How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)
Peter Dow
Active member
Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan fight to win, retreat, surrender
Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan
1. Fight to win
This is the option I strongly recommend to the president and my AfPak Mission content suggests how that win could be had most efficiently.
2. Retreat
Retreating from Afghanistan is giving the Taliban what they want but it won't be enough of a surrender to satisfy Al-Qaeda who'll still be fighting us.
Americans dropping dead to terrorist attacks after 'Drop-Dead Date'
American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'
What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead after the 'drop-dead date'.
Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?
That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.
How could this be?
Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.
Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.
Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.
Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "drop-dead date" policy are heading Americans into.
So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.
Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.
Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.
Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "drop-dead date" policy had gone in to operation.
Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "drop-dead date" policy.
Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "drop-dead date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "drop-dead date".
Why?
Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan, retreat, after a "drop-dead Date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars to Pakistan and then go home.
The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in America with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.
The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.
I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.
But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.
We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.
We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.
Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating, that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and that we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.
We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped accountability for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape accountability for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.
So don't use the phrase "drop-dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.
Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.
That's the way to win the war on terror.
Retreating after a 'drop-dead date' is not the way to win.
Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan
- Fight to win,
- Retreat,
- Surrender
1. Fight to win
This is the option I strongly recommend to the president and my AfPak Mission content suggests how that win could be had most efficiently.
2. Retreat
Retreating from Afghanistan is giving the Taliban what they want but it won't be enough of a surrender to satisfy Al-Qaeda who'll still be fighting us.
Americans dropping dead to terrorist attacks after 'Drop-Dead Date'
American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'
What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead after the 'drop-dead date'.
Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?
That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.
How could this be?
Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.
Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.
Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.
Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "drop-dead date" policy are heading Americans into.
So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.
Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.
Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.
Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "drop-dead date" policy had gone in to operation.
Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "drop-dead date" policy.
Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "drop-dead date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "drop-dead date".
Why?
Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan, retreat, after a "drop-dead Date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars to Pakistan and then go home.
The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in America with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.
The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.
I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.
But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.
We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.
We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.
Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating, that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and that we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.
We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped accountability for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape accountability for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.
So don't use the phrase "drop-dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.
Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.
That's the way to win the war on terror.
Retreating after a 'drop-dead date' is not the way to win.
Last edited:
Peter Dow
Active member
Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan fight to win, retreat, surrender
3. Surrender
Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda
3. Surrender
Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda
And so here's what the newspaper headlines of the next few years could look something like if Obama turns his going soft on Al-Qaeda into a full surrender ...
- US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list'
- US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.
- US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.
- Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.
- Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.
- Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.
- US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".
- Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.
- US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.
- Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.
- Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.
- Barack Obama gets his 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.
Peter Dow
Active member
Pakistan is building more and more nukes all the time, paying for it with US aid money of billions of dollars.
Pakistan wants to be able to win a nuclear war with India. They need money, American tax-payer money to pay for their military, so they terrorise America by sponsoring Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, to blackmail the US government, extort the cash they need to build up their nuclear weapons arsenal.
It's very stupid and self-defeating for the US to keep paying Pakistan aid money with which Pakistan is making more nukes and sponsoring more terrorists. After all, Pakistan could easily give a nuke to one of their terrorists to set off in America.
America nuked because Pakistan gives one of its nukes to one of its terrorists
Paying billions of dollars to Pakistan to stop them nuking us doesn't work. They just build more nukes with the money and that makes the threat even more dangerous.
One what? One future newspaper headline in this list?
That doesn't fit with a surrender to Al-Qaeda. If Obama surrenders to Al-Qaeda then Americans with links to Al-Qaeda will become the new ruling class in America. That's why Obama would want to be appointed leader of Al-Qaeda in America. So he could stay in charge, even after a surrender to Al-Qaeda.
Those Americans who want to prosper would have to get themselves linked to Al-Qaeda. It would be those without any links to Al-Qaeda, those who oppose links to Al-Qaeda who would be in danger.
This is more likely in a surrender to Al-Qaeda
- Americans without links to Al Qaeda will be killed
OK that fits.
- Foreigners with links to Al Qaeda will get a green card
Last edited:
Obviously the head of Al-Qaeda is Barrak Hussein Obama. Killing Osama Bin Laden was a power play. US needs to ally with North Korea and China. Attack S Korea and Japan then appoint Dennis Rodman to be their Great Leader. Al Sharpton can be the Great Leader of Africa and Al Gore could be appointed to control the weather using the Haliburton Weather Machine. Hillary could be appointed Great Leader of the island of Lesbos. Today my 92 year old dad, asked me who has their finger on the nuclear button in the USA? Obama, I said. Utopia, I say.
senojekips
Active member
FFS please don't tease the monkey, it's cruel, and it only encourages him.
Peter Dow
Active member
Sarcasm. Safe ground in a military forum. Many here will understand your sarcasm and those who don't will be too embarrassed to ask if you are being serious or not.
My satirical comment is much more likely to be misunderstood.
Possibly I would have done better if I had changed the text sizes thus.
And so here's what the newspaper headlines of the next few years could look something like if Obama turns his going soft on Al-Qaeda into a full surrender ...
- US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list'
- US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.
- US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.
- Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.
- Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.
- Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.
- US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".
- Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.
- US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.
- Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.
- Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.
Satire is just that little bit too close to the truth to be dismissed as mere sarcasm.
Satire is a more potent weapon but the blow-back is more powerful too.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I want to reply, I really do, and rebuttal this. But a wise man once said "Satire is just that little bit too close to the truth to be dismissed as mere sarcasm".
Truer words describing our human condition have never been spoke I say.
Peter Dow
Active member
Have you heard the joke about Obama's visit to Pakistan?
Have you heard the joke about Obama's visit to Pakistan?
President Barack Obama makes a state visit to Pakistan.
Michelle and the 2 Obama children, accompany the president.
The Obama family are guests of the Pakistani military
- but - sadly - a military dog
savages Sasha to death.
- before the US Secret Service can shoot the dog dead.
Obama, tears in his eyes,
says to the ISI general, whose dog it was.
"I'm so sorry. Can I buy you a new dog?".
Have you heard the joke about Obama's visit to Pakistan?
President Barack Obama makes a state visit to Pakistan.
Michelle and the 2 Obama children, accompany the president.
The Obama family are guests of the Pakistani military
- but - sadly - a military dog
savages Sasha to death.
- before the US Secret Service can shoot the dog dead.
Obama, tears in his eyes,
says to the ISI general, whose dog it was.
"I'm so sorry. Can I buy you a new dog?".
Last edited:
Peter Dow
Active member
I would rebut my own joke by claiming that such a display of statesmanship by President Obama would demonstrate once again, the triumph of peace and hope!
:roll:
Peter Dow
Active member
The Obama joke which is ABOVE above top secret!
I've had my joke (posted earlier) banned from the conspiracy forum Above Top Secret!
New Joke. As yet unclassified and approved for general release.
The Obamas hire muppets to run the Defense Department
If the US has a problem with Pakistan ... if no-one else at the Department of Defense can help ..
and if Chuck Hagel can find them ... maybe they can hire .. the Muppet Show!
Introducing the Obamas' new nominee for Secretary of Defense ..
NATO's real A-Team.
The AfPak Mission links
Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/
I've had my joke (posted earlier) banned from the conspiracy forum Above Top Secret!
New Joke. As yet unclassified and approved for general release.
The Obamas hire muppets to run the Defense Department
If the US has a problem with Pakistan ... if no-one else at the Department of Defense can help ..
and if Chuck Hagel can find them ... maybe they can hire .. the Muppet Show!
Introducing the Obamas' new nominee for Secretary of Defense ..
NATO's real A-Team.
The AfPak Mission links
Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Talking to oneself is a noted trait of the mentally unstable.
Peter Dow
Active member
What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden - New York Times
Pakistani ISI chief "knew of Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad"
Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's main intelligence service, from October 2008 until March 2012.
Carlotta Gall's excellent article is consistent with the findings of the BBC's Panorama documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN" (2011).
BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN"
Part 1. Double Cross
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig"]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube[/ame]
Part 2. Backlash
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE"]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube[/ame]
The buck stops with the President, Obama. Why is Obama turning a blind eye to the enemy rooted in the Pakistani military?
This is not Obama, the community organizer, representing the interests of the American communities threatened by a Pakistani nuclear bomb which the ISI could give, claiming "theft", to their Al Qaeda terrorists for a devastating attack on the US homeland.
American communities devastated by a Pakistani nuclear bomb
This is Obama, the peace-prize winner, wishing a legacy of "war is over", and welcoming advice to surrender Afghanistan to the Pakistani military from Pakistan's woman inside the White House, Robin Raphel.
This is Obama, the defamation lawyer, denying the incompetence of his Secretaries of Defense - Gates, Panetta & Hagel - and their Pentagon advisers who have founded their failing Afghan strategy on co-operation with the treacherous Pakistani military, depending on Pakistan's roads and air-space for US and NATO logistics purposes but at the price of taking off the table the winning Afghan and war on terror strategy of regime-change of Pakistan via policies of ultimatums, sanctions and war under the Bush Doctrine to root out the generals and former generals comprising the Pakistani military dictatorship which continues to sponsor jihadi terrorism and imperialism behind the scenes of an elected but relatively powerless government of Pakistan.
The AfPak Mission links
Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/
The New York Times said:
Pakistani ISI chief "knew of Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad"
Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's main intelligence service, from October 2008 until March 2012.
Carlotta Gall's excellent article is consistent with the findings of the BBC's Panorama documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN" (2011).
BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN"
Part 1. Double Cross
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig"]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube[/ame]
Part 2. Backlash
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE"]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube[/ame]
The buck stops with the President, Obama. Why is Obama turning a blind eye to the enemy rooted in the Pakistani military?
This is not Obama, the community organizer, representing the interests of the American communities threatened by a Pakistani nuclear bomb which the ISI could give, claiming "theft", to their Al Qaeda terrorists for a devastating attack on the US homeland.
American communities devastated by a Pakistani nuclear bomb
This is Obama, the peace-prize winner, wishing a legacy of "war is over", and welcoming advice to surrender Afghanistan to the Pakistani military from Pakistan's woman inside the White House, Robin Raphel.
This is Obama, the defamation lawyer, denying the incompetence of his Secretaries of Defense - Gates, Panetta & Hagel - and their Pentagon advisers who have founded their failing Afghan strategy on co-operation with the treacherous Pakistani military, depending on Pakistan's roads and air-space for US and NATO logistics purposes but at the price of taking off the table the winning Afghan and war on terror strategy of regime-change of Pakistan via policies of ultimatums, sanctions and war under the Bush Doctrine to root out the generals and former generals comprising the Pakistani military dictatorship which continues to sponsor jihadi terrorism and imperialism behind the scenes of an elected but relatively powerless government of Pakistan.
The AfPak Mission links
Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/
Last edited:
Peter Dow
Active member
What the Pakistani ISI doesn't want Pakistanis to know
Again the extremists groups in Pakistan which are attacking, violently indimidating and killing journalists are directed by the Pakistani military ISI.
The ISI censors newspapers and murders journalists because it wants its secret war against the West kept secret.
Bin Laden's Sugar Generals
The Pakistani Generals who provided for Osama Bin Laden while taking $ billions from the USA.
Ashfaq Parvez Kayani & Ahmad Shuja Pasha
The enemy Pakistani generals who Obama pays with $ billions of American taxpayer money as they've sponsored terrorists to attack our homelands and kill our soldiers in Afghanistan.
Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani appointed Pasha as director general of Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), on 29 September 2008.
Previously, Kayani himself had served as director of the ISI from October 2004 to October 2007 and accordingly would have been responsible for providing safe houses for Bin Laden and other state sponsored terrorists during that period.
Directors General of the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence since 9/11
OBAMA's EVIL MASTERS
OBAMA - NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT BROUGHT A SUPERPOWER SO LOW
New York Times said:
Again the extremists groups in Pakistan which are attacking, violently indimidating and killing journalists are directed by the Pakistani military ISI.
The ISI censors newspapers and murders journalists because it wants its secret war against the West kept secret.
Bin Laden's Sugar Generals
The Pakistani Generals who provided for Osama Bin Laden while taking $ billions from the USA.
Ashfaq Parvez Kayani & Ahmad Shuja Pasha
The enemy Pakistani generals who Obama pays with $ billions of American taxpayer money as they've sponsored terrorists to attack our homelands and kill our soldiers in Afghanistan.
Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani appointed Pasha as director general of Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), on 29 September 2008.
Previously, Kayani himself had served as director of the ISI from October 2004 to October 2007 and accordingly would have been responsible for providing safe houses for Bin Laden and other state sponsored terrorists during that period.
Directors General of the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence since 9/11
- October 1999 – October 2001: LGen Mahmud Ahmed
- October 2001 – October 2004: LGen Ehsan ul Haq
- October 2004 – October 2007: LGen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani
- October 2007 – October 2008: LGen Nadeem Taj
- October 2008 – 19 March 2012: LGen Ahmad Shuja Pasha
- 19 March 2012 – present: LGen Zaheerul Islam
OBAMA's EVIL MASTERS
OBAMA - NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT BROUGHT A SUPERPOWER SO LOW
senojekips
Active member
So long as you say anything, he will come back seeking the adulation of those that will answer him.