With friends like Pakistan, we don't need any enemas!.....

Posted by: Oiznop at December 4, 2006 10:03 AM

Why are Western leaders stunned? Don't they read the newspapers? Pakistan has been helping the Taliban for quite some time now. But those Pakistanis will be in for a rude awakening if NATO does what it wants because the Taliban will swallow Pakistan next. What a nice prospect-a nuclear armed Talibanistan super state run by possibly the most backward thinking of Islamaniacs.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 4, 2006 10:15 AM

Minor note:
Apparently today's Washington Times version is slightly different from the earlier Telegraph article online.

You will see other paragraphs and references to things over the past weekend in the Washington Times version.

Pakistan promotes Taliban's approval
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20061204-122533-7493r.htm

Posted by: jeffreyimm at December 4, 2006 10:20 AM

Which muslim nation already possesses nukes?
Oh, Pakistan!

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at December 4, 2006 10:28 AM

This had better not happen. Not with out first committing genocide or drafting America. OMFG Firefox has auto spell check, SWEET!

Posted by: VileInfidelNeocon at December 4, 2006 10:32 AM

I was wondering when Pakistan would start showing its true colors!

Now I know.

Posted by: sounder at December 4, 2006 10:36 AM

Are we arming India yet?

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at December 4, 2006 10:40 AM

Assalamau Laikum all,

This I think has to do with more than 700 trained jawans losing their life to Taliban and Balochistan fighters.

Muslim killing Allahs own is hard to stomach. Pak doesn't have the resources to patrol all of the border and Kafur Jizah does not stretch to buy protected new vehicles and loss of further Jawans.

BUT, Pak has cut down the bleeding through Jigra negotiation...this is what the Taliban are used to...Pak is only you showing a way forward....after all... ultimately only a political solution though jigra will stop the fighting. As for Karzai....he has long passed his sell by date...Mullah Omar is more popular that him.

Posted by: Naseem at December 4, 2006 11:01 AM

For as long as the military is politized in America, it can win only battles, but not wars.

Pakistan was the only country in the world who installed the former Talaban regime. How would anyone, in his sane mind, expect Pakistan to destroy its own designs? In history, only Britan was the only country who had won the war again Pakistan and Afganistan, but great sacrifiece, read the Malakand Field Force by Winston Churchill.

America is heavily infiltrated by enemys' advisors, from top to bottom. At the end of World War II, victory in North Korean was within grasp, but President Truman refused General McArthur to attain it, which only after the cold war we discovered that three of Truman's advisors were Soviet spies. McArthur warned America its consequences. There,indeed, he was right--After North Korea, it was Vietnam, then Afganistan, now Iraq, tommorow Iran, so on and so forth till we come face to face with the combined China and Russia.

Your country's success or failure depends whole on how you vote for you leaders. If you vote for retreat, you should not be surprised for the failure.

What's new? Nothing.

Posted by: ssa at December 4, 2006 11:05 AM

Well, at least Denmark is kicking some Taliban butt, with 70 to 80 Taliban killed in a recent fight in Afghanistan:

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2006/12/04/70-to-80-taliban-fighters-killed-in-afghanistan/

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at December 4, 2006 11:13 AM

While the demon Taliban is alive and active, I dont think it is 'winning' much. Of course Islam always wins out when the people are too stupid to resist it.

Posted by: duh_swami at December 4, 2006 11:17 AM

Last week, we read, that
[from http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2023831.ece] :

QUOTE
Disembowelled, then torn apart: The price of daring to teach girls
By Kim Sengupta in Ghazni, Afghanistan
Published: 29 November 2006
The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.
The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.
UNQUOTE

And this week we find that our major ally is telling us to rebuild the same swamp that brought us 9/11
[from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/wafghan29.xml]

QUOTE
Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato
By Ahmed Rashid in Islamabad
Last Updated: 2:00am GMT 30/11/2006

Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.
UNQUOTE

The question is how did we get here?

First, we allowed Pakistan to build up the swamp, from which the mass-murder of 9/11 originated - the Taliban, you see is essentially a terror subsidiary of the ISI of Pakistan:

“ISI claims it did not sire the Taliban. But it was present at its birth and assumed the role of wet nurse and then foster parent. ISI also provided training and equipment, and guided tactics and strategy as Taliban, based in Pakistan, under ISI supervision, conquered Afghanistan. Kabul fell to a victorious Taliban in 1996 where flat-earth clerics established their medieval dominion. Mullah Mohammed Omar, an Islamist Torquemada, tyrannical regime ruled for the next five years until the U.S. invasion in Oct. 2001. ISI had 1,500 officers and operatives in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan”

[source http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061201-085914-7298r]

Then, when we had a chance to take care of this problem, we airlifted them from Kunduz, to allow them to kill our own boys at a later date – see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165

“The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States. What’s wrong with this picture? THE PENTAGON, whose satellites and drones are able to detect sleeping guerrillas in subterranean caverns, claims it knows nothing of these flights.” [Kunduz airlift article by Michael Moran]

- then, this week we find out such interesting facts as [reported by the UPI]

“President Bush promoted Pakistan in 2004 to MNNA, the same status enjoyed by close allies Israel, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Egypt and Jordan. Major Non-NATO allies get priority in defense purchases. They have no North Atlantic Treaty obligations, but club rules preclude undermining NATO.

Pakistan has been violating club rules -- big time. President Pervez Musharraf presumably knows about his Inter-Services Intelligence agency's major operations. Official fiction holds that Pakistan is not assisting Taliban's comeback insurgency in Afghanistan. Yet the interrogation of Taliban prisoners and suspected agents reported to Hamid Karzai's intelligence service -- a total of about 1,500 so far -- shows that every single one (not even one exception) had come from Pakistan, many of them former pupils in madrassas (Koranic schools). “

[see http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061201-085914-7298r]

- also does not help to know that [from http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/al_qaeda_and_ta.html] :

“Al Qaeda and Taliban Openly Operating in Pakistan
November 28, 2006 4:18 PM
Alexis Debat Reports:
The Taliban and al Qaeda have become so emboldened by recent events in Pakistan that senior al Qaeda operatives have been spotted "walking and talking openly" in the market of Mir Ali in North Waziristan, according to analysts at the British Joint Intelligence Committee…. Pakistani militants have also opened several offices in Khar, the main city of Bajaur, to recruit volunteers for combat or suicide missions against NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, according to intelligence sources”

Oh! Well...

Posted by: AJack at December 4, 2006 11:38 AM

Naseem! Good to hear from you. Your following comment really made me think.

You said: "Muslim killing Allahs own is hard to stomach..."

So, why then are not all mooselimbs rolling on the ground, grasping at their guts and writhing from stomach pain?

Because that is all you allah-akbars do!

ISLAM = Cult of death and deception. Where suicide is glorified and racism/hatred honored.

DEATH TO IRAN!
DEATH TO ISLAM!

Posted by: KillHankKill at December 4, 2006 11:38 AM

Following the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Bush administration looked for a link to Iraq in order to develop a justification for invasion of that country. It was with some reluctance that the administration undertook the action in Afghanistan, adopting a policy of purchasing the cooperation of the warlords to overthrow the Taliban. Consequently the country now sees as much opium production as ever, a population still in thrall to grinding poverty and ignorance and a government that seems incapable (or unwilling) of leading its people into the modern age.

Pakistan's "helpful" suggestion is not surprising. The situation in Afghanistan is not surprising. The situation in Iraq is not surprising. What is surprising is that US leadership appears to have so consistently and grossly miscalculated, both in identifying who is "for us or against us," and in what the right strategy would be for handling identified enemies.

The invasion of Afghanistan was necessary in order to clean out the nest of vipers that is al Qaeda. But to consider it a quick job would have been breathtakingly naive to the point of stupidity. The scouring of Afghanistan is a long-term job, due to the primitiveness of its people and the ideology that holds them in bondage. It is in Nato's interest to contribute towards any effort to disrupt jihadi training camps, whether in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world.

We don't need to have any interaction with the Taliban aside from continuing to help them on their way to judgment. We do need to talk earnestly with the Pakistanis, however, in plain language that they will understand. For this we need leaders that understand what book the riot act can be found, in order to read it clearly and unambiguously.

This war is 1400 years old. The enemy of free will has made staggering advances in a matter of only a few years. Pushing the enemy back will need at times to be done miltarily, at other times scocio-politically. For this, the people of the West need leaders who are on their side.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 4, 2006 12:03 PM

Totally predictable in light of Baker's idea to include Syria and Iran in stabilization of Iraq. But hey, it would have taken a diplomatic genius to foresee that floating this idea may lead to demands that other terrorists such as Taliban be included in stabilization efforts elsewhere.

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 4, 2006 12:23 PM

I'm heading over to Afghanistan in a very short time period in a military capacity. Couple of comments from what I know:

1. These comments probably come about due to the success of recent coalition combat operations. Additionally, the US and NATO forces plan to help the Afghan National Army fight through the winter (unlike previously, when the insurgents could rest all winter). The recent strategy has become one of blocking Taliban/Al Q. escape into Pakistan. Up until recently, the anti-coalition forces had a relatively easy time slipping back into Pak.

2. As previously mentioned, the Pakistani druthers are for the Taliban to come back to power. The Karzai gov't is fed up with Pakistanis and probably maintains only strained relations. My guess is that Pakistan is concerned about some kind of alliance between India and Afghanistan. Bottom line is that the Paks want their own in charge of A.

3. As NATO is deciding to reinforce the Afghan mission, the Pakistanis believe this is the opportunity to cause problems. The NATO military members are well trained and capable. However, the political backbone of the European nations is weak, weak, weak. The Pakistanis don't want success in Afghanistan. The plan is to scare the Europeans and assume the Europeans "elites" will act their normal way and put safety and comfort above all else.

4. At some point, NATO will have to begin ops against the opium trade. Af. provides 90% of the world's opium. My guess is that many elites in Pakistan have a vested interest in keeping that trade alive.

*If NATO can focus enough military and financial effort, it can allow Karzai to gain control beyond Kabul. The US cannot allow the Taliban to regain control in Afghanistan. We would have no allies or support if we ever needed to go back in to take out terror training/support bases. Unlike Iraq, we must stand firm in Afghanistan and defeat the resurgent Taliban. Pakistan to go to Hell. They are not on our side, care nothing about the Afghan people, and realize the strategic effects of American withdrawal.

*Additionally, an American pull out or recognition of the Taliban would be a catastrophic morale victory for the Islamists. They would scream that they brought down the US as the Muj. brought down the USSR. We must bring pain, pain, pain, pain to the Taliban and other insurgents: Fight them throughout the winter, block their escape into Pakistan. Hunt them like without mercy and allow no sanctuary.

Posted by: hello123 at December 4, 2006 12:25 PM

my niece's fiance is currenty in Afganistan, and coming home in a few weeks. so l am praying he comes back soon.
l just read in the local paper, that Cdn forces now have tanks, first time used since the Korean war. the taliban are calling them the big beast or something.. and the Cdn forces have already started to send back the taliban calling calls.. l am hopefull that pakistan gets more upset, with more loses of their black haired sons! screw you naseem.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 4, 2006 12:31 PM

Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops...

Let this cynic translate please...

I have been approached by the Taleban to ask for
a truce of sorts as they realise they can not win
this war.
They are aware of the U.K. and American governments moves to bolster thier forces in
Afghanistan.

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at December 4, 2006 12:36 PM

The one thing, that the US Government and a lot of other people simply refuse to understand: You can't win the war against the Taliban with F16 and Cruise Missiles and a few 1000 Marines. It just won't work this way in the long run. The war against Taliban can only be won by sheer manpower. You'd have to distribute 100000 or 200000 soldiers over the whole south of Afghanistan. Their task would be to check identities and arrest everybody, who is unable to prove his identity or can't explain why he is lurking around there. Unforunately, this strategy can't be pursued by the coalition forces for known reasons. So the best remaining way would be to finance a private army (of Afghans) for Karsai, it would be cheaper and in the long run more eficient. As soon, as Karsai seems to become too illoyal, cut the money flow, and look for a new dictator-in-chief.

As for the drug problem, it is quite impossible for the coalition forces to destroy the opium production, as the whole economy is based on it. There are actually no other export products in Afghanistan, so ending the opium cultivation would mean, that all Afghans would start fighting against the coalition forces.

Posted by: dadaism at December 4, 2006 12:56 PM

I wonder how much longer it will take for the world to see that Pakistan isn't and never was an ally in the war on terror.

I believe we are seeing the beginning of a new and even bolder Islamic threat. Countries like Pakistan will start showing the west where they truly stand, and I believe we will be called out to take on as many Islamic states as possible at one time.

WWIII is truly upon us and it's a matter of time. I also believe that our western troops in Afghanistan will sooner or later find themselves fighting Pakistani regulars, as that government will eventually openly support its Taliban brothers.

P.S. thanks U.S. for all the arms and training to keep the Russinas out in the late 70's and early 80's. Hope you don't mind us using them against you now?

Niv

Posted by: The fanatic at December 4, 2006 1:46 PM

dadaism,

Couple of points:

1. We have far more than 1000 marines in Afghanistan. In fact, Marines are a rather small element compared to the Army forces. Can't get into specifics, but we have had top US army combat units rotating in and out and take that mission very seriously. This next rotation is top of the line. NATO has provided a hefty combat element in addition to multiple provisional reconstruction teams. The advisory effort is enormous and involves 10's of thousands of both pure US and NATO forces. NATO is continuing to beef up this effort in addition to combat forces.

2. I disagree with the private army concept. What's the difference between paying more to the Afghan Nat'l Army soldiers and officer and building a new private army??? The ANA is being built and training by Americans and NATO. Advisors are sprinkled throughout. This helps keep the corruption down, as would be the case with a "private army". In addition, we've been building the ANA for 5 years. Why in the heck to we want to lose that effort now??? Nonsense.

3. You are correct in "coalition" forces and the issue with opium. However, a great plan is to have a non-coalition nation take the mission and operate from outside Afghanistan. The bottom line is that the opium trade must be drastically reduced. The money is funding the
Al Quaeda and other insurgents. The money is being used for the global Jihad. You can't just sit on this issue and say it's "too hard". It would take time and require slowly introducing other crops.

4. A big issue right now (as in Iraq) is the effort with the Police forces. Rife with corruption, incompetent, and infiltrated to the core. The police element is what's needed for long-term security and must be trusted.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Our advisory effort is making must progress. The combat forces are being beefed up (and as Iraq begins the drawdown will continue to beef up Afghanistan). We must be persistent and tough in the Afghan mission. Too much is on the line.

Posted by: hello123 at December 4, 2006 2:06 PM

Accept defeat by Pakistan, Pakistan tells NATO

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 4, 2006 2:11 PM

Those perfidious Pakistanis are quite amusing. They publicly want NATO to pull out but I'll bet privately they would enjoy having NATO stick around. If NATO left then the Taliban and its buddies will be free to strangle Mushy Raff and take over the place. If things remain as they are the perfidious ones benefit all around-Mushy Raff keeps power and keeps getting aid while NATO takes more and more casualties. Mushy Raff is probably counting on hearing "hell no" from NATO.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 4, 2006 2:33 PM

The notion of "working with" the Taliban is not exclusive to the Pakistanis.

In Canada, the leader of the New Demo-rat Party (NDP) Jack Layton has suggested we try to involve the Taliban in an Afghani government.

To dadaism:

You make a fine point about manpower but there isn't a politician alive who would endorse this.

Politicians are more interested in their own political survival than the survival of the country. In fact, liberal politicians in Canada did not want to send tanks (Leopards) to Southern Afghanistan (Panjwii) to fight the Taliban because of what a tank represents (destruction and demolition). Gimme a break. They are willing to allow our soldiers to fight with one arm tied behind their back in an effort to win the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim populace. Problem is, their hearts and minds belong to Allah and we can never win them.

Afghanistan will fail, as will Iraq. You can not build a nation in an Islamic Republic. You can not free people who wish to be slaves (to Allah). Our soldiers are being forced into roles they weren't trained for. Our soldiers should not enter an Islamic Republic unless it is to kill, capture or destroy.

The Muslim children that they offer candy to and play soccer with will grow up one day. Then they will have a choice: 72 virgins or a few fond memories of pick up soccer and sweets. Our soldiers are only with those kids an hour or two a day. These kids are indoctrinated with Islam, 24 hours a day. We can't win. We can only kill them. And, by all means, i am fine with that. Let's get it on, in earnest. Take the gloves off!

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 4, 2006 2:36 PM

with friends like pakistan, whjo needs enemies? To be sure, pakistan has to walk a thin line, but my gosh- they don't have to bed down with the taliban- time to show what your really made of pakistan! http://sacredscoop.com

Posted by: CottShop at December 4, 2006 2:38 PM

Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.

I wonder if that might be a clue that this SOB might be an ISI and Taleban sympathizer. And he'd in a high enough position to do serious damage. Her heeds to be checked out closely.

Posted by: germaninamerica at December 4, 2006 2:55 PM

Sir Oinks Alot you are right about Jack Layton, Taliban Jack is nothing but a traitor and political whore. No one but the seriously deranged in Canada can take this guy seriously.

He says absolutely anything that comes to mind and pretends to be a high moral thinker. He is your typical PC idiot that wouldn't know reality if it slapped him on the head.

Niv

Posted by: The fanatic at December 4, 2006 3:20 PM

Niv:

I'm glad to hear there is someone else who thinks Layton is a "shallow man"

This scoundrel is dangerous especially in a minority government where his perverse ideology can hold sway.

PS: I am still poppping gravol pills after the liberal convention in Montreal this weekend. Why can't the terrorists hit that convention? Hmm, could it be because Muslims and liberals are all on the same side but with a different idea of how to destroy Canada?

I think so!

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 4, 2006 3:42 PM

Why should'nt Pakistan say this and ask for it. It has been successful with the Syrians, Iranians, Hezbollah, Hamas, Somalians, and soon to be the Iraqi's with Al-Sadr.

The Pakistani's are just VISIONAIRIES ahead of our Western Times of Self Defeat. They just need to spin this a little bit more for the European politicians and the New Democrats and the media and soon enough they will have everyone else seeing the same vision.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 4, 2006 3:57 PM

@hello123,

"2. I disagree with the private army concept. What's the difference between paying more to the Afghan Nat'l Army soldiers and officer and building a new private army??? ... In addition, we've been building the ANA for 5 years. Why in the heck to we want to lose that effort now??? Nonsense."

I didn't mean to degrade the efforts with the ANA, but I think, that there should be an additional element, an extra force, let's say a militia, which covers the vast territories, whereas the ANA probably will be concentrated in cities and major towns. In my opinion it's all about controlling the areas, which is quite hard in Afghanistan.

"3. You are correct in "coalition" forces and the issue with opium. However, a great plan is to have a non-coalition nation take the mission and operate from outside Afghanistan. The bottom line is that the opium trade must be drastically reduced. The money is funding the
Al Quaeda and other insurgents. The money is being used for the global Jihad. "

Jihad is the one thing, financed by the people, who refine the opium and sell heroine. But virtually every afghan farmer depends on opium cultivation. There is no other plant, that grows there and earns significant money, especially due to the down-subsidized prices in the agrarian "world market", but that's another issue. If the coalition would disrupt the opium cultivation, there would be civil war. What would be the alternatives? Giving subsidies to every Afghan farmer? That would require an enourmous bureaucracy (which doesn't exist in Afghanistan and would be expensive and ineffective, even with cntrols). One less controversial way (from an Afghan point of view) to reduce the opium trade could be the USA buying the raw opium from the farmers or war lords for a reasonable price, but that would lead to ethic problems, directly supporting the cultivation of opium.

About Iraq, I'd say that Iraq is more or less lost. Apart from the Kurds, 95% of the Iraqui population nowadays either hate the US forces or at least sympathize with the insurgency. Only way I see, would be to retreat the US forces to Kuwait, let the factions have their civil war, and make the remaining militia leader the new Saddam. Offer him peace, i.e. non-bombardement, for pro-US policy. But that of course would oppose the whole "democratization programme". Stalin would have deported the whole population to Siberia, but that's not an alternative, of course. The sad thing about Iraq is, in the long run it's either the US forces or the Iraqui population, coexistence will not take place.

Posted by: dadaism at December 4, 2006 4:30 PM

"ultimately only a political solution though jigra will stop the fighting" by Naseem

Oh how wrong you are...

A few tactical nukes into western pakistan should clear up that problem...

After all you only said "only"...

No peace for Taliban...
No peace for supporters of Taliban..
NEVER!!!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 4, 2006 5:06 PM

The US foreign policy stinks and has always stank.

It imposes sanctions and makes lives misery of millions of innocent Cubans - because it is communist. Thats right, a tiny little island that has not even thrown a stone at it . And yet, America the great defender od Democracy has propped up military dictatorships around the world without even a scant criticism of some of the worst human rights violaters.

It has supported Pakistan to the hilt with millions of Dollars, given free military hardware. Pakistan , the worst nuclear proliferator, the biggest exporter of Afgani heroin, the incubator of terrorists, run by a military dictator. Even so, Bush calls him his friend, his ally and a "President".

America gets its ass whooped by muslims every day and yet it goes and makes enemies of countries that have the wharewithall to stand up to its bullying tactics.

So what's your answer to Hogo Chavez's victory?
Does America know that Islam is revered in Third World countries and it drives countries like Vanezuela into its arms because islam is seen as the David who stood up to Goliath?

Amend your ways Amrica. Stop supporting countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and help the smaller, budding democracies in your own backyard, in Africa and Asia. Take the long view. Sign up to enviornmental treaties and be seen to elliviate poverty, aids etc that is ravaging poor countries. Spend your billions wisely, instead of propping up dictatorships and muslim countries who, in the end, will only bite the hand that feeds it feeds.

Posted by: Hermit at December 4, 2006 5:09 PM

Sir Oinks Alot you bet I can't stand Taliban Jack, and you're right he's dangerous.

Now if you were a jihadist or a criminal, wouldn't you vote Liberal? Let's face it, these assholes have been destroying this country for as long as I can remember. The threat I see in the future is the propping up of a Trudeau for the future PM. I truly feel this will be the guy that ends Canada as we know it. Our fellow Canadians are not anywhere near as bright as they claim, and they always fall for these types of politicians.

I truly hope Canadians give Stephen Harper a majority as he seems to be a politician with real balls, and dare I say integrity too.

As for Hermit, I can't but help agree with you on your assessment of US politics. When are these guys going to wake up and smell the jihad? How can anyone with half a brain keep going back to the same animal that keeps biting the hand that feeds it?

They really do need to stop supporting these criminal states in the mid-east, stop pressuring the EU to accept Turkey, stop supporting Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This is the insanity that is sending the world into the spiral it is in now.

Niv

Posted by: The fanatic at December 4, 2006 5:37 PM

Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops. (*

Wishfull think Kasuri. Whatever you are smoking is not doing you any good, it never did. There is no chance in hell the Talibananas ever going to win this war. If push comes to shove, there will be a whole mother load of Amricans who will willingly line-up to defeat PakiTalibananas. Don't you worry about us pulling out boy, we ought to take our gloves off, then you will figure who is winning. I think we ought to wipp Pakies at the same time. Pakiland is full of swamps.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 4, 2006 5:41 PM

Can anyone here confirm if the Muslims inter-breed within their near family circles a lot? That may explain why they are so pathetic.

A previous posting by Hermit "imposes sanctions and makes lives misery of millions of innocent Cubans".

Americans don't care much for Cuba, I think the American Cubans who have a big lobby in the W-house who are imposing sanctions on Cuba. When Castro goes the sanctions will go.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 4, 2006 5:53 PM

The quickest way to get islam out of our lives lies with the women. In civilized countries a wife can murder her husband without repercussions if she can prove abuse. The introduction of the koran into evidence is all she needs. Come on ladies. Naseem. Get the ball (or heads) rolling. Think how good it will feel to be an equal.

Posted by: Hillbilly at December 4, 2006 6:02 PM

Indeed: No surprises here!

Mushi has been playing a double-game all along, but so does Karzai. Both are 'rulers' of countries which are based on nothing but Islam, Islam and more Islam. And this is what his people are calling for, when a Koran goes down the toilet or a Mohammed cartoon is published, or the pope questions the perversity and the evil of it.

One wonders why Mushi is still alive, too many see him as a traitor. But he did make his arrangements, obviously he did, and most likely used those generous funds he received from the US to pay off the 'militants'- Al Quaeda and those who would have him killed if they weren't sure of his 'protection'....

And Pakistan protects and supports the global jihad just like Saudi Arabia does, just like the Gulf states, including Kuwait, saved by the US and ever more US hating, just like Egypt, which also receives billions from the US to stop supporting the jihad against Israel but continues to support the 'Palestinians' in every shameless way possible, so they can wage the jihad against Israel on their behalf...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 4, 2006 6:34 PM

Sir Oinks Alot, l think PM Stephen Harper should create some sort of team Canada to talk to the Taliban, and have Jacko Layton head that team along with Dion, and a few more PC losers from the liberal /NDP party. fly them into Pakistan, and drop them off at the border with Afgansitan where all the taliban hang out. let them have a face to face talk, and see if they can broker some sort of peace deal, ask if they let them run their schools for one.. yeah see how fast JAcko backs out..

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 4, 2006 6:49 PM

Hmmm...pakistan tells NATO to accept defeat by the towl-iban?

Wow, now where have I heard this kind of stuff before?...Oh, yeah:

"RUSSIANS! SURRENDER! YOU'LL DIE JUST THE SAME!"
(Nazi troops on loudspeaker in Stalingrad, 1942)

Santayana, anyone?

;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at December 4, 2006 7:00 PM

Zen & Niv:

Our self appointed intellectual superiors (aka Liberals) have driven our agenda for decades. We know find ourselves at a cross roads and a point of no return. Do we walk off the cliff and accept the Islamification of our beloved country?

Just today, the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) refused to allow an indigenous Canadian protestor to wave the Canadian flag at a protest near the Douglas Creek estates where natives/aboriginals have been occupying land. The OPP said it was inflammatory and told them to wave the flag one km down the road. Disgusting. This is off topic but the incident is in reference to land the aboriginals state they own and it does not belong to "Canada". The rest of the city folk are quite pissed.

I see this as something that will happen with the Muslims in the future and their protests. The dhimmitude is here and it is going to boil to the surface. We are just as bad, or worse, than the UK.

Harper is a decent man. I am concerned he is going to be considered a "Corporate Conservative" like Bush because of the environment. The Liberals and NDP have been able to refer to him as Bush Lite thanks to the liberal medias complicity...especially the CBC.

Anyways, to get back on topic. Actually, it is all relevant since the Canadians are the soldiers in the Panjwii district doing most of the heavy fighting ands the Western govts are not sternly warning the Pakistanis to reign in the Taliban. No different than the American refusal to threaten Iran and Syria to call off their influence in Iraq. Why are we so afraid to flex our muscle? America spends $300 Billion on defence every year, Let's use it! We could've wrapped up Afghanistan two years ago if we did it right.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 4, 2006 7:23 PM

Sorry, that's Zena and Niv.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 4, 2006 7:24 PM

"Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail."

Sounds like someone is afraid of losing. I know enough people in Afghanistan right now and they have quite a different story than Mr. Kasuri about who is getting their ass kicked.

Posted by: Don Miguel at December 5, 2006 12:20 AM

Naseem and the way you post metioning jizha i have to wounder if you are suckin at the teat of jizha a.k.a. welfare saying how most Muslims seem to think that the West owes their lazy asses a living just because the ruling government is infidel Muslims particularly Arabs dislike working unless you have to. As for Pakistan NATO and the United States need to realize that Pakistan is not repeat not our trusted ally and like Saudi Arabia needs to be treated as the enemy they are part of the problem in Afghanistan is we are fighting a guerrilla war and as moa said the people are the sea that the guerrilla fish swim in, and a war like this guy that sold you lunch the day before in all likelihood is a guy who is shooting at you in the ambush that day. Just look what happened to the lieutenant from the seaforth Highlanders of Canada who was attacked with the ax after he had sat down after being assured by the village elders that they are not supporters of the taliban and he was attacked by someone from the taliban

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at December 5, 2006 1:00 AM

Ssa - I was in the infantry in Korea in 52-53 and have a somewhat different recollection of events. In 1951 the Chinese Communists overwhelmed the Americans with massive waves charging into our lines. MacAuther's intel on their capability way underestimated them, and also underestimated their reckless disregard the Chinese had for the lives of their soldiers.

In those days the Chinese were Soviet Clients, and Truman did not want to provoke a land war in Asia that could involve both the Chinese and the Soviets. We were not strong enough to do that with our forces, unless the nuclear option were invoked, and that was off the table as far as the Korean war was concerned. As it was the Soviets were doing most of the MIG flying.

MacArthur wanted to go after them, but in reality America did not have sufficient active infantry that would have been needed to do it. And it could have been massive if the Soviets did interfere. Casualties would have been huge. The Soviets were on the march everywhere, having knocked off all of eastern Europe. In the context of the cold war, I think Truman was right to fire old Mac. He was a great general, but he was blindsided on the potential for a Chinese intervention.

You are probably right about soviet spies in the government at that time. However my impression of Truman is that he would have seen through them - I do not think he took any advice on the MacArthur firing. That is just an opinion though.

Sorry to all if I went a bit off-topic. But eliminating the Taliban with massive air strikes in Pakistan is the answer. The Paks may have the nuclear bomb but they should be instructed to stand aside while we finish our business in the frontier area; if they do not, that can be dealt with appropriately. This thought may seem contrary to my defense of the Truman decision. The potential for dangerous Pak interference is an order-of-magnitude lower than that posed by the Soviets and Chinese in the Korean war, at least as it was perceived at the time.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at December 5, 2006 4:06 AM

Lets send Jack Layton to negotiate peace in Lebanon & Afganistan. Put his money where his mouth is. Hope he can keep his head about it.

Posted by: sounder at December 5, 2006 10:24 AM

Hello123- Many thanks for bearing a burden that I wish that I could share. Hope you kick ass, don't bother taking names, and come back to your friends and family safe and sound.

Posted by: MP at December 5, 2006 6:05 PM

Read about how Pakistan has now released a close associate of Bin Laden:

http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers21%5Cpaper2051.html

Posted by: sanman at December 6, 2006 3:35 AM

hello123:

My eternal gratitude for your service.

I don't know if you've seen this quote. I don't know who authored it.

"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom."

Come back safe and sound - but please kick some major ass!

Posted by: CGW at December 6, 2006 6:40 AM