Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
What does "finishing the job" look like?
Afghanistan will revert to being a terrorist haven after withdrawal, US report warns
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
What does "finishing the job" look like?
A nation capable of defending it's citizens and institutions from terrorist attacks and that can defend it's borders. Pretty basic stuff actually.
Is that what I claimed shit-for-brains?
I agree; assuming Obama pulls us out as promised and we ignore it for another decade. Painfully stupid; but that is what you get from Liberal politicians who pander to ignorance.
Don't mistake maineman for honest dialogue; he just wants to engage in the circle of stupidity once again.
maineman
Banned
were you just being snarkily argumentative without a real point then?
If it is not what you are saying, why would you find it difficult to believe that one portion of the Pakistani government would routinely and naturally inform their superiors in that government of intelligence such as OBL's whereabouts? Do you think that the Pakistani military was somehow in cahoots with an organization (AQ) whose very raison d'être was the destruction of the secular nation states in the region such as their own?
And if you agree that AQ was and remains a threat to any and all secular nation states in the middle east, wouldn't any of those states giving AQ nuclear weapons be just about as stupid as not caring where their leaders were so that they could keep tabs on them?
I am curious.... sometimes I get the feeling that the space between your ears is a giant vacuum... but other times, I wonder just how much shit you can actually pack up in there?
For the uninformed and those on the left with giant vacums between their ears:
Terror Group Recruits From Pakistan’s “Best and Brightest”
April 4, 2013, 3:38 pm ET by Sebastian Rotella ProPublica
Imagine a terrorist group that recruits tens of thousands of young men from the same neighborhoods and social networks as the Pakistani military. A group whose well-educated recruits defy the idea that poverty and ignorance breed extremism. A group whose fighters include relatives of a politician, a senior Army officer and a director of Pakistan’s Atomic Energy Commission.
That is the disconcerting reality of Lashkar-i-Taiba, one of the world’s most dangerous militant organizations, according to a study released today by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y. The report helps explain why Pakistan has resisted international pressure to crack down on Lashkar after it killed 166 people in Mumbai — six U.S. citizens included — and came close to sparking conflict between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India.
Pakistan's New Generation of Terrorists
Author: Zachary Laub, Associate Writer
Updated: November 18, 2013
Pakistani authorities have long had ties to domestic militant groups that help advance the country's core foreign policy interests, namely in connection with Afghanistan and India. Since Islamabad joined Washington as an ally in the post-9/11 "war on terror," analysts have accused Pakistan's security and intelligence services of playing a "double game," tolerating if not outright aiding militant groups killing NATO troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan denies these charges.
Concerns about Pakistan's commitment to counterterrorism heightened in May 2011, when U.S. commandos killed al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden at a compound not far from Islamabad. Leadership elements of al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban have made Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal areas their home, where they often work with a wide variety of Islamist insurgent groups like the Haqqani Network. Some groups have used Pakistan as a staging ground for attacks in Afghanistan, while others have pursued domestic targets, including schools and houses of worship, as well as organs of the state.
Does Islamabad have a good strategy for dealing with these groups and addressing underlying grievances? Are there links between the Pakistani military and the groups?
It’s more accurate to speak of a strategy emanating from Rawalpindi—where the Pakistan army is headquartered—than Islamabad, the seat of the civilian government. The army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) continue to differentiate between militants deemed potentially useful to the state and those considered a threat to its existence.
This double game is now known as the “good jihadi, bad jihadi” dichotomy in which the army and ISI protect the former while aiming to annihilate the latter. In between the two extremes there are a host of outfits and the army and ISI might shield some of their individual members while going after others. Pakistan rightly receives criticism for this policy domestically and internationally.
While Rawalpindi continues to cherry-pick enemies, Pakistani militants are becoming less discriminating. Some members of the old militant guard may still practice restraint, but the newer generation is less bound by rules of decorum. Thus, the army and ISI might still be able to exert influence over senior leaders in certain organizations, but this does not always filter down to rank-and-file members. It’s also important to note that small networks of radicalized individuals—sometimes only tangentially related to the historical militant outfits in Pakistan—are developing. In the past, the army and ISI knew who these actors were. That may be less true today.
http://carnegieendowment.org/2010/05/27/terrorism-out-of-pakistan/775
Last edited:
No, I was actually pointing out your versions of what I posted are dishonest fabrications; are you confused by plain English or do I need to write it in Jahadist langauge? Dunce.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
Now who's erupting with talking points and not engaging in actual debate? oh, its' you.
Let's discuss being snarky; here was your initial dimwitted snarky comment:
Originally Posted by maineman
and we all know that the military is not associated in any way with the government of Pakistan.
My response to your snarky dishonest comment:
And of course we all know that the military would tell the Civilian Government everything they know or that members of that military have not assisted members of terrorist groups in the past.
Which you then interpret to mean:
Originally Posted by maineman
So... According to you, you have proof that the paki army withheld info about OBL's location from the civilians in government. Link up, please.
This is why I find you such a repugnant dishonest asshole; you acuse others of being snarky and then you erupt with this kind of dishonest stupidity.
Now run along and engage someone else in your grade school bullshit dunce.
Last edited:
How is what I stated talking points? You asked and I responded. You don't like the answer so you whine and bitch about it?
You're an incredible dunce equal to the stupidity that erupts from the Mainetard.
Run along and piss on someone else's pant leg you mutt.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
Your statements just belies an overly simplistic view. Maybe the population sympathizes more than they let on about the "terrorists". Did you ever consider that our generally invasive attitude and occupation engenders and actually creates the "terrorism". Of course you know that's true, but your desire to be a compulsive liar dominates your discourse.
Wrong; it belies the reality. Of course if you think running with our tail between our legs and leaving the population at the mercy of brutal terrorists like the Taliban is good policy, you have the same low intelligence of our Commander and Dunce Obama.
Perhaps your statements belies an overly stupid view?
And just maybe, the population wants us to stay until their fledgling Government can stand on its own? Do you have any documented evidence that the majority of the population sympathizes and wants the brutality of another Taliban regime? Or are you talking out of your butt again?
And just maybe you’re being a dunce who just wants to argue for the sake of argument?
Gee; did you ever consider that you might be parroting terrorist talking points?
Try to engage your brain for a moment; what would be better for the people of Afghanistan; (1) a civil war with the brutal Taliban taking power and implementing their special brand of brutal dictatorship; or (2) continue developing a Democracy where the people get to choose who leads them?
What I know is true is that you are a reprehensible dunce who thinks he has all the answers yet asks questions so he can be an insulting dimwit. This is why most of the time I choose to ignore you. I thought this time you were being genuine; silly me.
Afghanistan Now: ‘The People Do Not Want to Go Back’
Come from the Shadows: The Long and Lonely Struggle for Peace in Afghanistan
Terry Glavin (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2011)
……..
Glavin, a cofounder of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee and a veteran of the Canadian left, addresses most of his arguments to his compatriots, particularly those in Canada’s antiwar movement who have come to view the intervention as a colonial enterprise and the Taliban as a sort of national liberation force. Glavin’s central thesis is that these liberal clichés—not to mention the despairing discourse of the right—have a profound impact on a country slowly reemerging from the darkness. As the troops-out-now camp becomes ever more vociferous in Washington, Brussels, and Toronto, Glavin contends, Afghans grow disheartened in the face of the very real challenges they face, jeopardizing the country’s hard-fought progress. To make this case, Glavin marshals the voices of dozens of Afghan democrats, foreign NGO activists, and even Canadian troops, all of whom suggest, in so many words, that both the antiwar left and the new isolationist right are dangerously mistaken. “People who say the foreign soldiers should go away, they do not know what they are saying,” Mahboob Shah tells Glavin. “Yes, it should be Afghans who decide, but we decided that the world should come to us, as a brother.”
For Glavin, it is precisely the spirit of brotherhood and solidarity that should animate the West’s engagement with Afghanistan. His is an appeal based on the recognition that, after the attacks of September 11th, the fate of the West and that of the Afghan people have become inextricably intertwined. To immediately abandon Afghanistan, as a growing bipartisan consensus now urges, would be to traumatically sever these links and to abdicate a responsibility the West promised to shoulder. Afghanistan has made significant gains in the face of enormous challenges and, as MP Sabrina Saqib tells Glavin, “the people do not want to go back.” At the very least, the decision to rush out of Afghanistan should be based on a more sympathetic and holistic accounting of both the country’s post-intervention development and the human costs of withdrawal. In our haste to get out, are we willing to let the Afghans go back?
If that cruel debate night in Tampa is any indication, the answer is, likely, yes. When the CNN camera briefly cut to questioner Hekmati’s face reacting to Huntsman and Perry’s remarks, her pain showed. In the months and years ahead, many more Afghans, both inside the country and across the diaspora, will be listening to our conversations about their homeland, seeking cues about the seriousness of our commitments. Perhaps we should listen more closely to theirs.
Sohrab Ahmari is an Iranian-American journalist and coeditor of Arab Spring Dreams, a forthcoming anthology of essays by young Mideast reformers.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/afghanistan-now-‘-people-do-not-want-go-back’
In 2010, 47% of respondents say that the country is moving in the right direction.
This figure has been increasing since 2008 (38%) and 2009 (42%).The main reason cited for optimism continues to be the perception of good security,mentioned by 38% of respondents who say the country is moving in the right direction. This number has decreased from 44% in 2009. A little more than a third of respondents in 2010 also cite construction and rebuilding (35%), and opening of schools for girls (15%) remains the third reason for optimism in 2010, although this has decreased from 21% in 2009.
Eighty-one percent of respondents say they agree with the democratic principle of equal rights for all groups to participation and representation. This figure has remained stable since 2009, but does not reverse the declining trend which has been evident since 2007 (from 90% in 2006 and 2007 to 84% in 2008, 80% in 2009 and 81% in 2010). However, levels of support for allowing peaceful opposition rose significantly in 2010 to 83% after falling consistently from 84% in 2006 to 81% in 2007, 78 in 2008 and 77% in 2009.
In terms of local amenities and services, respondents continue to report the greatest satisfaction with the availability of education for children (68%), water for drinking (63%) and the ability to move safely in local areas (63%). Just under half of respondents are satisfied with services related to water for irrigation (49%) and clinics and hospitals (46%). Respondents are least satisfied with the availability of jobs and electricity. Seventy two percent say the availability of jobs in their local area is bad and 66% say the same about the supply of electricity.
Satisfaction with the performance of the national government has risen steadily over the last three years (from 67% in 2008 to 71% in 2009 and 73% in 2010). The 2010 survey records the highest levels of positive assessments of national government performance since 2007 in almost all regions. Satisfaction with the performance of central government in policy and service delivery is consistently highest in the East, North West, and Central/Kabul regions. The most commonly mentioned achievements of the current government are a better education system (27%), reconstruction (24%) and establishing peace and security (24%). The most commonly mentioned government failings are administrative corruption (37%), insecurity (30%), lack of job opportunities (17%) and weak government (10%).
http://asiafoundation.org/publications/pdf/797
maineman
Banned
There is a world of difference between stating that SOME in the Pakistani Army may have conflicting allegiances and suggesting that the entire intelligence apparatus of the Pakistani Army is totally treasonous and working in conflict with the best interests of their government and their nation. The latter is the only way that OBL buys a home within spitting distance of Pakistan's version of West Point and the highest levels of their government are unaware of it.
Who made that argument dishonest dunce?
So your claim is that the ONLY way OBL could have built a fortress compound so close to a military installation could only occur with the total treason and compromising of the entire intelligence apparatus of the Pakistani Army?
That's quite the claim commander shit-for-brains. Any other fabrications you would like to attribute to people?
And please don't think that I am taking any of the utter bullshit you spam the forum with seriously; the epic stupidity that erupts from your keyboard is not the stuff to be mistaken for honest debate. I am just pointing at you and laughing.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It is no secret that the ISI had and probably still has Taliban sympathies.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...chief-gul-denies-us-accusations-a-708592.html
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
Last edited:
maineman
Banned
you really have a difficult time with english, it seems. I said that it would have been impossible for him to build his compound adjacent to Pakistan's West Point AND HAVE HIS PRESENCE BE UNKNOWN TO THE ENTIRE PAKISTANI ARMY. I am saying they certainly knew he was there, and knowing where he was was a valuable piece of information.
maineman
Banned
Taliban and Al Qaeda are not synonymous, nor are their goals always congruent.
No, I just have difficulty dealing with your special brand of stupid.
Carry on Comrade.
Where did he infer that they were?