The War on "Terror"......

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Yes, it is damn hard to keep up.

Yeah, I'll grant you that. Remember back when Lebanon was in flames for over a decade in its civil war, and there were multi-dozens of warring factions, and factions of factions, all within a 30 mile radius of Beirut? Reminds me of that.

[turtlespeed 212]

Amazon

************

When it comes to trading with the enemy, I recall IRAN-CONTRA (even though Reagan couldn't), and I recall arming the Taliban.

When did we arm the Taliban?

They didn't exist as an entity until the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) created them in the mid-90s to try and stabilize Afghanistan.

We gave a lot of arms to Massoud, during the Soviet war, but he ended up fighting against the Taliban in the 90s, and was assassinated by AQ operatives posing as reporters on Sept 9, 2001.

There were lots of groups from Afghanistan feeding at the CIA trough in the 80's... anyone willing to kill Russians while shouting Allauh Akbar. Some of the more strident ended up as part of the Taliban later. At the time we wanted to make sure it hurt the Russians for their actions in going in there in the first place right next door to our buddies the Pakistani's

So you are agreeing that Kallend is wrong then.

Can you explain to all of us the history of Afghanistan?? Since you are such an expert on the region... How many years did you spend there again??

Right after you explain what one thing has to do with the other.

Kallend said they armed the Taliban.
You agreed the Taliban did not exist.

Is this another distraction/misdirection perchance?

Maybe so you can avoid answering a direct question . . . John has taught you so well.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

******

When it comes to trading with the enemy, I recall IRAN-CONTRA (even though Reagan couldn't), and I recall arming the Taliban.

When did we arm the Taliban?

.

Changing your name doesn't mean that you change who you are.

You mean like "Democrat" or "Liberal"

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ibx 2]

Quote

You mean like "Democrat" or "Liberal"

More like conservative or undereducated.

[RonD1120 58]

More like liberal and wuss.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 1,623]

RonD1120

More like liberal and wuss.

Tea Partier and Moran (sic).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Kallend said they armed the Taliban.

No he didn't. He said, "I recall arming the Taliban."

[Amazon 7]

Andy9o8

Quote

Kallend said they armed the Taliban.

No he didn't. He said, "I recall arming the Taliban."

BUT BUT BUT

That was different... Ronnie RayGun wanted it... so they did...

[turtlespeed 212]

Amazon

***

Quote

Kallend said they armed the Taliban.

No he didn't. He said, "I recall arming the Taliban."

BUT BUT BUT

That was different... Ronnie RayGun wanted it... so they did...

So - you agree then, that the Taliban was armed then.
Even when they didn't exist.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

******

Quote

Kallend said they armed the Taliban.

No he didn't. He said, "I recall arming the Taliban."

BUT BUT BUT

That was different... Ronnie RayGun wanted it... so they did...

So - you agree then, that the Taliban was armed then.
Even when they didn't exist.

"A rose by any other name..."

Just because they were called Mujahideen ( "people doing jihad") or Maktab al-Khadamat, and not Taliban or al Qaeda, doesn't change who they were. And the US armed them during Reagan's reign.

rense.com/general15/pose.htm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[baronn 111]

You may want to look at the attached image in my last post. Your response fits that to a "T". Instead of a personal attack on someone that simply perpetuates this insanity, you may take a moment to realize how that is EXACTLY what those that wish this to continue want. Stop being part of the problem and start being aware of what needs to be done to prevent and end this insanity. It's gonna take a LOT more than just a few to make that happen. I'm optimistic it can be done....

[Andy9o8 0]

The Slippery Slope Begins - Is U.S. Policy on Fighting ISIS Already Changing?

Quote

A week ago, President Obama stood before the American people and promised that the expanding fight against the Islamic State — a vicious Sunni militant group known as ISIS or ISIL that is terrorizing parts of Iraq and Syria — would not mean a commitment of American ground troops. “As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission,” he said.

On Tuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had a very different message when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I’ll recommend that to the president,” he said, citing a potential attempt to retake the strategic important Iraqi city of Mosul as an example.

There is no way to read this other than as a reversal from the firm commitment Mr. Obama made not to immerse the country in another endless ground war in the Middle East.

Even though General Dempsey’s remarks were conditional, the Obama administration has turned on a dime in record time and opened the door to deeper, more costly American involvement even before the strategy is fully sketched out. And this is happening without Congress ever giving Mr. Obama the authority to wage war.

.....

So what changed in the last week? Has there been some new intelligence assessment about the Islamic State’s strengths that requires an urgent shift in policy? Has the administration run into difficulty persuading Arab countries and others to join its mission, which cannot succeed without their support? Or was General Dempsey leaving his options open to a ground war, as military leaders like to do, despite what Mr. Obama has promised?

.....

If there is any lesson to be taken from recent military conflicts, it is how easily the country can slip into an intractable war...

[D22369 0]

you don't seem to understand just how cheap life is in the over there - force and violence are a way of life - no compassion - your different *race/religion - your to be killed - its been that way for centuries and doesn't show any signs of changing at all - you don't seem to grasp that they are well armed with modern weapons but are stuck mentally in a religious fervor from the distant past.

you cannot reason with these people - they believe god is on their side they are fighting the enemies of god and they cannot lose - they commit atrocities in the name of their god daily.

so what is your solution to the insanity? How will you reason with the unreasonable?

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

The Slippery Slope Begins - Is U.S. Policy on Fighting ISIS Already Changing?

Quote

A week ago, President Obama stood before the American people and promised that the expanding fight against the Islamic State — a vicious Sunni militant group known as ISIS or ISIL that is terrorizing parts of Iraq and Syria — would not mean a commitment of American ground troops. “As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission,” he said.

On Tuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had a very different message when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I’ll recommend that to the president,” he said, citing a potential attempt to retake the strategic important Iraqi city of Mosul as an example.

There is no way to read this other than as a reversal from the firm commitment Mr. Obama made not to immerse the country in another endless ground war in the Middle East.

Even though General Dempsey’s remarks were conditional, the Obama administration has turned on a dime in record time and opened the door to deeper, more costly American involvement even before the strategy is fully sketched out. And this is happening without Congress ever giving Mr. Obama the authority to wage war.

.....

So what changed in the last week? Has there been some new intelligence assessment about the Islamic State’s strengths that requires an urgent shift in policy? Has the administration run into difficulty persuading Arab countries and others to join its mission, which cannot succeed without their support? Or was General Dempsey leaving his options open to a ground war, as military leaders like to do, despite what Mr. Obama has promised?

.....

If there is any lesson to be taken from recent military conflicts, it is how easily the country can slip into an intractable war...

He (Obama) doesn't have the balls to say what he knows is right.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[airdvr 197]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ayzwfh/welcome-back--combat

As usual Stewart's writers put it all in perspective.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[turtlespeed 212]

airdvr

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ayzwfh/welcome-back--combat

As usual Stewart's writers put it all in perspective.

That last minute is priceless

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun