Taliban says: Important stuff

[meesterperfect]

What hand do you masterbate with?
Oh sorry wrong thread.



Afghan Taliban say they pose no threat to the West
Still, if you (NATO and U.S. troops) want to colonize the country of proud and pious Afghans under the baseless pretext of a war on terror, then you should know that our patience will only increase and that we are ready for a long war."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091007/ts_nm/us_afghanistan_taliban_anniversary
To me this is significant.
Theyre actually saying " hey western world, leave us be, if not were ready for whatever you do.

I think this is uncommonly direct and even civil from this group.
Makes me think, perhaps they know theyre beaten and this is an act of desperation.
Or, maybe its simply sincere " look man, get out of our country and region and let us be".

Dont really know if they can be trusted, if we leave it may just become a zone for Al quada to thrive grow and prepare.
probably will.
but then again, cant fight them forever, can we?

Whats your opinion, we'd like to know?

 

[Ace Bandage]

Here's my strategy for eradicating the Taliban/Al Qaeda/The Financial Crisis for good:
1. Put all the names of the other countries in the world into a hat.
2. Every week, we draw a name out of the hat. For this example we drew Argentina in week 1.
3. At the end of this week (they get seven days), the US will bomb/air strike/obliterate the shit out of Buenos Aires unless Osama bin Laden is handed over to our government. In short, the Argentinians have one week to ascertain his location by any means necessary and capture him.
4. If the Argentinians are unsuccessful they are destroyed. We then choose a different country for the next week and the process repeats that way until we have our man, all other countries are destroyed, or nuclear fallout ensues.

That's foolproof :hatsoff:

 

[Hot Mega]

The Taliban has never been our focus or enemy per se...They were/are just in the way of us getting to our enemy and those responsible for plotting and carrying out attacks on the Americans, Westerners and our interests.

The US offer still stands...give up AQ and we'll leave you be...:dunno:

 

[meesterperfect]

does the taliban have that power mega?
maybe you think to much of them kid, theyre not that clever.
I really dont know.

 

[Hot Mega]

does the taliban have that power mega?
maybe you think to much of them kid, theyre not that clever.
I really dont know.

That's a reasonable question considering there are fugitives on the lamb here in the US we can't simply capture and prosecute. However, the Taliban being the regime that controlled Afghanistan could have exiled and made the AQ leadership fugitives after 9/11. They didn't and resisted our efforts to then go after them.

Clearly elements of the Taliban leadership are in communication with AQ and their leadership...if they're in communication with them they should have some knowledge of their whereabouts....cooperate with us in the effort to capture or kill these people and we'll leave you alone Taliban.

In your own link it cites a Taliban statement recounting their "refusal" to hand over AQ because we allegedly didn't provide them with sufficient proof of AQ's involvement in 9/11. I actually find the part about us not providing them with sufficient proof pretty believable frankly.

But the short answer is, yeah..they have that power IMO.

 

[Jagger69]

Perhaps we should just use Andronicus Ry's idea but without the hat drawing. Simply make Pakistan an offer they cannot refuse.

What hand do you masterbate with?
Oh sorry wrong thread.

LOL....I assume the misspelling was intentional there, Mr. Teacher!

 

[meesterperfect]

As i tell my students, i'm good but i'm not a dictionarie

 

[D-rock]

Now if only they would Promise to respect human rights and democracy and acted on it.

 

[meesterperfect]

Wow , 24 hours later I read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack — the second against the Indian Embassy in the past two years — and specified that the Indians were the target.

I guess that answers my question about can they really be trusted.
Killing civilians, what pussies.

This just in:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091008/pl_politico/28066

Well at least Pelosi is sticking to her beliefs, while Reid is like "whatever you Mr PREZ sir".

 

[Hot Mega]

Wow , 24 hours later I read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack — the second against the Indian Embassy in the past two years — and specified that the Indians were the target.

I guess that answers my question about can they really be trusted.
Killing civilians, what pussies.

This just in:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091008/pl_politico/28066

Well at least Pelosi is sticking to her beliefs, while Reid is like "whatever you Mr PREZ sir".

(girk1 forgive me :1orglaugh:o)

Well what did you think you were reading in your OP??? They said they are no (inherent) threat to the west.....they didn't say they were going to stop blowing things up over there. In fact, they said nearly the opposite.

Also, what's shocking about Pelosi's position and Reid's position??? Pelosi is a HOR Speaker member from Uber "progressive", anti-war (in any event) San Franciscio. Reid is Senator from the generally "conservative" state of Nevada. The obviousness of their likely positions couldn't be more in plain view.:dunno:

I'll say it again, anti-war elites are no different from pro war yokels in that neither understands why warfare is necessary sometimes.

 

[DreamSparrow]

I've complete distaste for many of the Taliban's ideals but these comments aren't in any way new. I know the mainstream media don't report it, but it still shocks me how little is known about the people we're supposed to be fighting in Afghanistan.

Despite the conflation of the two in the popular media, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are not the same. The Taliban governed Afghanistan; al-Qaeda were a militia that operated within its borders that had an international agenda. The current Taliban are a disparate group with little hierarchy or formal organisation.

There are lots of facts being lost in all of this as history is being rewritten. For example, are people aware that the roving ambassador for the Taliban, Syed Rahmatullahi Hashimi, made a speech at the University of Southern California in March 2001 (NOTE THE DATE), where he stated that the Taliban were willing to prosecute Osama Bin Laden for the Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings?

We have said, that if really this man [Bin Laden] is involved in the Kenya/Tanzania acts, if anybody can give us proof or evidence about his involvement in these horrific acts, we will punish him. Nobody gave us evidence.

We put him on trial for 45 days and nobody gave us any kind of evidence. The fact is that the United States told us they did not believe in our judicial system. We were surprised as to what kind of judicial system they have. They showed us as to what they are doing to the people they just tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial*, even if one of us is a criminal here, the police is not going to blow his house, he must go to a court first. So, that was rejected. Our first proposal, despite all these things, was rejected. They said they will not believe in our judicial system, and we must give him to New York.

The second proposal that we gave after the rejection of this first proposal we gave was, we are ready to accept an international monitoring group to come into Afghanistan and monitor this man s activities in Afghanistan. So that he does nothing. Even that he has no telecommunications [--]. That proposal was also rejected.

And the third proposal we gave, six months ago, was that we were ready, that we were ready to try or accept a third Islamic country s decision, or the trial of [--] in a third Islamic country, with consent of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that was also rejected.

So we don t know, as to what is the problem behind. If bin Laden was the only issue, we are still very open minded, and for the fourth time, I'm here, with a letter from my leadership that I'm going to submit to the State Department hoping that they will resolve the problem. But I don't think so [that] they'll solve the problem. Because we think, and I personally think now, that maybe the United States is looking for a Boogy Man always.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080216155836/http://www.robert-fisk.com/taliban_lecture.htm

*Referring to a mission ordered under Clinton, where 75 cruise missiles were fired on a religious school in an assassination attempt on Bin Laden in 1998. Bin Laden survived, but many others were killed.

Are people aware that in June 2001, the Mullah Omar, commander of the Taliban, formally repudiated Bin Laden's credentials in passing judgement on the fate of Americans?

Any fatwa (Islamic holy decree) issued by Osama Bin Laden, America's most wanted alleged terrorist, declaring "jihad," or holy war, against the United States and ordering Muslims to kill Americans is "null and void," according to Taliban's supreme leader.

"Bin Laden is not entitled to issue fatwas as he did not complete the mandatory 12 years of Koranic studies to qualify for the position of mufti," said Mullah Mohammad Omar Akhund, known to every Afghan as amir-ul-mumineen (supreme leader of the faithful).

He also said the Islamic Emirate, as the Taliban regime calls itself, has "offered the United States and the United Nations to place international monitors to observe Osama pending the resolution of the case, but so far we have received no reply."

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...r-bin-Laden-Null-and-void/UPI-70171008031323/

Are people aware that there was a major deal on the table for Osama Bin Laden's extradition in October 2001 which somehow managed to fall apart with the flimsiest of reasoning? Bullshit - are you trying to tell me that they couldn't manage to provide enough security for the most wanted man on the planet?

A SECRET plan to put Osama bin Laden on trial in Pakistan has been blocked after President Musharraf said he could not guarantee his safety, it was disclosed yesterday.

Suggested by the Taliban's closest allies in Pakistan, it was a last-ditch attempt to satisfy Western demands for bin Laden's surrender while averting a war and ensuring the fanatical regime's survival.

A high-level delegation led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad, head of Pakistan's most important Islamic party, the Jamaat-i-Islami, met Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, in secret on Monday. Omar agreed that bin Laden should be taken to Pakistan, where he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar.

The proposal, which had bin Laden's approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be placed before an international tribunal.

The court would decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../1358464/Pakistan-blocks-bin-Laden-trial.html

There is plenty of evidence that the Taliban were solely focussed on their own region of the world and had no interest in a war with America. They were even willing to put Bin Laden on trial or extradite him but there was no attempt at co-operation from the Clinton and Bush II administrations.

 

[Friday on my mind]

"Obama national security adviser downplays threat of renewed al-Qaida haven in Afghanistan"
http://blog.taragana.com/n/obama-na...renewed-al-qaida-haven-in-afghanistan-186667/


The short of what this former general says is that he estimates there are less than 100 active Al Queda in Afghanistan now.The rest and Bin laden all are now in Pakistan.

We are also hearing a lot about how the recent election in Afghanistan was totally fradualant and that the govt we installed under Karzei (that the name? lol) is rampant with coruption as well profiting off the poppy trade just like the taliban does.,

Afganistan is and has been a very tribal country where an effective legitimate cental govt probably is not in character for them as well.

Obama I hope after consideration will come to the conclusion that more troops is not going to help matters and in fact we should withdraw all foreign forces ASAP.

As senator Jim Webb of VA (former marine, head of Navy) said today on C-span we can be effective against terrorists without having vast infrastructures (troops) in country.He cited a recent operation where the US military went into somalia took out some Al Queda and then got right out.

Those kinds of tactics make a lot more sense than being bogged down some 9 years like we have been in afghanistan.We are just wasting our resources and money and have accomplished very little to show for all that expense.As I have said before Afghanistan is famous for being a place foreigners have not been able to bend to their wills in the past and I see mno reason that thisis or will be any different.The brits,the russians learned this the hard way as we are going to do if we pursue such.


Maybe we had a chance in the beginning of this to accomplish something and win over some Afghans to our side but the experts now say that opportunity was lost when we diverted our resources to Iraq. And that the Afghans will now not be willing to trust we are really commited to them and majority now want us and the rest of the foreign troops to get the heck out of their country.

 

[meesterperfect]

(girk1 forgive me :1orglaugh:o)

Well what did you think you were reading in your OP??? They said they are no (inherent) threat to the west.....they didn't say they were going to stop blowing things up over there. In fact, they said nearly the opposite.

Also, what's shocking about Pelosi's position and Reid's position??? Pelosi is a HOR Speaker member from Uber "progressive", anti-war (in any event) San Franciscio. Reid is Senator from the generally "conservative" state of Nevada. The obviousness of their likely positions couldn't be more in plain view.:dunno:

I'll say it again, anti-war elites are no different from pro war yokels in that neither understands why warfare is necessary sometimes.

:blowjob:Girk
Why do you always quote me and then talk about something totally different from what Ive said?

Did I say shocking? Did I say I thought they were going to stop blowing things up?
Very combative.

 

[georges]

"Obama national security adviser downplays threat of renewed al-Qaida haven in Afghanistan"
http://blog.taragana.com/n/obama-na...renewed-al-qaida-haven-in-afghanistan-186667/


The short of what this former general says is that he estimates there are less than 100 active Al Queda in Afghanistan now.The rest and Bin laden all are now in Pakistan.

We are also hearing a lot about how the recent election in Afghanistan was totally fradualant and that the govt we installed under Karzei (that the name? lol) is rampant with coruption as well profiting off the poppy trade just like the taliban does.,

Afganistan is and has been a very tribal country where an effective legitimate cental govt probably is not in character for them as well.

Obama I hope after consideration will come to the conclusion that more troops is not going to help matters and in fact we should withdraw all foreign forces ASAP.

As senator Jim Webb of VA (former marine, head of Navy) said today on C-span we can be effective against terrorists without having vast infrastructures (troops) in country.He cited a recent operation where the US military went into somalia took out some Al Queda and then got right out.

Those kinds of tactics make a lot more sense than being bogged down some 9 years like we have been in afghanistan.We are just wasting our resources and money and have accomplished very little to show for all that expense.As I have said before Afghanistan is famous for being a place foreigners have not been able to bend to their wills in the past and I see mno reason that thisis or will be any different.The brits,the russians learned this the hard way as we are going to do if we pursue such.


Maybe we had a chance in the beginning of this to accomplish something and win over some Afghans to our side but the experts now say that opportunity was lost when we diverted our resources to Iraq. And that the Afghans will now not be willing to trust we are really commited to them and majority now want us and the rest of the foreign troops to get the heck out of their country.

Your governement is more wasting money on trying to implement health care and social security as well as trying to help poor people who don't really want to integrate themselves. Cutting and canceling some important army programs are the dumbest decisions that only an idiot like obama could take.
Withdrawing of Afghanistan will have some very bad consequences, once you have decided to attack Al Quaedians and capture them, you have to finish your job to the end.You must be really void of any sense of realism to think that the less than 100 active Al Quaeda members are not representing a danger to the USA.

 

[HeartBroker]

Theyre actually saying " hey western world, leave us be, if not were ready for whatever you do.

If I remember correctly (and I do) this is probably the wrong answer!
:eek:

 

[jasonk282]

^ awesome sig!

 

[Hot Mega]

Wow , 24 hours later I read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack — the second against the Indian Embassy in the past two years — and specified that the Indians were the target.

I guess that answers my question about can they really be trusted.
Killing civilians, what pussies.

This just in:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091008/pl_politico/28066

Well at least Pelosi is sticking to her beliefs, while Reid is like "whatever you Mr PREZ sir".

:blowjob:Girk
Why do you always quote me and then talk about something totally different from what Ive said?

Did I say shocking? Did I say I thought they were going to stop blowing things up?
Very combative.

What points did you think you were making in that post then???

Most reasonable people reading it would gather you were under one impression or reserved some question based on the original story you posted in starting this thread. The story today however has either removed some doubt in something you questioned or the original story lead you to believe one thing and this new story has influenced you to believe something else.

My question to you then is what in the world did you think you were reading in the first story (assuming you actually read the entire article) that made you believe this next article isn't consistent with what was laid out in the first??

The next thing you imply is that Pelosi is sticking to her beliefs while Reid is somehow being a "sell out" to the President. They both are representing the sentiments of their constituencies. Where is the revelation other than you apparently didn't understand the constituency Reid serves?

 

[titsrock]

I think the reality is is that we don't have the troops or the money to afford to stay in Afghan or Iraq anymore.

The "surge" was supposed to secure Iraq. It did. For a couple of months. Does anyone feel Iraq is a safe country today?

Even if we bump up our troops in Afghan +40,000...it's just a temporary solution. So we take out a few more Taliban. Maybe Afghanistan will *quiet* down for a couple of months. Then what?

When will our Generals and President start to talk about ending these wars?

 

[Hot Mega]

I think the reality is is that we don't have the troops or the money to afford to stay in Afghan or Iraq anymore.

The "surge" was supposed to secure Iraq. It did. For a couple of months. Does anyone feel Iraq is a safe country today?

Even if we bump up our troops in Afghan +40,000...it's just a temporary solution. So we take out a few more Taliban. Maybe Afghanistan will *quiet* down for a couple of months. Then what?

When will our Generals and President start to talk about ending these wars?

Well the goal in Afghanistan is to break AQ...not necessarily kill a bunch of Taliban. Now the Taliban is also being killed as a result of their allegiance to AQ and being in the way of our getting them. But the Taliban are right, they really don't pose a threat to the west and as such they're not our enemy per se....AQ does and they are though.

 

[Friday on my mind]

I think the reality is is that we don't have the troops or the money to afford to stay in Afghan or Iraq anymore.

The "surge" was supposed to secure Iraq. It did. For a couple of months. Does anyone feel Iraq is a safe country today?

Even if we bump up our troops in Afghan +40,000...it's just a temporary solution. So we take out a few more Taliban. Maybe Afghanistan will *quiet* down for a couple of months. Then what?

When will our Generals and President start to talk about ending these wars?

We have been there twice as long as WW2 now.Bernie Sanders (one of the best politicians in america) said today he is going to ask on the senate floor ,what have we achieved,what will we achieve by staying longer and do we have another 100 billion to spend on this? Said to the girl on C-span, "I don't want to be sitting here 10 years from now asking same questions Susan".

And I agree when will Obama start talking about ending this war.If he doesn't get us meaningfull health care reform,out of iraq and Afghanistan, what the hell difference really is that then a McCain Presidency would have been?