[ScottW]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/...6/10/waterloo/

"For example, while driving recently on the New Jersey Turnpike, I was
passed by an SUV with a U.S. Marine Corps sticker and a black-and-
white decal that said: "What do you feel when you kill a terrorist?
RECOIL." For "terrorist," of course, substitute "Muslim" -- a scenario
where a person without a military uniform can nevertheless be
instantly targeted for slaughter and where the executioner, wrenched
far from his native land, has deadened himself to feel nothing but the
kick of his own rifle."


Oh of course Camille, of course. What can I say but what a load of
dung to presume muslim is what a marine really meant except this is
typical of RAO.

So shhhtard, are you gonna go fight muslims in Obama's war? Or
Terrorists?

At least Camille has a glimpse of self-awareness though I doubt she's
aware of it.

"The problem facing international security is that people who believe
something will always be stronger and more committed than people who
believe nothing -- which unfortunately describes the complacent
passivity of most Western intellectuals these days."

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

Oh of course Camille, of course.

Yes, she writes many stupid things.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 12:50�pm, ScottW wrote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/...6/10/waterloo/

"For example, while driving recently on the New Jersey Turnpike, I was
passed by an SUV with a U.S. Marine Corps sticker and a black-and-
white decal that said: "What do you feel when you kill a terrorist?
RECOIL." For "terrorist," of course, substitute "Muslim" -- a scenario
where a person without a military uniform can nevertheless be
instantly targeted for slaughter and where the executioner, wrenched
far from his native land, has deadened himself to feel nothing but the
kick of his own rifle."

�Oh of course Camille, of course. �What can I say but what a load of
dung to presume muslim is what a marine really meant except this is
typical of RAO.

So shhhtard, are you gonna go fight muslims in Obama's war? �Or
Terrorists?

At least Camille has a glimpse of self-awareness though I doubt she's
aware of it.

"The problem facing international security is that people who believe
something will always be stronger and more committed than people who
believe nothing -- which unfortunately describes the complacent
passivity of most Western intellectuals these days."

ScottW

In other words, you read about something an unknown Marine did, and
your first reaction was to wonder What Would Shhh! Do? And you
thought we were obsessed with Arny. It's a huge stretch to apply
everything you experience to RAO, but damn if you don't achieve your
goals.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 10, 2:50*pm, ScottW wrote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/...6/10/waterloo/

"For example, while driving recently on the New Jersey Turnpike, I was
passed by an SUV with a U.S. Marine Corps sticker and a black-and-
white decal that said: "What do you feel when you kill a terrorist?
RECOIL." For "terrorist," of course, substitute "Muslim" -- a scenario
where a person without a military uniform can nevertheless be
instantly targeted for slaughter and where the executioner, wrenched
far from his native land, has deadened himself to feel nothing but the
kick of his own rifle."

*Oh of course Camille, of course. *What can I say but what a load of
dung to presume muslim is what a marine really meant except this is
typical of RAO.

2pid, we've shot very, very few "terrorists" since 2001. Perhaps a
handful.

Leave it to you do defend a bone-headed bumper sticker. LMAO!

So shhhtard, are you gonna go fight muslims in Obama's war? *Or
Terrorists?

Gee, 2pid, it's called the "Global War on Terror".

Who do you suppose we're "gonna" fight, moron? Or are you saying that
we've entered into the Crusade portion of the war?

BTW, insurgents are not terrorists, and the Taliban aren't necessarily
either, but I'd imagine you know that what with all of your
'experience' and ****. I think that was the point, dum-dum.

What do you suppose you'd feel when you shot someone, 2pid? Nothing
but the recoil of your weapon?

We're never "gonna" know as 2pid bravely decided not to serve his
country. LoL.

At least Camille has a glimpse of self-awareness though I doubt she's
aware of it.

"The problem facing international security is that people who believe
something will always be stronger and more committed than people who
believe nothing -- which unfortunately describes the complacent
passivity of most Western intellectuals these days."

Um, I'd reread that, 2pid. It isn't a negative for the West. LOL!

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 2:58�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:50�pm, ScottW wrote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/...6/10/waterloo/

"For example, while driving recently on the New Jersey Turnpike, I was
passed by an SUV with a U.S. Marine Corps sticker and a black-and-
white decal that said: "What do you feel when you kill a terrorist?
RECOIL." For "terrorist," of course, substitute "Muslim" -- a scenario
where a person without a military uniform can nevertheless be
instantly targeted for slaughter and where the executioner, wrenched
far from his native land, has deadened himself to feel nothing but the
kick of his own rifle."

�Oh of course Camille, of course. �What can I say but what a load of
dung to presume muslim is what a marine really meant except this is
typical of RAO.

2pid, we've shot very, very few "terrorists" since 2001. Perhaps a
handful.

Leave it to you do defend a bone-headed bumper sticker. LMAO!

He definitely lacks the filter that tells human beings to keep things
to themselves.

[ScottW2]

On Jun 10, 1:05*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
*Oh of course Camille, of course.

Yes, she writes many stupid things.

That means you must have read her many stupid things.
I think I'll pass on that experience.

ScottW

[ScottW2]

On Jun 10, 2:58špm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:50špm, ScottW wrote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/...6/10/waterloo/

"For example, while driving recently on the New Jersey Turnpike, I was
passed by an SUV with a U.S. Marine Corps sticker and a black-and-
white decal that said: "What do you feel when you kill a terrorist?
RECOIL." For "terrorist," of course, substitute "Muslim" -- a scenario
where a person without a military uniform can nevertheless be
instantly targeted for slaughter and where the executioner, wrenched
far from his native land, has deadened himself to feel nothing but the
kick of his own rifle."

šOh of course Camille, of course. šWhat can I say but what a load of
dung to presume muslim is what a marine really meant except this is
typical of RAO.

2pid, we've shot very, very few "terrorists" since 2001. Perhaps a
handful.

So who are you gonna shoot? Some Taliban kid fighting to repel
foreign invaders because he's labelled an insurgent?
and it's 1, 2, 3, what are you fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
Your just off to Afghanistan....

http://www.truthout.org/060109R

Truthout Original "Obama's wars"

Trying Harder in Pakistan and Afghanistan
Monday 01 June 2009

by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

"Master, how long will it take for me to reach enlightenment?" the
eager student asked. "Perhaps ten years," the teacher answered. "But
what if I try extra hard?" the student asked. "How long will it take
then?" The teacher thought for a moment and smiled. "Then," he said,
"it will take twenty years."

Anyone who has studied Eastern philosophy or martial arts will
have heard the story in one form or another, but it has special
application to President Barack Obama's escalating intervention in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The harder he tries to win a military
confrontation in the two countries or to engage in a major effort to
reform them, the longer and deeper he will find himself sucked into
unwinnable wars and inescapable quagmires.

The reason should be obvious. The presence of American troops,
aircraft and pilotless drones - or too much American money and too
many American aid workers - will turn increasing numbers of Afghans,
Pakistanis and their fellow Muslims from around the world against us
and against those who appear to do our bidding.

Nationalistic and religious reaction is the one unchanging lesson
of foreign intervention, especially in countries that have a history
of having fought against the British, French or other colonial powers.
Yet, the Pentagon never learned the lesson from Vietnam and refuses to
learn it from Iraq, where top generals still speak of staying at least
another ten years. Nor have Obama's White House and the Democratic-
controlled Congress gotten the message, believing they can soften any
anti-American reaction by adding several billions of dollars more in
non-military foreign aid.

In other words, we will try harder, work smarter and do more. It's
a can-do American response, neatly repackaged under brand Obama, as if
his apparent decency and good intentions will be enough to change the
way average Afghans and Pakistanis - and the Pakistani officer corps -
will respond to what looks like unending foreign intervention.

Even those who should know better are swallowing the bait. Only
three senators - Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), Bernie Sanders
(Independent-Vermont) and Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) - voted against the
supplemental appropriations to escalate American military intervention
in Afghanistan. Leaders of the formerly antiwar MoveOn also gave their
blessing to Obama's wars, while well-intentioned feminists and
defenders of human rights are urging the State Department to use
American intervention as a wonderful opportunity to remake foreign
cultures in America's image, as if anyone knows a good way to do
that.

Almost no one in the narrow debate talks of Washington's long-
standing struggle to dominate the oil and gas resources of Central
Asia and the pipelines to bring them to market. Everyone talks of the
very real need to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, without ever
raising similar and inter-related concerns about Indian and Israeli
nukes. And early calls for an exit strategy from either Afghanistan or
Pakistan have been replaced by plans to build a monumental new
American embassy in Islamabad. Our folly knows no limits.

We're in for the long haul, and those of us who have seen the
movie too many times before can only try to explain the drama as it
develops. For starters, let me suggest a first reading or rereading of
Graham Greene's "The Quiet American," in which he describes the
similar overlay of innocence and naivet–¿ that led up to America's
massive intervention in Southeast Asia. One of his key characters is a
truly idealistic CIA man who blows up women and children, all for a
good cause. "Innocence," warned Greene, "is like a dumb leper who has
lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm."

Think about those words as you hear President Obama's eagerly
awaited speech this week in Cairo. He will undoubtedly embody our good
intentions and fundamental decency as Americans. But, for all our self-
deluding innocence and naivet–¿, we will remain Graham Greene's leper,
and the harder we try in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the more our
actions will sound as a warning bell and an anti-American recruiting
call to Muslims all over the world.

The Soviets learned that lesson in Afghanistan and the Chinese
seem to be avoiding similar pitfalls in most of their global
interventions. But we are Americans, and we try harder. "

ScottW

[ScottW2]

http://www.truthout.org/060609A

"KBR, Halliburton and the private security firm Blackwater have come
to symbolize the excesses of outsourcing warfare. So you'd think that
with a new sheriff like Barack Obama in town, such practices would be
on the "Things Not to Do" list. Not so.

According to new Pentagon statistics, in the second quarter of this
year there has been a 23 percent increase in the number of private
security contractors working for the Pentagon in Iraq, and a 29
percent hike in Afghanistan. In fact, outside contractors now make up
approximately half of our forces fighting in the two countries. "This
means," according to Jeremy Scahill, author of the book "Blackwater:
The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army," "there are a
whopping 242,647 contractors working on these two US wars."

Scahill, who runs an excellent new website called Rebel Reports,
spoke with my colleague Bill Moyers on the current edition of Bill
Moyers Journal on PBS. "What we have seen happen, as a result of this
incredible reliance on private military contractors, is that the
United States has created a new system for waging war," he said. By
hiring foreign nationals as mercenaries "You turn the entire world
into your recruiting ground. You intricately link corporate profits to
an escalation of warfare and make it profitable for companies to
participate in your wars.
.......

Jeremy Scahill's comments come just as Lt. General Stanley McChrystal,
the man slated to be the new commander of our troops in Afghanistan,
says the cost of our strategy there is going to cost America and its
NATO allies billions of additional dollars for years to come. In fact,
according to budget documents released by the Pentagon last month, as
of next year, the cost of the war in Afghanistan - more and more known
as "Obama's War" - will exceed the cost of the war in Iraq."

and what will we have to show for it? At best a welfare state
dependent on US aid to sustain an army capable of holding together a
country that never wanted to be a country.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 10, 10:45*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:58špm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:50špm, ScottW wrote:

šOh of course Camille, of course. šWhat can I say but what a load of
dung to presume muslim is what a marine really meant except this is
typical of RAO.

2pid, we've shot very, very few "terrorists" since 2001. Perhaps a
handful.

* So who are you gonna shoot? *

Hopefully nobody, 2pid. "Your" all about the killing but I note that
you never put yourself into a position to test "who your gonna shoot"
yourself.

That is one reason why your military "chops" ring so hollow, 2pid.

Some Taliban kid fighting to repel
foreign invaders because he's labelled an insurgent?

All I pointed out was the stupidity of a jingoistic bumper sticker,
2pid. There's no need to get all revved up.

*and it's 1, 2, 3, what are you fighting for?
*Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
*Your just off to Afghanistan....

And we're off into the irrelevant. Did you get permission from Country
Joe, 2pid?

This leads me to believe that you either 'think' "some Taliban kid" is
a terrorist or that you are not opposed to killing a few Muslims.

This also leads me to believe that "your" a moron.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 10, 11:20*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Jeremy Scahill's comments come just as Lt. General Stanley McChrystal,
the man slated to be the new commander of our troops in Afghanistan,
says the cost of our strategy there is going to cost America and its
NATO allies billions of additional dollars for years to come. In fact,
according to budget documents released by the Pentagon last month, as
of next year, the cost of the war in Afghanistan - more and more known
as "Obama's War" - will exceed the cost of the war in Iraq."

LOL!

"More and more". That damned liberal media rebranding "bushie's war"
without his permission!

Anyway, as troops are drawn down in Iraq and shifted to Afghanistn,
that is to be expected.

I also find it funny that the right is starting to speak out against
the subcontracting of large portions of our military. You' think
they'd be all about the "opportunity" this provides for "free
enterprise".

and what will we have to show for it? *At best a welfare state
dependent on US aid to sustain an army capable of holding together a
country that never wanted to be a country.

Kind of exactly like Iraq except that you agree with that one and your
blogs aren't targeting it.

Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 11, 3:26*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:08*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 10, 11:20*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Jeremy Scahill's comments come just as Lt. General Stanley McChrystal,
the man slated to be the new commander of our troops in Afghanistan,
says the cost of our strategy there is going to cost America and its
NATO allies billions of additional dollars for years to come. In fact,
according to budget documents released by the Pentagon last month, as
of next year, the cost of the war in Afghanistan - more and more known
as "Obama's War" - will exceed the cost of the war in Iraq."

LOL!

"More and more". That damned liberal media rebranding "bushie's war"
without his permission!

Anyway, as troops are drawn down in Iraq and shifted to Afghanistn,
that is to be expected.

* Is that what Obama said? *I don't recall his campaign being
I want to outspend Bush's war in Iraq on my own war in Afghanistan.

Did Obama start a war in Afghanistan?

I was under the impression it was already going on.

I also find it funny that the right is starting to speak out against
the subcontracting of large portions of our military. You' think
they'd be all about the "opportunity" this provides for "free
enterprise".

*Just enjoying the hypocrisy of the left as your candidate goes
into subcontracting overdrive.

"Hypocrisy"? Please cite where this occurs.

and what will we have to show for it? *At best a welfare state
dependent on US aid to sustain an army capable of holding together a
country that never wanted to be a country.

Kind of exactly like Iraq except that you agree with that one and your
blogs aren't targeting it.

*Iraq has the ability to sustain itself with an economy and natural
resources.
Afghanistan has poppies.
Your claims of similarity are ludicrous.

My claims are that the West will be there for a very long time and
that when we pull out there will likely be sectarian fighting in
earnest. I'd love to be wrong, but...

So the similarity is that neither has "wanted" to be a country.

Oh, and wasn't the oil supposed to pay for the war? What's up with
that? LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 11, 3:33*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:01*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:45*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 10, 2:58špm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:50špm, ScottW wrote:
šOh of course Camille, of course. šWhat can I say but what a load of
dung to presume muslim is what a marine really meant except this is
typical of RAO.

2pid, we've shot very, very few "terrorists" since 2001. Perhaps a
handful.

* So who are you gonna shoot? *

Hopefully nobody, 2pid. "Your" all about the killing but I note that
you never put yourself into a position to test "who your gonna shoot"
yourself.

*I'm never going to shoot anyone...and I sure as hell wouldn't be
going to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban because Al Qaeda was once
there.

And now we come full circle. 2pid starts to argue the other side.

That is one reason why your military "chops" ring so hollow, 2pid.

Unlike you I don't make any claims, I put the points out there
and let you freak out.

I don't "freak out", 2pid. And you seldom make valid points.

Some Taliban kid fighting to repel
foreign invaders because he's labelled an insurgent?

All I pointed out was the stupidity of a jingoistic bumper sticker,

That was a bumber sticker, now you get to be the ugly American
roaming the hills of foreign countries chasing "insurgents" because
once Osama was there.

But if I choose to not go, I am a disgusting POS who won't do his
duty.

I see.

2pid. There's no need to get all revved up.

*and it's 1, 2, 3, what are you fighting for?
*Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
*Your just off to Afghanistan....

And we're off into the irrelevant. Did you get permission from Country
Joe, 2pid?

*What you're fighting for is irrelevant?

As a soldier, yes. The last time I looked the US military has civilian
leadership and is told by that leadership where to go and what the
mission is. LoL.

Wow, wasn't that way when GW was your CinC.
What changed? *LoL.

LoL. You never do understand anything that's said to you. LoL.

This leads me to believe that you either 'think' "some Taliban kid" is
a terrorist or that you are not opposed to killing a few Muslims.

Wrong again on both counts.
But you're the one going to war, not me.
I don't believe the Taliban are our enemy.

I disagree. The Taliban supported training camps fpr bin Laden. I have
liuttle doubt they would again.

Besides, 2pid, wasn't it you who justified invading Iraq because
Saddam was a bad guy? Aren't you the one who whines incessantly about
Sharia?

I also don't believe Afghanistan will ever be controlled by a central
gov't
supported by the west.

I have similar doubts about Iraq.

So what are you fighting for?
Is there an exit strategy?
How about a timetable for withdrawal?

That sure didn't seem to matter to you Iraq. It also didn't matter
to you Afghanistan when bushie was in power. What changed? LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 13, 4:35*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


Wrong again on both counts.
But you're the one going to war, not me.
I don't believe the Taliban are our enemy.

I disagree. The Taliban supported training camps fpr bin Laden. I have
liuttle doubt they would again.


He forgot about that

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 13, 5:59*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 1:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 13, 4:35*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Wrong again on both counts.
But you're the one going to war, not me.
I don't believe the Taliban are our enemy.

I disagree. The Taliban supported training camps fpr bin Laden. I have
liuttle doubt they would again.

He forgot about that

*The Taliban hosted those who the fought with them against Soviet
invaders.
*But they certainly didn't support training camps for 9/11.

SO, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE TALIBAN ARE OUT ENEMY

FROM WIKI ARTCLES

An Afghan training camp is a camp or facility used for military or
terrorist training located in Afghanistan. A number of these camps
were used, sometimes exclusively, by the terrorist group al-Qaeda.
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Indian intelligence
officials estimated there were over 120 training camps operating in
Afghanistan, as well as some camps in Pakistan that may have
been operated by Al-Badr, a possibly related group.[1]

Al-Qaeda was also affiliated with other camps which were not run
directly by al-Qaeda. Some Guantanamo captives reported that the
Khalden training camp was not an official al-Qaeda training camp,
and that Osama bin Laden was considering sending all al-Qaeda
recruits to camps directly under his control.

In 2002 Journalists with the New York Times examined the sites
of several former training camps, finding 5,000 documents


AND

After Sudan made it clear that bin Laden and his group were no longer
welcome that year, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — with previously
established
connections between the groups, a similar outlook on world affairs
and
largely isolated from American political influence and military power
—
provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its
headquarters.
Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy
as part of their Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia,
and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate
government of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border
regions
are alleged to have trained militant Muslims from around the world.[62]
[63]
Despite the perception of some people, al-Qaeda members are
ethnically
diverse and connected by their radical version of Islam.

An ever-expanding network of supporters thus enjoyed a safe haven in
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan until the Taliban were defeated by a
combination of local forces and CIA Special Activities Division
Paramilitary
Officers, US Army Special Forces and air power in 2001 (see section
September 11, attacks and the United States response). Osama bin
Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders are still believed to be located in
areas where the population is sympathetic to the Taliban in
Afghanistan
or the border Tribal Areas of Pakistan.

AND MOST OF ALL THI!S!
IF YOU DON'Y THINK THE TALIBAN ARE OUR ENEMY, YOU
MUST ALSO THINK THAT BIN LADEN IS NOT OUR ENEMY

Relationship with Osama bin Laden

In 1996, Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. He came
without any invitation from the Taliban, and sometimes irritated
Mullah Omar with his declaration of war and fatwa to murder citizens
of third-party countries, and follow-up interviews,[111] but relations
between the two groups became closer over time, and eventually bonded
to the point where Mullah Omar rebuffed its patron Saudi Arabia,
insulting Saudi minister Prince Turki and refusing to turn over bin
Laden to the Saudis as Omar had reportedly promised to earlier.[112]

Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-
Qaeda
organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known
as the 055 Brigade
were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several
hundred
Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the
slaughter at
Mazar-e-Sharif.[113] Taliban-al-Qaeda connections, were also
strengthened by
the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter.
During
Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he may have helped finance the
Taliban.[114][115]
Perhaps the biggest favor al-Qaeda did for the Taliban was the
assassination
by suicide bombing[64] of the Taliban's most effective military
opponent mujahideen
commander and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shortly
before
9 September 2001. This came at a time when Taliban human rights
violations
and extremism seemed likely to create international support for
Massoud's
group as the legitimate representatives of Afghanistan.[64] The
killing,
reportedly handled by Ayman Zawahiri and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad
wing of al-Qaeda, left the Northern Alliance leaderless, and removed
"the last
obstacle to the Taliban’s total control of the country ..."[116]

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and
several al Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[117]
The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by
the
U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in
Afghanistan,[118]
or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin
Laden is
involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin
Laden is a man
without sin... he is a free man."[119][120] Evidence against bin Laden
included
courtroom testimony and satellite phone records.[121][122] Bin Laden
in turn,
praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and
lauded
Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols like the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
[123]

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 6:11*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Ahmed "said that the U.S., if it chose to do so, could arrange to have
bin Laden killed by cruise missiles or other means, and there would be
little the Taliban could do to prevent it," according to the
documents."

We were just to deaf to recognize it for what it was, their way out
without losing face.

But if Obama did this in Pakistan there was some imbecile on RAO who
cried and whined that would be an "invasion".

Yes, 2pid, it's true: someone on RAO was really that stupid.

It's always fun to see you argue the other side after being vehemently
opposed to it. LoL.

What a ninny.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 6:11*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 3:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 13, 5:59*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

AND MOST OF ALL THI!S!
IF YOU DON'Y THINK THE TALIBAN ARE OUR ENEMY, YOU
MUST ALSO THINK THAT BIN LADEN IS NOT OUR ENEMY

*Show me one thing in all this that shows the Taliban knew of and
overtly aided and abetted the 9/11 plans with knowledge of what they
were doing?

Sure, juat as soon as you show me that torture has worked and that
we've gained actionable intelligence from wiretaps.

Um, dummy? Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now? Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK? Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them? If Obama
supported a group that turned out to be a terrorist organization would
you cut him as much slack as you're willing to cut the Taliban?

Are you aware of what an imbecile you are? LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 6:44*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
and another reference.

See page 8

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal28.pdf

""Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network was able to expand under the safe
sanctuary extended by Taliban following Pakistan Directives."

*If the paragraph is true, the Pakistani ISI are more our enemy than
the Taliban who were really Pakistani pawns.

If you want to read further, check this.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/index.htm

And yet you whined about Pakistan clearing the Swat valley and Obama
for supporting their effort.

Consistency isn't your strong suit, 2pid.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now? Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK? Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them? If Obama
supported a group that turned out to be a terrorist organization would
you cut him as much slack as you're willing to cut the Taliban?

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 13, 9:33*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now? Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK? Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them? If Obama
supported a group that turned out to be a terrorist organization would
you cut him as much slack as you're willing to cut the Taliban?

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".


I think he staked a worthless claim, and he
is going to defendito to his death, with all guns blazing.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".

I think he staked a worthless claim, and he
is going to defendito to his death, with all guns blazing.

Your a megalomaniac.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 13, 7:11*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 3:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 13, 5:59*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

AND MOST OF ALL THI!S!
IF YOU DON'Y THINK THE TALIBAN ARE OUR ENEMY, YOU
MUST ALSO THINK THAT BIN LADEN IS NOT OUR ENEMY

*Show me one thing in all this that shows the Taliban knew of and
overtly aided and abetted the 9/11 plans with knowledge of what they
were doing?



Good to know that your new definition on the war on terror is to only
go
after those in the direct line of command for 9/11.

We are at war with the whole organization of Al-Queda, and they
abetted them.


*These guys were beholding to Al Qaeda for their assistance and
support in
the war against the Soviets and later the civil war with the Northern
Alliance.

Further, prior to attacking the Taliban the US never provided proof of
bin Ladens
guilt, just demands for turning him over.


Now you are excusing Bin Laden himself.

you previously criticized Clinton for NOT getting him, years before
he went to Afghanistan

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 14, 12:01*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:33*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Shhhh! said:

Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now? Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK? Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them? If Obama
supported a group that turned out to be a terrorist organization would
you cut him as much slack as you're willing to cut the Taliban?

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".

George the war monger, As long as it's a democrats war.
Did you support bombing of the Chinese embassy in Serbia too?

ScottW

suddenly, you are a peacenik!!

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 14, 12:53*am, George M. Middius
wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".
I think he staked a worthless claim, and he
is going to defendito to his death, with all guns blazing.

Your a megalomaniac.

I don't own a meglomaniac

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 10:51*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:26*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:44*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

and another reference.

See page 8

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal28.pdf

""Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network was able to expand under the safe
sanctuary extended by Taliban following Pakistan Directives."

*If the paragraph is true, the Pakistani ISI are more our enemy than
the Taliban who were really Pakistani pawns.

If you want to read further, check this.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/index.htm

And yet you whined about Pakistan clearing the Swat valley and Obama
for supporting their effort.

*Was the ISI occupying Swat Valley?

So now the statement above that you wondered about being true *is*
true? LoL.

*That problem with the Taliban is
much like our
own with Al Qaeda. *They created the Taliban much as *Al Qaeda spawned
among the mujahadeen ranks we used to fight the soviets.
In todays environment our support for the Pakistani's rooting out the
Taliban in Swat and hopefully continuing on in the tribal areas will
actually do something to disturb Al Qaeda though at a very high cost
in those "hearts and minds" you hold so dear.

They're doing it to themselves, dum-dum.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/647182

It looks like those "hearts and minds" I hold so dear aren't sheeple,
2pid. LoL.

Obama's war in Afghanistan isn't doing any to Al Qaeda as Petraeus
says they simply aren't operating there.

Is Al Qaeda the only danger to the world, 2pid?

My, what a change. You used to be afraid of virtually everything. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 10:52*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:04*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:11*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Ahmed "said that the U.S., if it chose to do so, could arrange to have
bin Laden killed by cruise missiles or other means, and there would be
little the Taliban could do to prevent it," according to the
documents."

We were just to deaf to recognize it for what it was, their way out
without losing face.

But if Obama did this in Pakistan there was some imbecile on RAO who
cried and whined that would be an "invasion".

*LoL. *If that's the case the invasion of Pakistan has been underway
for quite a few years now.

LoL. So you are saying we should've sent cruise missiles into a
sovereign nation that we weren't at war with. LoL.

LoL. But when Obama said he'd "go after Al Qeada wherever they were"
and mentioned Pakistan, you went *ballistic* about him 'invading'
Pakistan (yes, 2pid, you were the imbecile I refered to above). LoL.

LoL. Make up your 'mind' dum-dum. You can't have it both ways. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Sacky backtracks.

Your a megalomaniac.

I don't own a meglomaniac

I suppose you're going to take credit for Witlessmongrel's sudden attack
of social conscience. Today, for the first time ever, he admitted that our
society treats Gay people unfairly by circumscribing our civil rights.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 11:01*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:33*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Shhhh! said:

Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now? Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK? Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them? If Obama
supported a group that turned out to be a terrorist organization would
you cut him as much slack as you're willing to cut the Taliban?

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".

George the war monger, As long as it's a democrats war.

LoL. Most smart people realize that Afghanistan is where the focus
should've been all along.

Imbeciles wouldn't understand that. LoL.

Did you support bombing of the Chinese embassy in Serbia too?

LoL. Irrelevant (and imbecilic). LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 14, 12:12*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

suddenly, you are a peacenik!!

2pid has recently shown the GOIA-like trait of arguing with himself.
This is about the fifth topic he's shifted on in the past few weeks.

Imbeciles apparently don't remember what they've advocated in the past.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 11:51*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:33*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Shhhh! said:

Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now? Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK? Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them? If Obama
supported a group that turned out to be a terrorist organization would
you cut him as much slack as you're willing to cut the Taliban?

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".

I think he staked a worthless claim, and he
is going to defendito to his death, with all guns blazing.

Is an inability to admit that you were mistaken the sign of a "smart"
person? Is defending a "worthless claim to his death" what a smart
person would do?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 11:00*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:25*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:11*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 13, 3:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 13, 5:59*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

AND MOST OF ALL THI!S!
IF YOU DON'Y THINK THE TALIBAN ARE OUR ENEMY, YOU
MUST ALSO THINK THAT BIN LADEN IS NOT OUR ENEMY

*Show me one thing in all this that shows the Taliban knew of and
overtly aided and abetted the 9/11 plans with knowledge of what they
were doing?

Sure, juat as soon as you show me that torture has worked and that
we've gained actionable intelligence from wiretaps.

*LoL. *It's obvious you can't with one those you first irrelevant
demands.

English, 2pid. We speak English here.

Um, dummy? Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now?

*Not at all.

Fine. Then we're justified under your 'reasoning' for the Iraq
invasion. Saddam was a bad man.

Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK?

*No. * I am arguing that we can't win militarily in Afghanistan and we
will sooner or later come to terms with the Taliban. *

Brilliant. Most people have known that for a long time.

They are not Al
Qaeda and Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan. *Our only real goal is to
prevent their return. *Must we occupy Afghanistan indefinitely to
accomplish that goal?

Do you believe that the Taliban would prohibit Al Qaeda from
returning? Do you believe that the Taliban would countenance those who
would commit terrorist acts against the US and her allies?

*Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them?

*Are you claiming guilt by association?

Let me rephrase the question as it was obviously and clearly over your
head:

Are you claiming that the Taliban is innocent because they "didn't
know" about 9/11 plans? That they were too stupid to know what a group
like that was all about, especially given the bombing of embassies and
this?

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and
several al Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[117]
The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the
U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in
Afghanistan,[118] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or
any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that
"without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free
man."[119][120]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban...sama_bin_Laden

It's interesting that you're using the same 'logic' as the Taliban:

"Show me one thing in all this that shows the Taliban knew of and
overtly aided and abetted the 9/11 plans with knowledge of what they
were doing?"

Now you are claiming that the Taliban is "without sin... free men".

I also asked if you'd cut Obama as much slack as you're willing to cut
the Taliban in a similar situation. Since you snipped it I guess that
means "yes, you would".

*Have fun justifying Obama's war and soon to be your war on such solid
ground.

"Obama's War". LoL.

What a moron.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 11:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:11*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Further, prior to attacking the Taliban the US never provided proof of
bin Ladens
guilt, just demands for turning him over.

Now you are excusing Bin Laden himself.

you previously *criticized Clinton for NOT getting him, years before
he went to Afghanistan

So 2pid has come full-circle on yet another topic.

If 2pid isn't dumb (as you say) the only other plausible possibility
is that he's crazy. Which is it?

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 14, 2:11*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


Is an inability to admit that you were mistaken the sign of a "smart"
person? Is defending a "worthless claim to his death" what a smart
person would do?

An overly emotional or irrational smart person.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 14, 2:08*am, George M. Middius
wrote:
Sacky backtracks.

Your a megalomaniac.

I don't own a meglomaniac

I suppose you're going to take credit for Witlessmongrel's sudden attack
of social conscience. Today, for the first time ever, he admitted that our
society treats Gay people unfairly by circumscribing our civil rights.

I will?
He did?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 14, 1:38Â*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 14, 2:11Â*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Is an inability to admit that you were mistaken the sign of a "smart"
person? Is defending a "worthless claim to his death" what a smart
person would do?

An overly emotional or irrational smart person.

I agree that 2pid is overly emotional.

Can you name some other "irrational" smart people? I can't think of
any.

Main Entry:1ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation:\i-ˈra-sh(ə-)nəl, ˌi(r)-\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- +
rationalis rational
Date:14th century
: not rational: as a (1): not endowed with reason or understanding
(2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not
governed by or according to reason

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrational

Main Entry:1smart
Pronunciation:\ˈsmärt\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English smert causing pain, from Old English smeart;
akin to Old English smeortan
Date:before 12th century
4 a: mentally alert : bright b: knowledgeable

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart

So you have just admitted that 2pid is "(1): not endowed with reason
or understanding (2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or
coherence b: not governed by or according to reason."

We see that the definition of a "smart" person is one who is "mentally
alert : bright b: knowledgeable".

How do you deconflict your claim that 2pid is "lacking usual or normal
mental clarity or coherence" with your claim that he is "mentally
alert : bright b: knowledgeable"?

Sorry, Clyde, that dog don't hunt. LoL.

LoL. Face it: 2pid are a imbecile.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 14, 2:57Â*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 14, 1:38Â*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 14, 2:11Â*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Is an inability to admit that you were mistaken the sign of a "smart"
person? Is defending a "worthless claim to his death" what a smart
person would do?

An overly emotional or irrational smart person.

I agree that 2pid is overly emotional.

Can you name some other "irrational" smart people? I can't think of
any.

Main Entry:1ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation:\i-ˈra-sh(ə-)nəl, ˌi(r)-\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- +
rationalis rational
Date:14th century
: not rational: as a (1): not endowed with reason or understanding
(2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not
governed by or according to reason

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrational

Main Entry:1smart
Pronunciation:\ˈsmärt\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English smert causing pain, from Old English smeart;
akin to Old English smeortan
Date:before 12th century
4 a: mentally alert : bright b: knowledgeable

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart

So you have just admitted that 2pid is "(1): not endowed with reason
or understanding (2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or
coherence b: not governed by or according to reason."

We see that the definition of a "smart" person is one who is "mentally
alert : bright b: knowledgeable".

How do you deconflict your claim that 2pid is "lacking usual or normal
mental clarity or coherence" with your claim that he is "mentally
alert : bright b: knowledgeable"?

Sorry, Clyde, that dog don't hunt. LoL.

LoL. Face it: 2pid are a imbecile.

people with hi iq's can spout nonsense
when speaking from emotions.
One may not always use one's smartness,'for various reasons,
and intelligence has various facets.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

people with hi iq's can spout nonsense
when speaking from emotions.

And people can seem unintelligent due to lack of development of their
emotional side.

and intelligence has various facets.

So true. See Howard Gardner: Frames of Mind for a fantastic discussion
of this, including how "musical intelligence" fits with the other
intelligences.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 14, 8:14Â*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 14, 2:57Â*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

LoL. Face it: 2pid are a imbecile.

people with hi iq's can spout nonsense
when speaking from emotions.

Does 2pid spin in circles when you're there?

One may not always use one's smartness,'for various reasons,
and intelligence has various facets.

"Not always" is not synonymous with "never".

However you do bring up an interesting diagnosis:

Main Entry:idiot sa·vant
Pronunciation:\ˈē-ËŒdyÅ�-sä-ˈvä�¿, or same as idiot and savant for
respective sing and plural forms\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s)lural idiots savants \-ËŒdyÅ�-sä-ˈvä�¿(z)\ or idiot
savants \-ˈvä�¿(z)\
Etymology:French, literally, learned idiot
Date:1927
1 : a person affected with a mental disability (as autism or mental
retardation) who exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some
limited field (as mathematics or music) €”called also savant
2 : a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows
little about anything else

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot+savant

I note that this does not preclude 2pid's earlier diagnosis of autism
and it explains how someone as stupid as 2pid is could become an
engineer.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 14, 11:22*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 14, 7:18*am, Jenn wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

people with hi iq's can spout nonsense
when speaking from emotions.

And people can seem unintelligent due to lack of development of their
emotional side.

*And people who won't read and familiarize themselves with details
and history to come to informed opinion can easily discount
disagreement
as emotional.
* It's intellectually weak but so common on RAO.

LOL!

George, did you catch this?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 14, 11:19*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:11*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:51*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 13, 9:33*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Shhhh! said:

Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now? Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK? Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them? If Obama
supported a group that turned out to be a terrorist organization would
you cut him as much slack as you're willing to cut the Taliban?

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".

I think he staked a worthless claim, and he
is going to defendito to his death, with all guns blazing.

Is an inability to admit that you were mistaken the sign of a "smart"
person? Is defending a "worthless claim to his death" what a smart
person would do?

*Do smart people resort to unsubstantiated claims of "worthlessness"?
No, but RAO is hardly a center of intellectual discourse.

Um, 2pid? You're suddenly trying to act as though you're smart.

It's about as becomng on you as maroon polyester slacks with white
shoes. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 14, 11:18*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:51*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Jun 13, 9:33*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Shhhh! said:

Are you claiming that the Taliban are good guys now? Are
you arguing that training bases the Taliban allowed in Afghanistan are
OK? Are you using ignorance as a valid defense for them? If Obama
supported a group that turned out to be a terrorist organization would
you cut him as much slack as you're willing to cut the Taliban?

I wonder if Sacky will excuse this bout of stupidity because Witless
"didn't think things through".

I think he staked a worthless claim, and he
is going to defendito to his death, with all guns blazing.

* I think you consistently show yourself incapable of substantive fact
based
debate. *You want to take this intellectually infantile approach of
attacking the
messenger as you can't or won't debate the issues of the subject.

There, there, 2pid. It'll all be OK.

You just need to give us time to adjust to your new positions since
they're the opposite of the ones you so vehemently held before. LoL.