the Afghani people from the Soviets as bad.

Or will you now say it was good? And have something nice to say about what America does for a change? (Seems to me you’d be contradicting yourself if you did, but if you wish to clarify and your answer indeed is that it was good, then very well. ???)