Afghanistan - What is the objective?

This is rich, given that a few lines later, we get this gem of prose:

What a wonderful piece of rubbish prose.

Seriously, can you say anything simply and clearly, or must you -- for rhetoric's sake -- lob all this opaque prose at people, with its continual clauses? Say whatever you like about your inane comments all those months ago, but the simple fact is in an effort to pin you down, I asked you a direct fucking question about your assessment the actions you were pontificating about.

Here, I should note that pinning you down on anything is a fucking chore, because you intentionally load your posts with vagueness that allow you to squirm this way and that. You say things, deny them later. Or you claim I misunderstood, etc. Hence the questions, which you are loath to answer. I can, for example, remember putting something to you four or five times and you never answering.

Why?

Because the game was up, that's why.

When the ground beneath your feet crumbles, you run to new ground, right?

Meanwhile, you spend pages pontificating about something you don't even believe in? Whatever. You were asked what you thought of your chum and your response was: "It isn't ruled out immediately by the visible evidence."

But how can you say that, if you really think it's a pack of nonsense? That is something is either reasonable or not. Your response is to try to chart a middle ground that allows you to answer either way, given what context you are answering in. It's a childish trick, and I tired of it -- and you and your unsubstantiated rants -- long ago. I probably have posted more information and data in this one thread than you have in the three or four years I have been posting on this site.


So you didn't rule it out as something unreasonable or unpractical, despite the fact that it is.

You know what?

Post something about the relative combat capabilities then. If not, shut up. I tire of arguing with you about arguing. I have said I was speaking of popular support. If I misapplied my claim, then that is my mistake, but I have yet to see you back one iota of your babble with anything other than your addled prose.

I have.

I pointed to the nature of asymmetrical warfare, the fact that the Taliban have a sanctuary and support of another country and that country's intelligence services. Throw in difficult terrain, funds from drug-running and American incompetence and you have a perfect storm.

See the above.

Defending is not easier in asymmetrical warfare.

And the "majority support" was quantified by me in the poll I posted.

Where's your data, Ice? Do you have any?

As usual, I'm not even sure what you're claiming, given the nature of your arguing, and the fact I have yet to see anything other than bald opinion to back it up.

Mainstream was probably inaccurate, now that you mention it.

Huffington is very much Left-wing. Not sure if it's fringe, but it's definitely biased as hell. My point to Straw was that he if was railing against the MSM for its biases and connection to the halls of power, then he had to apply the same to Huff (his source), as it received all kinds of backing from the power elite inside the beltway -- a fact evidenced by its major fundraiser there, something the MSM would never do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because I regard this trashing of threads as a discourtesy, and I hold you in contempt for your behavior and regret appearing to encourage it.

Because as reasonable people have gently pointed out to me, even twelve or thirteen repetitions of the answer to one of your questions is not enough - one went to so far as to collect all my answers to one of your incessant badgerings over the course of just one thread, and filled most of a page of the thread with them, each repetition a one or two sentence rewording of the same answer.

Try paying attention to the topic of discussion and my contentions re same. It isn't rocket science, it's just a discussion about evidence and conspiracy theories and so forth. Some people find their comprehension improves if they move their lips as they read.

All of those considerations favor the Afghan Army as described by you - with popular support, facing an enemy from another country, etc.

They are far better equipped and supported for "asymmetrical warfare" against the Taliban and its sanctuaries etc, enjoy superior knowledge of difficult terrain for their own operations, have more money and better weapons and air support and intelligence and medical care and so forth. They are more numerous and after seven years much better trained.

That's the situation as described by you.

So what's the problem?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's still wanted for terrorism, what's the difference? We may not have good evidence for his involvement in 9/11, but we strongly suspect he played a role, you know, as leader of Al Quida, the organization that did carry out the 9/11 attacks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there was evidence that he was involved, there would be a charge and a warrant outstanding. It REALLY is that simple. Furthermore, it does not help that he remains at large.

 

We already assume as the head of Al Quida that he was involved. Specific charges involve some obscure legal technicalities. It's an interesting question why he isn't charged, but it's irrelevent. He is wanted for sure for other crimes. He is also for sure targeted for assassination if we knew his location. That was true even under Clinton.

 

No, they do not.

No, that's partly what I described grafted onto your description of the situation. It's nice to know your still playing games. Furthermore, I'm still interested in seeing you cite something that backs all of this up. The Afghan army is a wreck, and I've never said otherwise.

I've said it three or four times now.

CAN-YOU-READ?

The Taliban are largely based in Pakistan. Now, maybe this a novel concept and so it's hard for you to understand, but the Afghan army can't march into Pakistan. That's called an act of war. So right now the Taliban have a safe haven. Add to that everything else I said and you have the situation we are in now. This seems pretty obvious, but here you are beating on again about the same thing.

Where are you going with this?

What are you hoping to illicit or prove?

I mean, do you have a fucking point?

There is evidence. I posted it.

And it's really not that simple.

The US made a conscious decision not to prosecute 9/11 as an illegal. It chose to see it as an act of War. Furthermore, bin Laden has already been indicted. I can imagine if he is caught, the US govt. adding charges to that indictment, if they wanted to, but that's not really the point. You're majoring in the minor here and refusing to see what right's in front of your face.

 

OK.

It seems incongruous that there were charges against Saddam Hussein from the outset, but not for Bin Laden?

 

Again, bin Laden has had conspiracy and terrorism charges on the books since the 1990s. I don't think Hussein had charges against him until he was captured.

 

The objective in Afghanistan is whatever the military-hating liberal US Govt says it is. Lord knows we can't have those soldiers, well, shooting people! That's inhumane!

Morons.

 

Guantanamo inmates no longer "enemy combatants"

(http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52C59220090314)

So, where there is smoke there is fire after all. Looks like Bin Laden is now only a crim?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's what he's been all along ....a terrorist criminal. A conspirator in the Twin Tower attacks ...and it's been that way since the towers came down.

Bin Laden has never been in the "enemy combatant" issue ...not ever.

Baron Max

 

Why has he not been charged with that?

 

I don't think anyone is calling Bin Liner an enemy combatant- he is plainly no more and no less than a common criminal, an outlaw if you will who is probably sitting happily at home in Saudi Arabia whence he came

 

As I've said about a dozen times ....he has been charged with it. He's a criminal and that's why we're looking for him!!

Baron Max

 

Let's face it, if he were charged with it, would it make any difference to you? Lots of murderers don't get charged with every crime they commit, only the ones most easily proven ones.

 

probably because he is not within any jurisdiction prepared to charge him- he de facto is at- or has declared war with the USA so it's gone beyond the criminal law. one does not generally speaking try enemy soldiers unless thy have committed war crimes, on one view 11/9 was an act of war, like pearl harbor but it's a little odd to be"at war" with one chap- we are not at war with murders and thieves. broadly speaking war is a lawful activity unless one loses save in a civil war where a combatant is theoretically guilty of treason and then only if he is on the losing side

 

Which newspaper?

Also, per you other response. The Taliban are largely based in Afghanistan, they control 72% of the country at the moment we are speaking. American and NATO troops are fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan, naturally they want to blame someone else for their own failures. In Iraq, its Syria and Iran. In Afghanistan, Pakistan. How much of the blame lies with the weak-kneed, cowardly American soldiers, and their equally cowardly puppets?

 

? Good luck with that, as a basis for strategy.

Heaven forbid they should attack an enemy using some kind of excuse.

By some kind of asymmetric guerrilla type action. Using their superior knowledge of the country and intelligence services.

The US bombs and rockets into Pakistan quite often. But that's different, of course.

 

well said, it's become academic now. any road up, since Osama has publicly admitted his part in 11/9 a trial is academic if found he will be shot but he won't be found, he'll probably die of old age in due course

 

I would agree, if anything, that the alleged Bin Laden, if proven guilty in a court of law based upon evidence that implicates him beyond reasonable doubt as being involved in 9/11, that he is a criminal.