Taliban warn Obama: Leave Afghanistan

reply to post by munkey66


As I said, I have zero interest in "debating" the history of the war in Afghanistan. It's in the history books, maybe you could read about it.

We did not go to war over one man. We went to war because of the deaths of 3000 innocent people. Those responsible, included Osama bin Laden but was not limited to him.

No, we didn't get Osama (yet) but we did take his organization down and we did "get" 9 out of 10 of the top leaders of Al-Qaeda. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

If you want to compare that to other conflicts, like WWII. We got about 50 percent of the top leadership of the Nazi Party.

Originally posted by lunarminer

If you want to compare that to other conflicts, like WWII. We got about 50 percent of the top leadership of the Nazi Party.

and took how many Nazi scientists to work in secret US military and space projects?

reply to post by munkey66


You said, "and took how many Nazi scientists to work in secret US military and space projects?"

You should like that. You got a ride in a space capsule, they taught you to shoot a gun, and you got a nice pink dress out of the deal.

Anyway, now you are way off topic.

reply to post by lunarminer


Hmmmm well you did bring up WWII not me, and way to attack the person or ape rather than come back with any respectable or informed responce, seems this ape may have been a little along the further along the evolutionary trail than some posters.


anyway back on topic
My argument is why was a country attacked because of 1 man who I will add has never had a trial by his peers to say he is guilty.
Rather his guilty by the word of the media who got their information from?

Many a time do people claim responsability for crimes they never commited.
so I repeat, why was the country invaded on such flimsy evidence?




[edit on 23-1-2009 by munkey66]

reply to post by munkey66


LOL! You really have no sense of humor. I was joking and I thought that it was very funny.

Anyway, I already knocked down your strawman that we went to Afghanistan over the action of "one man". We went after an organization and a country that was harboring them. Your argument is like saying that Pearl Harbor was the actions of "one man" (Tojo) and that we had no right to attack the peacefull peoples of Japan.

Anyway, Osama has not faced a trial, for the exact reason that the Taliban would not surrender him and his organization. Very convenient of you to simply ignore the fact that I mentioned that.

Last of all, Osama bin Laden has admitted that he did it. He did this on video tape on at least 3 different occasions. I would point out that one of the tapes was made before 9/11 in which he threatened a "storm of aircraft", which is a pretty fair description of 9/11.

If it is your contention that Osama is innocent, then I have no time for you. Don't bother to respond. I have already put you on my ignore list.

Last of all, if you have no sense of humor about your avatar then you might consider changing it.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
That quote says it all right there. They know Obama is terrorist friendly I guess. Is it possible that people have forgotten that the Taliban and their friends Al Qaeda were responsible for attacking the US? As far as I can tell the guilty parties have not yet been brought to justice. I am for leaving Afghanistan once Osama and his minions have been destroyed.

Well today you may just got your wish.
With a few well placed missiles right up the Kazoo.

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by munkey66

 

I don't have the time nor the interest in rehashing the history of the war in Afghanistan. Let me just remind you that it had a little something to with the fact that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan. We said, "Give him up, or else." The Taliban chose the "or else". They got exactly what they asked for.

and the taliban said, 'we WILL give him up IF you show us the evidence of the case against him.'.
to which pax americana replied, 'duck and cover in your caves. you're about to get bombed into the stone age'(as opposed to simply showing evidence, and it later turns out, THERE WAS NONE!).
to which the taliban replied, 'we WANT the stone age. bring it on'.

reply to post by billybob


Actually, you are wrong.

The Taliban said, "We will never give up our Shiek."

Check it out, it's all online.

reply to post by David9176


David, I agree. I cannot believe what I am seeing in some of the posts to this thread so I'll just comment to you. All we heard with Bush was bring the troops home, we're broke, we're not the world police, pull out the troops, Bush, leave them to their culture, illegal war for oil, etc.

Now it's we're liberating the people, we're battling terrorists, hurray for Obama for sending the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, If only Bush had stayed in Afghanistan we'd be done.

If I get a political baiting tag then so be it but this is my honest observation: I just don't understand the mind of the liberal.

P.S. I'm NOT a Bush fan. It's just that I'm bewildered from what I see in this thread from the same people who bashed him and never accepted the reasons for Bush they are now using to defend Obama's actions, minus the 'war for oil' argument.

Mind boggling.

[edit on 1/23/2009 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Well it's a misunderstanding, I suppose then. No one was mad when Bush went to Afghanistan (if anything he did it too late). Not many were really even mad that we went to Iraq, well, until we found out that the circumstances were fabricated.

Afghanistan has always been one of the true fights against the war on terror. The real questions are:

1) Is it too late to fight in Afghanistan?

2) Can we even win a war in Afghanistan?

reply to post by Irish M1ck


I just don't know to tell you the truth. I have mixed feelings about it. We definitely should fight the true terrorists and fight for human rights- not doubt. But we're broke.

Where my main confusion is coming from is the people who were peace rallying under Bush are now war rallying under Obama. Not just on ATS- I've seen it in the news as well and I don't understand it at all. I don't get how I saw 'Bring the troops home, Bush!' but now it's 'Send the troops to Afghanistan, Obama!'

My memory is somewhat vague now but I remember the initial invasion of Afghanistan being met with agreement when Bush did it but the tides soon turned and suddenly it was 'We're not the world police.'

I'm really confused to tell you the truth and that doesn't happen to me very often.

Its all a sham. Obama needs to bring all troops home like he promised. On the other had he killed 10 people today over there so not he is a war criminal. He needs to be brought to justice and put in jail.

If any liberal leftist Bush hater here disagrees then you are a hypocrite and need to drink the Jim Jones Kool-Aid now...

reply to post by AshleyD


I think that may be true to some extent. I would bet you are right that there were some who were completely anti-war under Bush, and now support Obama. That's hypocritical to the bone.

Then I think there are those who are still completely anti-war, and probably don't support this move by Obama (though they probably support Obama over McCain).

Then there is my group, which was fine with the Afghan war, though I am concerned that it may not be winnable. I was also fine with the Iraq war until I learned that there were no terrorists there, that Saddam was not making WMD's, etc.

reply to post by northof8


No one is a hypocrite, you just didn't know who you were voting for apparently. Obama has always said he will work to bring the troops home from Iraq, but he has also always said that he supports a surge of troops in Afghanistan.

Look it up.

I still ask why the terrorists attacked the US.

What was the provocation?

Lets forget the fact that most of the terrorists where Saudi and not Afghan.
Lets forget that Opium production was at it's lowest when the taliban ran the show.
Lets forget that the US funded and trained the Taliban to fight the soviets

How was attacking the US going to help them?

reply to post by munkey66


I am not so sure about now, but I know that much of the upper echelon of al Qaeda was hiding in Afghanistan for a while. But again, I don't really know how much of al Qaeda remains there.

I know a lot of them have crossed over to Pakistan.

reply to post by Irish M1ck

The best thing about al Qaeda is it is a name you can chase anywhere that suits your agenda.
If you are told that al Qaeda is in Pakistan they are there, if told they are in Iraq they are there, you even have al Qaeda sleeper cells in the US when you need them.
Terrorist is such a loose term that can label just about any group or organization that does not agree with your own.
but the name al Qaeda has a head start, because the first thing that pops into peoples minds when gently reminded of 9/11 is al Qaeda.

and how many times are you gently reminded of al Qaeda, even a new TV show "life on mars" shows the twin towers standing again, just a reminder
first pic didnt imbed


[edit on 23-1-2009 by munkey66]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by munkey66]

reply to post by AshleyD

All we heard with Bush was bring the troops home, we're broke, we're not the world police, pull out the troops, Bush, leave them to their culture, illegal war for oil, etc.

The thing is that argument is right. We need to do all of those things and even now more than ever. You shouldn't need to be a Republican or Democrat to argue this.

I don't understand it. I'm angry because there is no right side to choose. Both parties are spending way too much money..money we don't have...and both are trying to justify more war. When does it end? Does it ever?

reply to post by jerico65

i do not agree with a pull out
to equate the u.s. mission in afganastan with that of the soviets is wrong due to the c.i.a. as major funders and stradagist for the then afgan resistants
now, this time, there is no funding but arab and some token russian and enemies of the u.s. for funding.
What needs to be done is more troops first and 2nd and probably 1st in importants is: confine every male over the age of 15 to a holding camp to reduce the possible fighting force for the taliban to recuit. whittle away the man power available. ( same policey should have been done in iraq )
educate these males not re-educate but EDUCATE them

Much as I hate to say it, given what the Taliban is and what they stand for, I think we should err very much on the side of caution before even considering the possibility of a military solution in Aghanistan, so I' very happy that Secy. Clinton made no reference to such a possibility. I don't know what the solution is, but military isn't it given the history of that country and any country that has tried to impose any changes there. The country is very divided, is a tribal society, and any given faction is likely to change allegiances at the drop of a hat for whatever reason they see fit. Perhaps a very strong international effort involving a number of approaches would help, but first we must regain the full support and confidence of the rest of the world, especially our close allies, that has been so damaged in the Bush years, and that may take a while. Obama, I beleve has a better sense that not all societies are interested in being like us, something George Bush clearly did not understand. Look at the free democratic elections in Palestine: we got Hamas. We should go very slow in Afghanistan, and definitely need to be wary of Pakistan, not the most stable or reliable of allies, and also a very divided country with factions just as willing to change sides without notice or obvious reasons (to our western way of thinking). That country needs to be stabilized and is probably more like to be be stabilized than Afghanistan any time soon, depending on India, Kashmir, and lord knows how many other factors.