Taliban website - Page 2

Torplexed · 02-24-12, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie

Why should we help a country whose so called tribal laws condone this-

Afghanistan is a country in name only. There has never been a strong central government. Afghanistan is a collection of feuding tribes ruled by warlords who have been at war with each other for thousands of years. Think Hatfields and McCoys on steroids. That works to our advantage as once we leave maybe they'll go back to killing each other.

TLAM Strike · 02-24-12, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

...once we leave maybe they'll go back to killing each other.

These guys have been fighting some of the best military forces on the planet. When we leave and Kabul Kops are in charge they will be facing an enemy hardened by 10 years of combat against the best, they might just steam roll "our guys".

(I hate to compare them but...) the Taliban is like the Spartans or Klingon warriors. The ones who survive and succeed do so under the harshest conditions possible; their training is quite frequently combat, some are conscripted under the penalty of death, and encouraged commit acts of barbarism as their SOP. 10 years of war has weeded out a lot of the dumb ones among the really dedicated fighters (not talking the tribal militias or $10 Taliban) leaving a core force of some really nasty folks.

Skybird · 02-24-12, 02:32 AM

Why complaining that dogs balk? That's what dogs do. The way the Taliban fight is the result of the asymmetrical setting of the war, and that the Taliban do not subscribe to the Hague Land Warfare Convention. Any army facing an enemy not accepting these rules while accepting them for itself necessarily will find itself into trouble - for the assumed weaker side that is the whole idea behind waging asymmetrical warfare, by doing so it compensates its own deficits in strength and technology. One could even say to bring the enemy into trouble is the whole idea behind warfare in general, else you would not shoot at him.

But as in Iraq, the blame from my side goes at incompetent, hopelessly reality-disconnected political leaders who deny realities that they do not want and expose their troops to the risks of war over politically formulated objectives that are in total denial of what realistically could ever be acchieved.

I personally argue as usual: if you are at war, go for the enemy's throat, and do not let the presence of any unhappy bystander distract you from your target. That is war. It's not a picnic in the woods. It'S always injust to those being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Now there the West is in Afghanistan. Oh so humane the intention, oh so idealistic the claims, oh so wonderful the plans. What has been acchieved? The enemy wins. What has been rebuilt temporarily, will get lost. It will have lived a short life only. Even more, our own leaders now contemplate the need to upvalue the enemy in his political credibility, and negotiate with this primitive rat pack on same eye level with us. They will hang children in the Kabul arena again, they will again supress women with medieval brutality, they will again help to export the ideologic poison of Islam to other conflicts and countries to help the Islamic jihad. Our own guys will return with bad memories on mind, many of them traumatised, some being dead, but we can always comfort ourselves with that we played by the rules, and that we had good intentions, and the most precious phrase of all: "at least we have tried".

That'S the self-excusing of loosers, gentlemen.

Next thing we will need to hear is politicians explaining us why we were so victorious in Afghanistan, and why it is reasonable to have installed the enemy in place, and why it all has to be seen as a great acchievement. Oh, and many will claim they are very optimistic for the future, that one always catches some voters' applaus en passant. And finally, my favourite: Karzai is our friend, Afghanistan is a great culture, and Pakistan is our ally.

Next time you go to war, pick you war more wisely, maybe, and when going in, do so by opening all gates to hell inside your mind. If you are not willing to do that, then maybe it is a stupid idea to go to war.

It may be a comic movie, but Quentin Tarrantino said it best in Kill Bill 1, and that scene remineded me of the teachings I received from my own mentor, who also was a Japanese and came from a family of Samurai, it could have been his own very words:

"For those regarded as warriors, when engaged in combat, the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior's only concern. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God or Buddha himself. This truth lies at the heart of the art of combat."

Ever draw your sword only when you intend to kill. Never put it back into the sheath without blood on it. That'S why I hate parades.

vienna · 02-24-12, 01:33 PM

I'm curious: do the Taliban have a Facebook site and, if so, how many "likes" do they have?...

TLAM Strike · 02-24-12, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

I'm curious: do the Taliban have a Facebook site and, if so, how many "likes" do they have?...

Maybe someone who has a facebook account can check:

http://storyful.com/stories/1000005839

Stealhead · 02-24-12, 03:22 PM

I am not sure why some of you seem so shocked that the Taliban, Hezbollah and others have webs sites it does not take that much really to run a website any group with some money can easily do it.

In the last several years Islamic Extremists have been using web sites extensively they make are a very cheap and easy way to spread propaganda and to inspire like minded individuals.

They could care less about Facebook which is only relevant to people who use Facebook, Westerners.I dont peg someone that might be a willing fighterfor the Taliban having much interest in Facebook they are using that site in an attempt to win hearts and minds of people in the west they can take advantage of free press and public opinion they are attempting to undermine popular support for the war against them they obviously read Sun Tzu.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
The Taliban attempts to erode popular support for the war against them they use tactics of low risk to their fighters most of the time.
When the Us and NATO show up in a region in force most of the Taliban evaporate to a safe haven and come back slowly to the one lost.

"There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited."
The Taliban can afford to wait for years NATO and the US cant we spend millions upon millions just to counter the threat of IEDs a
very inexpensive weapon.

Gen. Curtis Lemay was a very firm believer in using the maximum force of ones military to quickly mitigate the conflict and achieve victory if you are facing a situation that
prevents you from even fighting this kind of warfare in the first place then you should not get involved.

"Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy."
The Taliban knows that we will be leaving sooner or later and they for the most part just wait for us to leave.

02-24-12, 02:32 AM	#18
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,629 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Why complaining that dogs balk? That's what dogs do. The way the Taliban fight is the result of the asymmetrical setting of the war, and that the Taliban do not subscribe to the Hague Land Warfare Convention. Any army facing an enemy not accepting these rules while accepting them for itself necessarily will find itself into trouble - for the assumed weaker side that is the whole idea behind waging asymmetrical warfare, by doing so it compensates its own deficits in strength and technology. One could even say to bring the enemy into trouble is the whole idea behind warfare in general, else you would not shoot at him. But as in Iraq, the blame from my side goes at incompetent, hopelessly reality-disconnected political leaders who deny realities that they do not want and expose their troops to the risks of war over politically formulated objectives that are in total denial of what realistically could ever be acchieved. I personally argue as usual: if you are at war, go for the enemy's throat, and do not let the presence of any unhappy bystander distract you from your target. That is war. It's not a picnic in the woods. It'S always injust to those being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Now there the West is in Afghanistan. Oh so humane the intention, oh so idealistic the claims, oh so wonderful the plans. What has been acchieved? The enemy wins. What has been rebuilt temporarily, will get lost. It will have lived a short life only. Even more, our own leaders now contemplate the need to upvalue the enemy in his political credibility, and negotiate with this primitive rat pack on same eye level with us. They will hang children in the Kabul arena again, they will again supress women with medieval brutality, they will again help to export the ideologic poison of Islam to other conflicts and countries to help the Islamic jihad. Our own guys will return with bad memories on mind, many of them traumatised, some being dead, but we can always comfort ourselves with that we played by the rules, and that we had good intentions, and the most precious phrase of all: "at least we have tried". That'S the self-excusing of loosers, gentlemen. Next thing we will need to hear is politicians explaining us why we were so victorious in Afghanistan, and why it is reasonable to have installed the enemy in place, and why it all has to be seen as a great acchievement. Oh, and many will claim they are very optimistic for the future, that one always catches some voters' applaus en passant. And finally, my favourite: Karzai is our friend, Afghanistan is a great culture, and Pakistan is our ally. Next time you go to war, pick you war more wisely, maybe, and when going in, do so by opening all gates to hell inside your mind. If you are not willing to do that, then maybe it is a stupid idea to go to war. It may be a comic movie, but Quentin Tarrantino said it best in Kill Bill 1, and that scene remineded me of the teachings I received from my own mentor, who also was a Japanese and came from a family of Samurai, it could have been his own very words: "For those regarded as warriors, when engaged in combat, the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior's only concern. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God or Buddha himself. This truth lies at the heart of the art of combat." Ever draw your sword only when you intend to kill. Never put it back into the sheath without blood on it. That'S why I hate parades. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 02-24-12 at 03:01 AM.

02-24-12, 03:22 PM	#21
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I am not sure why some of you seem so shocked that the Taliban, Hezbollah and others have webs sites it does not take that much really to run a website any group with some money can easily do it. In the last several years Islamic Extremists have been using web sites extensively they make are a very cheap and easy way to spread propaganda and to inspire like minded individuals. They could care less about Facebook which is only relevant to people who use Facebook, Westerners.I dont peg someone that might be a willing fighterfor the Taliban having much interest in Facebook they are using that site in an attempt to win hearts and minds of people in the west they can take advantage of free press and public opinion they are attempting to undermine popular support for the war against them they obviously read Sun Tzu. "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." The Taliban attempts to erode popular support for the war against them they use tactics of low risk to their fighters most of the time. When the Us and NATO show up in a region in force most of the Taliban evaporate to a safe haven and come back slowly to the one lost. "There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited." The Taliban can afford to wait for years NATO and the US cant we spend millions upon millions just to counter the threat of IEDs a very inexpensive weapon. Gen. Curtis Lemay was a very firm believer in using the maximum force of ones military to quickly mitigate the conflict and achieve victory if you are facing a situation that prevents you from even fighting this kind of warfare in the first place then you should not get involved. "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." The Taliban knows that we will be leaving sooner or later and they for the most part just wait for us to leave. Last edited by Stealhead; 02-24-12 at 03:46 PM.

02-24-12, 01:33 PM	#19
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,711 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I'm curious: do the Taliban have a Facebook site and, if so, how many "likes" do they have?...