Afghan surge was never meant for victory.

[The Third Man]

Based on all these post can you think Obama wants victory?

WOODWARD BOOK PAINTS DYSFUNCTIONAL OBAMA ADMINISTRATION... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html)
Professorial president assigned 'homework' to advisers...
Critical players in national security team 'doubt strategy in Afghanistan will succeed'...
Axelrod 'complete spin doctor'...
Rahm cheers drone attacks: 'Who did we get today?'... (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html)
Obama: 'We can absorb a terrorist attack'... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html)
President 'avoided talk of victory' as war objective... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html)

[mookiemookie]

Hey look, it's another Obama thread!

[AVGWarhawk]

3rd Man...that is direct from Drudge. That site loves to bash Obama and anyone associated with Obama.

[Tribesman]

Hey look, it's another Obama thread!

But its an Obama thread about how he isn't winning a war that can't be won.
You can be rest assured if it was McCain/Palin in power the sore losers who are like a embarrasing rash recently wouldn't be writing about them not winning a war that can't be won.

[AVGWarhawk]

a war that can't be won.



Exactly.

[Bilge_Rat]

Exactly, Obama is not wasting his time to win a war that can only be won by pouring hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars into Afghanistan, neither of which is going to happen.

I am more impressed that he layed down the law to the Pentagon and wrote a six page memo setting down his explicit orders. Looking forward to reading that part.

[AVGWarhawk]

Problem is....the old eye on the ball speech during his campaign. :hmmm:

[Bubblehead1980]

This war CAN be won.I am so sick of people with defeatest attitudes.

Would require us to get a lot tougher and more aggressive in Afghanistan and then the everyone would whine and complain but we could win there.

[Oberon]

Hey look, it's another Obama thread!


...a war that can't be won.


:hmmm::yep::yep::har:

[Oberon]

This war CAN be won.I am so sick of people with defeatest attitudes.

Would require us to get a lot tougher and more aggressive in Afghanistan and then the everyone would whine and complain but we could win there.

How tough? How many civilian casualties? How much damage to the US government?
Rest assured, you hit hard, the Taliban will hide itself in the civilian population even more, then what do you do? Bomb the civilians? Yes, you'll hit the Taliban, but you'll give them the biggest propaganda boost since 9/11 and even more martyrs will join the cause, even more terrorist attacks against the US will be plotted and the chance of one of them succeeding will rise.
Even if you nuke every single square mile of Afghanistan into a lake of glass, that will not stop the martyrs coming from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and every other Muslim country (including Muslims in the West already), if anything it will make them even more fanatical.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Afghanistan is a catch-22, if you go too hard then you turn your people against you for being a warmonger but if you go too soft then you turn your people against you for being too soft. Finding the right balance is something that at least three invaders of Afghanistan have failed to do so far.

[Tchocky]

What is the definition of "winning" in Afghanistan?

Note - asking this question does not make you defeatist.

[Tribesman]

This war CAN be won.I am so sick of people with defeatest attitudes.

Isn't that the bunker rant?

Would require us to get a lot tougher and more aggressive in Afghanistan and then the everyone would whine and complain but we could win there.
Due to the nature of that country that is exactly the path to a very humiliating defeat.

[Skybird]

Bad attitude and easymindedness at the beginning, now bite back. If you go to war, make sure you fight in the way that is needed to kill all the enemy and all who help him inside and outside Afghanistan. That must start with Pakistan. If you do not like to do that, don't go to war.

This was not payed attention to, and so one is trapped in the Afghan maze. The war got lost many years ago. The Taliban will run the country again sooner or later - with official acceptance by the West and by Washington and London. Feel invited to take me by my word sometime in the forseeable future - it will not take another 9 years: promised.

At least as long as it is not decided to wipe Pakistan and Afghanistan off the map, forever.

[Happy Times]

Loosing in Afganistan will take all credibility from the west in the muslim world.
They will think we only bluff, dont have stomach for a fight and have feet of clay.
They will be right in thinking so.:yeah:

Lot of the credibility will be lost allready when Israel will be left alone to deal with Iran.
The attack against Irans nuclear program is to be expected in the next 6-9 months. It will light up the region atleast in Afganistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza.
There will be a flow of new recruits for the jihad.

New fronts are opening allready in Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria, Morocco etc..

Its only a matter of time when they get full control of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. We can call that the tipping point, after that others will fall in line.

It could very well be that the we need a nuclear attack on western cities before the gloves come off.
People are really so detached from reality that they dont have the stomach to deal with the use of force anymore.
If the battles resemble Omdurman we should be happy, not in angst over guilt.

[CCIP]

What is the definition of "winning" in Afghanistan?

Note - asking this question does not make you defeatist.

I second this. What do you mean by winning? What will force be "used" for? Are we on our good old genocidal streak again? If so, that surely marks a fine confluence between the recent (anti-)Obama and (anti-/kill-all-)Muslims threads. Hey, the usual suspects for both are already here...

[antikristuseke]

I'm going to third the question as to how this war can supposedly be won?

[Happy Times]

I second this. What do you mean by winning? What will force be "used" for? Are we on our good old genocidal streak again? If so, that surely marks a fine confluence between the recent (anti-)Obama and (anti-/kill-all-)Muslims threads. Hey, the usual suspects for both are already here...

Winning a war means that you are free to dictate your terms to the loosing side.

[Happy Times]

I'm going to third the question as to how this war can supposedly be won?

By using all the power in disposal, how can you go to war with one hand behind your back?

[antikristuseke]

Specifics, man, I want more specifics.

Edit:
Winning a war means that you are free to dictate your terms to the loosing side.
What other side, there is no real homogenous other side to speak of in this case, it is not a war between nation states.

[Tribesman]

Winning a war means that you are free to dictate your terms to the loosing side.
So who are the people we are supposed to be dictating terms to?

By using all the power in disposal, how can you go to war with one hand behind your back?
You can have both hands free , you can have as many hand as you want, it won't matter, if you cannot hit the opposition it makes no difference.
Since the opposition is so diverse and ever changing its impossible to hit effectively.

[Skybird]

Winning a war means that you are free to dictate your terms to the loosing side.

Which would necessarily mean a world war against all Islamic areas. While at the same time being dependent on their oil.

I'm just pointing it out.

Islamic terror (I forgot that I possibly can be sued in Europe over using the term "Islamic terror" over terms of committing a hate crime) has an advantage here. The idea of jihad is nothing else but the understanding of a global conflict indeed.

Becasue we are too civilised to understand this, we are fighting with our hands bound on our backs.

A recent Bundeswehr study from a thinktank of theirs has projected that Germany, and probably other states as well, in the future will reconsider their diplomatic ties with Israel, and losen them, closing ties with the Arab states instread (which already is the case if considering the Islmaophilias of the EU and the submissive behavior towards Islamic bully states like Lybia, Saudi Arabia, and others). I do not like it, but I think that projection is correct.

If Israel is clever, they will base more and more on ties with India, which also helps them against Iran, which for itself is massively supported by China. And since both China and India are rivals, and Iran and Israel are enemies, and since Israel and India have improved trade and diplomatic relations over quite some time now, I think that is the best option they have. The EU will betray them, and it already does - it fosters conditions that help and assist the terrorists, and wages a barely hidden propaganda offensive against Israel. There is a new kind of anti-semtiism rampaging thropughout Europe. Its now called anti-Zionism, but that is just an exchange of labels.

Oh, and the definition of victory. Well, it is a defensive war we need to fight, we are being attacked by violence, confronted by supremacist claims for power, and our homes get invaded both ideologically and demopgraphically - it all are just three different operations running in support of one and the same war objective. Victory in such a situation is achieved if the enemy cannot or does not dare to try that anymore, stays away, does not dare to attack you by terms of terror, and leaves you alone, leaving you to the way you want to live in in your own home countries.

This pointless talking of the often claimed diversity of Islam, is unimportant. Nobody must care wheter or not little Mustafa in that cow village behind the mountains on the other side of the planet thinks this or that way about the Quran, or a carricature in a Western newspaper, for that matter. What is relevant is that Islam speaks with one and the same political authority beyond all Islamic nations and peoples, and that barely ever you hear any complaint of the Islamic global Ummah about it'S own deeds or the deeds conducted in it's name /the name of Islam. There is only one Islam, and all this clever brainsqueezing of ours to invent all those many differences that would need us to always focus on them until we have become unable to act at all becasue our conclusioons are self-paralysing in their difference-rich diversity, is just masochistic pseudointellectual masturbation in order to make us believe in what a clever little Dick we are. In the political effect of it all, Islam is just one big, monolithic block, and that is what it is by understanding of Sharia, Quran and Hadith as well. And ideologically, it is more politics than relgion anyway, and always has been. Relgions are just a tool of motivating the streamlined masses and keep everybody in line. Islam is a political totalitarian ideology and movement before anything else.

[Happy Times]

Specifics, man, I want more specifics.

Edit:

What other side, there is no real homogenous other side to speak of in this case, it is not a war between nation states.


Taking control of the territory they live, move and operate from.
Control the economy of the area, food production and possible imports.
Isolate the area from outside supply of material and men,
isolate the insurgents from the civilian population.
After that you have tipped the balance on who can take more attrition in your favor.

This has not been done in Afganistan because you have to do it in Pakistan also.
You can win an local insurgency but it will be a limited victory if you dont follow where the cause ideology retreats next.


There really is an other side that is easy to point out.
It is because they are an tribal culture, everything is controlled by tribes and clans and their governing bodies.

[Happy Times]

Which would necessarily mean a world war against all Islamic areas. While at the same time being dependent on their oil.

I'm just pointing it out.



That would be the stage when all the despots have been replaced by theocrats and conventional war can be sold to the public, hope the west is still standing at that point.


I would like to hear how those not believing in these scenarios see things unfolding?
How will this negative development turn for the postive in the future?

[Tribesman]

I forgot that I possibly can be sued in Europe over using the term "Islamic terror" over terms of committing a hate crime

Yes Sky, its part of that secret EU plot run by the worlwide conspiracy from the protocols of the elders of mecca with the secret legislation written in invisible ink within the Lisbon treaty.

Taking control of the territory they live, move and operate from.
Control the economy of the area, food production and possible imports.
Isolate the area from outside supply of material and men,
isolate the insurgents from the civilian population.
After that you have tipped the balance on who can take more attrition in your favor.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
The coilition can't even take control of the territory of their own bases.
Isolate the area??????Israel cannot even isolate one very small section of heavily defended and reinforced border on flat terrain:doh:

This has not been done in Afganistan because you have to do it in Pakistan also.

And all the other neighbouring countries.
Basicly you are suggesting taking over fully a huge area of asia with a massive population and controlling by force every aspect of their lives.
Not to forget that you mention all the other fronts so you are talking about taking over the entire middle east and just about all of africa.
So in essence your idea is for the western world to unite and run the rest of the world as a dictatorial police state in the aim of gaining some increasingly elusive notion of "victory"

[Happy Times]

The area that works as their supply and staging ground can be denied from them, its a political decision to do it.
It isnt every square mile or every border, its a specific area.

And Israel has chosen a strategy of containment, they could eliminate the threat completly if they wanted to.
If Hamas was in the same position they would have "wiped the Jews to the sea".

A local victory in Afganistan is possible in a sense that it can be pacified.

The global ideological struggle is a different story that needs long term strategies, we can discuss containment, intelligence operations, proxy wars and counterinsurgency in case to case basis.

I would like to hear your solutions?

[Skybird]

The area that works as their supply and staging ground can be denied from them, its a political decision to do it.
It isnt every square mile or every border, its a specific area.
Really? Islamic terror is globally networked now, with many states, even thjose considered to be "moderate" and "tourist-friendly" supporting them onely or in the hidden, with money, weapons, intel. Their support basis ranges from Marocco to Indonesia. Som esupporters are more prominent than others, namely Pakistan, but that does not mean the supporting role is limited to Pakistan. Also, the nature of the enemy in Afghanistan is not that one-sided as oyu think. There are the Taliban, yes, but there are also plenty of internal local tribal warbands, clans, etc. Some get supported by Pakistan, others by Iran, and third parties by completely other sides. Do not get mislead by the general impression that the enemy is acting united. Alliances change quickly in Afghanistan, as we know since a very long time.

And Israel has chosen a strategy of containment, they could eliminate the threat completly if they wanted to.

That staement is in total opposition to what even high ranking Israeli military officers and intel commanders are saying. They neither can deal with the Iranian program all by themselves, nor with the diversity of threats they are encircled by. Plus the increasing number of Palestians living in their middle, insaide Israel. The last two wars they fought, they got defeated in, with their enem ies then today being stronger than ever before. The next military clash is just a question of time. I fear that then once again they will fail to acchieve the objectives.

In the long run, Israel to me appears as being undefendable. Their problem is: they have no alternative to just sit there and cling on their land as long as they can.

A local victory in Afganistan is possible in a sense that it can be pacified.[{quote]

Afghanistan is getting pacified since over 30 years. That may have something to do with that it is a classical warrior clture you try to "pacify".

Don't use Western categories and schemes on non-Wetsern places. In most cases it does not work, and when it does, then it is by random chance only.

[quote]The global ideological struggle is a different story that needs long term strategies, we can discuss containment, intelligence operations, proxy wars and counterinsurgency in case to case basis.

No, you are making THE classiv mistake of the West here: to assume that it is a "different story". It is not, but is most vitally linked to every aspect of jihad, and that includes the single act of terrorism as well as migration movements and ideology - it is all diferent featzres of one and the same basic conflict.

This misunderstanding by the West is what gives Islam much of it'S advantages at the current stage of the struggle.

Too much Clausewitz, too much traditonal strategic thinking I read in your thoughts. But this is no symmateric conflict basing on Clausewitz' strategic ideas. Clausewitz does not work with asymmetric wars and clashing civilisations. The old concepts of politic and military conflict strategy are obsolete in this kind of conflict the world sees now.

[Tribesman]

The area that works as their supply and staging ground can be denied from them, its a political decision to do it.
It isnt every square mile or every border, its a specific area.

Really? and when you deny them one small area they move into the next and then the next then the next then back to the first.

A local victory in Afganistan is possible in a sense that it can be pacified.

:har::har::har::har::har:

I would like to hear your solutions?
I go with the Pentagons solution, the one that was thrown out the window by the US when they decided to play silly buggers instead.
Since the whole basis of a solution depended on a very very short deployment coupled with massive rapid investmement and that small oppertunity was wasted nearly 10 years ago then there is no real solution.

[Happy Times]

Too much Clausewitz, too much traditonal strategic thinking I read in your thoughts. But this is no symmateric conflict basing on Clausewitz' strategic ideas. Clausewitz does not work with asymmetric wars and clashing civilisations. The old concepts of politic and military conflict strategy are obsolete in this kind of conflict the world sees now.


Well i have read a lot of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu but in asymmetric wars i study a lot of modern studies, Vietnam and especially Israeli experiences.
And not all Israelis see themselfs in the light you portrayed btw.

And when talking only the Afganistan, the denial of the Pahstu tribal area as an sanctruary on both sides of the border is not an impossible mission.
The routes of supply are not that plentiful, they are few in this terrain.
But we can agree to disagree because in the bigger picture it is irrelavant, it has only political and ideological value.
But people need also symbolic acts to keep their morale.;)

I understand that the local military operations can only deliver local results and that in the long term its about how to tackle the global ideological conflict.
You have to go to the root of the problem but nothing is done because of economical and political reasons.

The worrying point is that we have no factions in the muslim world to ally with, every muslim country is going towards the wrong direction for us and the minimal opposition is dying out.

[Happy Times]

I go with the Pentagons solution, the one that was thrown out the window by the US when they decided to play silly buggers instead.
Since the whole basis of a solution depended on a very very short deployment coupled with massive rapid investmement and that small oppertunity was wasted nearly 10 years ago then there is no real solution.

A short deployment and leave behind a big bag of money to fight over?
Ok.
I dont see that working either.

What is your solution to the global rise of Islam?

[Tribesman]

A short deployment and leave behind a big bag of money to fight over?
Ok.
I dont see that working either.


The plan was to speed the Taliban in their ongoing decline and prevent al-qaida stepping into the gap made by their fall by using the tribes and not upsetting too many locals.

What is your solution to the global rise of Islam?
What global rise?
You swallow too much hype, its basicly the same small groups of pricks scattered round the world shouting nonsense very loudly like they have for hundreds of years while the vast majority of muslims just get on with their lives.

[Dowly]

What is your solution to the global rise of Islam?

IDKFA

[antikristuseke]

IDDQD

[Happy Times]

The plan was to speed the Taliban in their ongoing decline and prevent al-qaida stepping into the gap made by their fall by using the tribes and not upsetting too many locals.

How does that take out the Taliban support and supply in Pakistan? We shouldnt look at the borders in Asia and Africa but the ethnic and religious boundaries.



What global rise?
You swallow too much hype, its basicly the same small groups of pricks scattered round the world shouting nonsense very loudly like they have for hundreds of years while the vast majority of muslims just get on with their lives.


Yes, we have relatively small groups of militants but in every muslim country Islamic parties are big and on their way to power.
You cant possibly deny this?

[Dowly]

IDDQD

Only if things get hairy. :O:

[Oberon]

IDDQD

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3674/talibanr.jpg

[antikristuseke]

Yes, we have relatively small groups of militants but in every muslim country Islamic parties are big and on their way to power.
You cant possibly deny this?

And militarily they are about as much of a threat to the west as a mosquito is likely to kill you due to blood loss.
There will be terror attacks in the future, but wide scale military deployment does not really hinder that. Those terror organizations are not centralized, they more than likely operate on a cell principle, which makes them difficult to infiltrate and eliminate, even if that happens a cell is always expendable. If you know the right people it is easy to get weapons and even explosives almost anywhere so they don't have a logistics chain to worry about, all they need is money.
Now given the ruthless nature of the people involved rising money via methods that are frowned upon my more civilized folk is not a problem and even that is more than likely run on a cell principle.

[Happy Times]

And militarily they are about as much of a threat to the west as a mosquito is likely to kill you due to blood loss.
There will be terror attacks in the future, but wide scale military deployment does not really hinder that. Those terror organizations are not centralized, they more than likely operate on a cell principle, which makes them difficult to infiltrate and eliminate, even if that happens a cell is always expendable. If you know the right people it is easy to get weapons and even explosives almost anywhere so they don't have a logistics chain to worry about, all they need is money.
Now given the ruthless nature of the people involved rising money via methods that are frowned upon my more civilized folk is not a problem and even that is more than likely run on a cell principle.

Your solutions to not live under threat of terror?

[antikristuseke]

Statistically the likelyhood of being killed in a terror attack is so low I don't pay any attention to it. Also there are clandestine intelligence organizations that are combating that threat at all times, if anything those need more resources to provide additional security. If the enemy does not fight out in the open we need to adapt our tactics to theirs to combat them. You cant win an asymetric threat with a show of force.
As to those militant muslims who live in the west already, each generation they bring out is less and less likely to adopt extremist views unless they themselves are targets of discrimination due to their heritage and will, sooner or later, assimilate to a large degree. Again, not a quick fix, nor a painless one, but I dont see us having any other options, as long as the west plays the part of the bully we are feeding the extremists all the ammo they need to recruit more.

[Happy Times]

Statistically the likelyhood of being killed in a terror attack is so low I don't pay any attention to it. Also there are clandestine intelligence organizations that are combating that threat at all times, if anything those need more resources to provide additional security. If the enemy does not fight out in the open we need to adapt our tactics to theirs to combat them. You cant win an asymetric threat with a show of force.
As to those militant muslims who live in the west already, each generation they bring out is less and less likely to adopt extremist views unless they themselves are targets of discrimination due to their heritage and will, sooner or later, assimilate to a large degree. Again, not a quick fix, nor a painless one, but I dont see us having any other options, as long as the west plays the part of the bully we are feeding the extremists all the ammo they need to recruit more.

I guessed you would compare it to getting hit by a car or something.:DL

Rest of your model is wishful thinking, you admit to that?
There is nothing even to support ýour theory but lot of information on the contrary.
Or is it that you dont rather want to think about it and take an fatalictic attitude, nothing really matters in this world?

[antikristuseke]

It is far, far less likely than a car accident.

And no, it is not purely wishful thinking, whenever you look at immigrants to an established population, the more generations that pass, the more they change to fit their surroundings. The more the children of those extremists are exposed to the actual culture the more it changes them and their children etc. In the end empires nor countries are permanent in the long run, there have been rises and falls of both. That being said, the core values laid down in the constitution of Estonia are worth fighting and dieing for in my book, but since the weather and social welfare here suck, we don't get many immigrants.

As to my view on life, yes I am fatalistic, but I do have a set of principles, though they are not standard and I am not going to discuss them in detail here. As for nothing mattering, that really depends on your perspective, humans are so plentiful and short lived that a single life usually is meaningless to the whole, but that individual is a sentient being with needs and desires which matter to him/her and in most cases people they love and care about. To him/her those things and people matter, there might even bee some principles that matter to em. I guess I have it easier in that department as I don't form strong connections to people, there are a few id be willing to kill and die for, but that number is less than 10 and I could probably sever those connections without suffering too much for it. But what I won't do is compromise my principles.

[Tribesman]

How does that take out the Taliban support and supply in Pakistan?
The idea was to take them out of the only place where they held power which was the place where al-qaida was based.
Have you forgoten what the idea of the war was?
It looks like you also forgot that their support and supply base was reinforced by the ballsups.

Yes, we have relatively small groups of militants but in every muslim country Islamic parties are big and on their way to power.

Really?
You cant possibly deny this?
of course I can, because it simply isn't true.

Your solutions to not live under threat of terror?
Just live.
If you want to walk in fear of some insignificant bogeyman then that is your problem.

[Happy Times]

And no, it is not purely wishful thinking, whenever you look at immigrants to an established population, the more generations that pass, the more they change to fit their surroundings. The more the children of those extremists are exposed to the actual culture the more it changes them and their children etc.

The extremists are often second or third generation, how many generations are you talking about and willing to wait?

[Skybird]

And no, it is not purely wishful thinking, whenever you look at immigrants to an established population, the more generations that pass, the more they change to fit their surroundings. The more the children of those extremists are exposed to the actual culture the more it changes them and their children etc.

Not true, empirical statistics prove that with Muslims migration in several European countries and especially Germany, it is exactly the other way around. The second generation of Turks over here is more distant
to Germany, than the first, and is more conservative. The third generation is more radicalised and anti-German and is much more fixiated on Islam (and Turkiush ultra-nationalism), than the second and first ever were. The same has been observed in Holland, England, France and Sweden.

With traditional European immigrants to America, it was different. The first generation did not expect much from going to Aemrcia, and worked for the second generation having a better fate. They adapted, they integrated. But Muslim migrants very, very often do not do like this, we see it in all European countries going wrong. And considering the supremacist claim by Islam of cultural superiority and the need to take over and rule all the world, this is in a way just a consistent thing.

Muslim migrants do not compare to non-Muslim migrants, and they behave completely different in another culture, than non-Muslim migrants do. Most adaptive and willing to learn, also forming the by far most intelligent group of foreign students, are Asiens in general, and the Chinese in special. Koreans, Vietnamese, Japanese and Chiense hardly, if ever, give us any integration-related troubles. In several countries, Chinese even outsmart the local native population in IQ scores - Canada and Germany being amongst these.

Canada is probably the last of the Western countries from where we get increasing reports that over there Muslim migrants also pose immense stress on the native local culture and society - like they already do in Europe.

Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore.

[antikristuseke]

10 if that is what it take,s what other option is there, if they are citizens you can't extradite them, now can you?

[Happy Times]

The idea was to take them out of the only place where they held power which was the place where al-qaida was based.
Have you forgoten what the idea of the war was?
It looks like you also forgot that their support and supply base was reinforced by the ballsups.

You cant just take Taliban out of Afganistan and leave it in Pakistan and think it wont come back.
Al Qaida will march back in to Kabul with Taliban when the coalition leaves, that is a victory the Islamists will use worldwide.


Really?
of course I can, because it simply isn't true.

So where are the Islamists not in power or a strong growing faction?
Im happy if you know some?

[krashkart]

IDKFA

IDDQD

swtrix
winpachinko

:salute:

[Tribesman]

You cant just take Taliban out of Afganistan and leave it in Pakistan and think it wont come back.


For gods sake , what the hell are you on about?
Are you completly fing brainless?




Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore. Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore. 09-23-2010 03:17 PMMalmö is not just in Sweden anymore. 09-23-2010 03:17 PM
Itss a conspiracy tell ya , you willal have to marry your cousins and bend ovver 5 times a day:salute:



or Skys secret ruropean legislation is true.......think for yourselves...but if you don't met Skys measure yopu must be eradicated throughbreeding programs for the master race

OK don't weant to mae Sky look like a crazy nazi...............let his own words spel it out plainly





Arthur
arthurpint
arthurnorse
arthurfoxsache
It works don't it























Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore. 09-23-2010 03:17 PM
Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore. 09-23-2010 03:17 PM
Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore. 09-23-2010 03:17 PM
[/QUOTE]

[Happy Times]

For gods sake , what the hell are you on about?
Are you completly fing brainless?




Itss a conspiracy tell ya , you willal have to marry your cousins and bend ovver 5 times a day:salute:



or Skys secret ruropean legislation is true.......think for yourselves...but if you don't met Skys measure yopu must be eradicated throughbreeding programs for the master race

OK don't weant to mae Sky look like a crazy nazi...............let his own words spel it out plainly





Arthur
arthurpint
arthurnorse
arthurfoxsache
It works don't it























Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore. 09-23-2010 03:17 PM
Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore. 09-23-2010 03:17 PM
Malmö is not just in Sweden anymore. 09-23-2010 03:17 PM




http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/6498/drunkleprechaun.jpg (http://img375.imageshack.us/i/drunkleprechaun.jpg/)

[TarJak]

winpachinko

:salute:
You can't win at Pachinko!:O:

[krashkart]

You can't win at Pachinko!:O:

Sure you can, as long as you type winpachinko before playing. :haha:

[TarJak]

Sure you can, as long as you type winpachinko before playing. :haha:
Bugger, just dropped $100 trying to do that and now I'm broke.:damn::haha:

[krashkart]

Bugger, just dropped $100 trying to do that and now I'm broke.:damn::haha:

:rotfl2: