Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

If Biden succeeded in removing every person wanting to go but one we would hear great wailing and gnashing of teeth. From the same people who didn't give a crap who died there for 20 years.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Since August 14th, the US has removed close to 80,000 people from Afghanistan. I'm still amazed at my fellow citizens because I can't tell if they want this to be successful or an abysmal failure.

It does get confusing

1 Reply

@snood,

Ask them about the attempted overthrow of our government on January 6th???, they call those people peaceful protestors and Majorie Taylor 'I lost my Mind' Green, calls them political prisoners. No one ever said you have to be smart to be in Congress, but they do get sworn in.......I will never violate my oath, but some people don't feel all that confined by honor and responsibility.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

If Biden succeeded in removing every person wanting to go but one we would hear great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

That's because selling out Afghanistan to our enemy is still a horrible thing to do even if we do get everyone evacuated.

Progressives suck. Period.

edgarblythe wrote:

From the same people who didn't give a crap who died there for 20 years.

Spare me the fake melodrama. Very few of US or NATO citizens were dying from our training of the Afghani Army.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Yes it did. They came here and massacred thousands of American civilians on American soil.

It's been established quite clearly that they were Saudi Arabians, and that's a long way from Afghanistan.

https://apnews.com/article/sept-11-saudi-arabia-lawsuit-1b5fec1d2507eb27fffdac25bab79bb4

Quote:

That, however, never happened.

Here's your SoS admitting to it. Were you born under a rock, and decided it's a nice place to stay?

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cx3kd

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

It's been established quite clearly that they were Saudi Arabians, and that's a long way from Afghanistan.

It has been established clearly that the attack was launched by al-Qa'ida, and not by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is al-Qa'ida's enemy in fact.

Builder wrote:

Here's your SoS admitting to it.

That does not change the reality that it is not true.

The CIA only gave the finds to the Pakistani government, and had no control over what the Pakistani government did with those funds.

Had the CIA control over who those funds were dispersed to, the funds would not have gone to Islamic radicals.

Builder wrote:

Were you born under a rock, and decided it's a nice place to stay?

Everything that I've said is completely correct.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It would appear that not only are you poor at comprehension, but you're totally at a loss to grasp reality when it slaps you upside the head.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Bad call on both items. My comprehension is infinite. And notice how no one can point out anything in my my posts that is untrue?

3 Replies

@oralloy,

the only thing infinite in the universe is the extent of your smug delusions of competence, as witnessed by your last post.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

notice how no one can point out anything in my my posts that is untrue?

Except for the posts where Builder is showing you with links that what you said are indeed untrue.

It would help if you posted a link that supports your claims, instead of repeating some canned response about progressives.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

My comprehension is infinite.

BWAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!! <gasp… sputter …wheeze>
GUFFAW! SNORT! CHORTLE!
<oh! my sides! stop! don’t read it again!>!
BWWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
<titter…cough…gasp>
YOU’RE KILLIN’ ME! Infinite comprehension and zero brains!!
What a goombah.

Whew! I needed that!

1 Reply

@Rebelofnj,

Quote:

Except for the posts where Builder is showing you with links that what you said are indeed untrue.

The irony being, he keeps demanding we point out where he was wrong, and ignores it when we do.

1 Reply

I think commoners like us won't be able to figure out the complexities of religious and political rivalries in the Middle East, thanks in no small part to the fact that Muslim governments and militants there play different roles in different times. Case in point: al-Qa'ida also received financial aid from the Saudi monarchy in the 80s before Osama bin Laden raised hackles from the Saudi monarchy by calling it an enemy. The Taliban also received funding from America after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

You also can't overlook Salafism or wahhabism's influence as well as the enmity between India and Pakistan and their own struggles with homegrown terrorist groups: Kashmir for India and TLP for Pakistan. Other than that, China's Belt and Road Initiative or OBOR also targets Pakistan or even Afghanistan. And there is a case to be that China will be willing to invest more in Afghanistan if the Taliban consent to banish anti-China forces within Taliban forces, namely Uighur fighters.

America doesn't even know who are the real friends in Muslim nations. Luckily, Israel can be trusted in the Middle East.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Could it be Kamala Harris is the top dog calling the shots? Why would Biden say America is going to have a black president?

0 Replies

@goldberg,

Some members of Taliban forces also fought with Mujahideen rebels against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s . Now they belong to different camps.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

the only thing infinite in the universe is the extent of your smug delusions of competence, as witnessed by your last post.

No. You are only person here who is delusional.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

zero brains!!

No snood. You are the person with zero brains here. My IQ is 170.

0 Replies

@Rebelofnj,

Rebelofnj wrote:

Except for the posts where Builder is showing you with links that what you said are indeed untrue.

Links with untrue claims in them do not prove that reality is untrue.

Rebelofnj wrote:

It would help if you posted a link that supports your claims, instead of repeating some canned response about progressives.

Actually it won't help at all. You and snood are extremely stupid. Do either of you even understand what I said in my post that you are questioning?

If you can't understand what I said, you certainly aren't going to understand any cites that back it up.

That said, here are some cites that back up what I said:

"The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan."

https://web.archive.org/web/20050310111109/usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html

"The CIA may have coordinated purchase of weapons and the initial training, but Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) controlled their distribution and their transport to the war zone. John McMahon, deputy director of the CIA, attempted to limit CIA interaction with the mujahidin. Even at the height of American involvement in Afghanistan, very few CIA operatives were allowed into the field.(31) Upon the weapons' arrival at the port of Karachi or the Islamabad airport, the ISI would transport the weapons to depots near Rawalpindi or Quetta, and hence on to the Afghan border.(32)"

"The ISI used its coordinating position to promote Pakistani interests as it saw them (within Pakistan, the ISI is often described as 'a state within a state').(33) The ISI refused to recognize any Afghan resistance group that was not religiously based. Neither the Pushtun nationalist Afghan Millat party, nor members of the Afghan royal family were able to operate legally in Pakistani territory. The ISI did recognize seven groups, but insisted on contracting directly with each individual group in order to maintain maximum leverage. Pakistani intelligence was therefore able to reward compliant factions among the fiercely competitive resistance figures.(34) Indeed, the ISI tended to favor Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, perhaps the most militant Islamist of the mujahidin commanders, largely because Hekmatyar was also a strong proponent of the Pakistani-sponsored Islamist insurgency in Kashmir.(35) Masud, the most effective Mujahid commander, but a Tajik, received only eight Stingers from the ISI during the war."

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/who-responsible-taliban

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

The irony being, he keeps demanding we point out where he was wrong, and ignores it when we do.

Except you haven't.

When you make an erroneous claim that I am wrong, it is you who is wrong, not I.

1 Reply

@goldberg,

goldberg wrote:

The Taliban also received funding from America after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

Yes and no. They received funding that originated from the US, but the US was not responsible for them receiving that funding.

It was the Pakistani government that decided that US funding should be directed to wackadoodle religious extremists.

It is also the Pakistani government that made the current Taliban takeover of Afghanistan possible.

0 Replies

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know