Exterminate The Taliban

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Read-Only, Jul 10, 2012.

  1. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Relying on supplying via Pakistan, especially land routes, is strategically incompetent because it puts us at the mercy of the very state which is funding, arming, organising, commanding the Taliban - the Pakistani state. We need alternatives and I have considered those in my posts in this thread, starting at post #39 the overview, #40 land supply through Afghanistan and #41 airlift.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please review those posts and quote and ask questions of anything you don't understand.

    This image I think is particularly useful which I already posted.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This video sets the stage nicely too, though the guy who uploaded it has put an overly pessimistic spin on his video's title.

    [video=youtube;njheDuMq3VI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njheDuMq3VI[/video]

    Tied to the geography to some extent when supplying from the south but not tied to paying the state. But we are not even tied to supplying from the south. There is the north, too.

    So no we can simply overfly Pakistan without paying the state anything but telling them if Pakistan's air defences threaten our cargo planes our air-force will take that as a declaration of an air war and we will eliminate Pakistan's air defences and air force. They don't want to lose their air defences and air force so they'll let our planes fly over, no charge.

    Stop supplying via land routes through Pakistan. That's a self-inflicted strangle-hold we have gifted to the enemy.

    Another point to note is that there have been news stories about maintaining US / NATO bases in Afghanistan even after 2014, after the drawdown which would not be a complete withdrawal after all.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    This war could be easily won. Here's how.

    There again ..


    Afghanistan: Obama's counsel of despair. Drawdown or ROUT?

    Could a feeling of strategic despair pervading the White House mean President Obama's drawdown plan could turn into an unseemly rout of US and other NATO-ISAF forces?

    It looks to me like President Obama is getting some "Dark Counsel" as regards pulling out from Afghanistan.

    First to explain the phrase "Dark Counsel". Have you seen Lord of the Rings? Remember King Theoden and his adviser, Grima Wormtongue, who told him he was weak, could not fight and hope to win, turned out Grima was secretly an agent for Saruman?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    OK remember now? That's "dark counsel".

    So who is giving Obama, "dark counsel", who is his Grima Wormtongue?

    Well maybe a lady called Robin Raphel, a former agent for Pakistan, a Washington Lobbyist in the pay of the Pakisan state. Obama has taken her on into her team, in charge of non-military aid to Pakistan, that's billions of dollars worth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Raphel is the enemy within. I would not let this woman within a mile of the White House, but there again, I'm not King Theoden, I mean, President Obama.

    [video=youtube;PY9eRkdIeuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9eRkdIeuk[/video]

    Now instead of a "counsel of despair", I offer a simple explanation of "what went wrong".

    First let's compare and contrast

    • the Afghan war to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan (12 years, 3000+ coalition deaths and seeking a peace with the enemy who is still threatening a come-back after we pull out next year)
    with

    • the Gulf War in 1991 to kick Saddam's Iraqi forces out of Kuwait (5 weeks bombing campaign, a 100 hour ground campaign. 500- coalition deaths - a decisive coalition victory)

    So wars can be won, quite easily if your generals go about it the right way.

    The issue is that we have not declared and prosecuted a war against the imperial power in this case, Pakistan.

    Have a more detailed look at how our generals confronted the imperial power, Iraq, in that Gulf War.

    Quotes from Wikipedia: Gulf War

    First there was the 5 weeks bombing campaign -

    then the 100 hour ground campaign

    Smokin'

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now, imagine if instead of that excellent Gulf War battle plan, we had decided to invade Kuwait by air drop and then asked Saddam if it was OK to supply our air-dropped troops in Kuwait by supplying along Iraqi roads and we would pay him billions of dollars to let us?

    How would the Gulf War have gone then? Saddam would have had us by the balls then like Pakistan has us by the balls now.

    You can't defeat the troops of an imperial power by asking that imperial power for permission to do it. You have to defeat the imperial power. The front line troops, whether Saddam's forces in Kuwait or Pakistan's Taliban forces in Afghanistan are only the tip of the enemy war machine. You have to hit the enemy in the rear, hard.

    And we've never given Pakistan the kind of air war that we gave Saddam in 1991. So Pakistan is laughing at our war campaign in Afghanistan.





    Now do you understand how easy this war would be to win? We have to confront and defeat the imperial power, Pakistan, whose auxiliary, irregular or paramilitary forces the Taliban are.

    Well if you still don't know how to win, no worries because I do, so just put me in charge of this war if you want it won.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Doesn't matter what you call it. We are getting out; that's the important thing.

    It would be as easy for us as it was for the USSR in 1987.

    Remember Vietnam? That was going to be an easy one, too. Just a limited police action; General Westmoreland predicted an easy win by the end of 1967.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    No, the important thing is to stop another 9/11 and winning does that. Losing, leaving without ever confronting the Pakistan who did 9/11, instead giving them billions of dollars, doesn't prevent another 9/11.

    When Pakistan decides they'd rather have $10 billion in aid payments from the US a year instead of $5 billion, or some other massive concession from the West - such as to pull out our bases from the Middle East altogether - who knows what Pakistan will demand next - then unless the US caves in to the next demand, Pakistan will do another 9/11 and the US will be back to square one - pay up, give in, surrender to Pakistan's every demand or, finally, confront Pakistan.

    It would be a very timid US that allows itself to get pushed around and mugged by Pakistan and simply pays up, gives in. It would be a weak US that does that.


    So far it has but that is for one simple reason - it's the same great power which has been funding the insurgents in 1987 as now - the USA.

    Yes, the USA has been funding the Taliban. The US funds Pakistan and Pakistan funds the Taliban.

    So just as in 1987 when the US funded the anti-Soviet rebellion in Afghanistan, today the US is funding the anti-US rebellion in Afghanistan.

    I know that sounds mad, crazy, just-can't-be - but it is. The US is funding its own enemy. That's why it is so hard to win.

    But if you fight the enemy, Pakistan - don't fund them - suddenly the war is a whole lot easier to win.

    I'm not saying it is going to be a "limited police action". I'm saying it is going to be easy, for us anyway.

    Either Pakistan will surrender, come to terms, or we will obliterate their military using air and missile power until such time as the last Pakistani general standing surrenders or they run out of generals.

    So either way, Pakistan is easy, for us - just the 2nd way, the full-on war way, would not be "a limited police action".

    So it will be easy for us - as easy as the Gulf War, but for Pakistan, well they could pay a very heavy price indeed but it depends on whether they come to terms or not.

    I suspect Pakistan would come to terms reasonably quickly - and have no stomach for a massive pounding from the US and NATO - but we'll see.

    Only the US and NATO have to not be bluffing. We need to follow through with any threats we make.

    Much better generals needed

    Perhaps the other point to be made, is that however easy a war could be to win, if you have poor generals, and the generals we've had in this war have been very poor then, poor generals could screw it all up.

    So we need to appoint some new good generals to win this. Excellent generals would be better but they do need to be competent, which our generals have not been in recent years.

    I think the military ought to be looking outside its ranks considering taking on scientists with an interest in military strategy to serve as their generals.

    So for example, someone like me could be appointed as NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, which I'd be happy to do, if and when the call came.


    Standing by ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2013
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    We "won" back in 1989 when we supported radical Islamic extremists in Afghanistan fighting the USSR. That "victory" led indirectly to the 9/11 attacks. We would be well advised to avoid such "victories" in the future.
    Agreed. It would be a strong US that says "your country, your problem, deal with it. We're out of here."
    Yep. We are doing it now; we did it back then. Best to stop doing that.
    And if you leave both of them alone we win with no further effort/money/lives on our part.
    Yep. Which is how the US was convinced to enter into the Vietnam war. How did that turn out?
    Easier, IMO, to not make threats to begin with.
     
  9. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    No the Soviets lost and the radical Islamic extremists won, which is different.

    No, a lot of politics happened between 1989 and 2001. It wasn't a direct cause and effect. That's too simplistic. Sure, if we had not funded the anti-Soviet rebellion then things would have turned out differently, that's obvious.

    We would be well advised to watch who we fund, yes. It's not always true that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Lessons there for Syria perhaps.

    However, we are still supporting Pakistan as we have for years since 9/11. So if you are saying we should stop supporting Pakistan then I'd agree.

    9/11 was our problem. We need to prevent something similar happening coming out of Pakistan / Afghanistan again. It's their country but they threaten us, so it is our problem.

    Well that's a point of agreement then.

    Ah, I see your misunderstanding now.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No it was because we left Pakistan alone as a ticking-bomb country, a country which was a menace to the world, after the Soviets pulled out from Afghanistan and when the Soviet Union collapsed, that 9/11 happened.

    No. I'm saying don't assume this will be a police action. After all, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It might be turn out to be more like the Cuban missile crisis than anything. Or like the Gulf War bombing campaign - or some combination of the two.

    But consider that the Cuban missile crisis was easy, the Gulf War was easy - and so the Pakistan conflict would be easy, for us.

    Perhaps you think it would be easier not to have a military to being with, not to have any interests to begin with, just hand the world over to those Islamists?

    It wouldn't be at all easy if we ignore this threat. It will lead to more 9/11s unless we simply hand them the world and we are not going to do that so when we next say "NO" to them, they'll do another 9/11.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Right. In our case one set of radical Islamic extremists will lose and one set of radical Islamic extremists will win.

    Which is why I said "indirect." The Mujahideen, who we in large part created via the ISI channeling our money to them, gave birth to Al Qaeda.

    Yes; we should stop supporting both.

    Let's say someone killed your son. How many of your other family members would they have to kill before you stopped hating them?

    That's the problem with the "keep killing them until they are no longer a threat" philosophy. Unless genocide is your thing, then killing people just makes the survivors more angry - and makes a future 9/11 much, much more likely.

    Pakistan was not responsible for 9/11.

    Right. We claimed that Afghanistan would be easy. Iraq would be easy. Vietnam would be easy. We are always wrong.

    No, I think having a military used to defend the USA would be easier.

    Right. So instead let's kill enough of them that they stop hating us.
     
  11. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Right!

    What case? I really don't understand what you mean there?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    OK.
    "Both"? I say stop supporting Pakistan. You say stop supporting "both". Both Pakistans?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They'd probably have to kill me to stop me hating them.

    That's not my philosophy. Why don't you allow me to state my own philosophy?

    My philosophy is that our governments ought to hold states, such as Pakistan, accountable for their acts of war against us.

    I mean our governments ought to face up to the evidence that the Pakistani state has secretly been waging war against us by secretly employing Al Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban to wage Pakistan's secret war against us.

    I mean our governments ought to respond to the revelation of Pakistan's acts of war against us by declaring that a state of war now exists between us and Pakistan and accordingly command our forces to confront the aggressor, Pakistan, with retaliatory acts of war of our own against Pakistan, in our own self-defence, with a view to bringing Pakistan's secret war to an end and to compel Pakistan to agree and to deliver peace terms which would satisfy our need for security into the future.

    That's a very offensive suggestion. Kicking-the-ass-of-anyone-who-suggests-that-genocide-is-my-thing would be my thing, if you were in reach!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well just about everyone in every country has survived some kind of war, or their parents or grand-parents did. So according to you, we must all be "more angry"?

    Well speak for yourself. Did you or your ancestors survive a war? How angry are you now?

    No 9/11 was not caused by "angry people" spontaneously putting down their history books and going on jihad, but by state-sponsored terrorism which wanted that kind of attack done.


    Yes it was. Pakistan's military ran a vassal Taliban state of Afghanistan which hosted Al Qaeda which organised 9/11.


    Well Gulf War 1, to kick Saddam's forces out of Kuwait, was easy. We were right then. It depends on if you appoint good generals with a good strategy as to how easy a war is.

    You can't just assume a war is going to be easy or hard because of what has been claimed in the past. You have to look at the details of what is proposed.


    That's what I am proposing, defend the USA from Pakistan.

    Right now, we have a US military which is co-operating with Pakistan as Pakistan secretly attacks the US military and threatens the USA, not a military which is defending the USA from Pakistan.

    Before 9/11 we had a US military which was indifferent or ignorant or complacent about the threats from Pakistan.

    The military should indeed defend the USA from Pakistan with the approach I have proposed to confront Pakistan, to wage war to seek acceptable peace terms.


    No, it is about regime-changing Pakistan so that the state no longer has any desire to sponsor terrorism because they know what it will cost them if they do. If regime-changing Pakistan requires killing some Pakistani military in war then let's do that.

    Right now, all Pakistan knows is that if they sponsor terrorism they get billions of dollars from the USA. That's the wrong incentive to give Pakistan.
     
  12. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Afghanistan post-2014 10,000 U.S + 5 - 6,000 coalition troops + AN ENGINEERS SURGE!

    10,000 and more US troops plus thousands of allied troops are required to secure 4 airbases in Afghanistan securely versus the threat of siege so that the airbases can be supplied entirely by an airlift.

    In particular, a surge of military engineers working to a precisely prepared scientific plan is required to fortify the airbases, constructing extensive perimeter and base defences, to secure a very wide area around the air base to keep besieging enemy fire out of range of the runways and the take-off and landing flight paths.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Click to view larger image

    This cannot responsibly be left to be improvised by troops and their commanders in the field.

    By the time our forces finally appreciate their precarious supply predicament when surrounded by enemy forces besieging our Afghan airbases it will be, at that late stage, far too late to avoid our forces being trapped and starved of supplies.

    The task to secure an airbase supplied entirely by airlift in a war zone and to hold it indefinitely versus all foes is a very hard military task with a history of disastrous failed attempts.

    Surrounded troops cannot be easily reinforced or evacuated. Throughout military history, troops which get surrounded by the enemy and which cannot be relieved by a ground army breaking through the lines of the besieging forces have often found that they had no other option but to surrender.

    However, as President John F Kennedy said, we choose to go to the moon and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard.

    Compared to going to the moon, compared even to designing and building a modern jet-fighter, this is a comparatively simple task for our scientists and engineers to plan for.

    Designing and building a fortified airbase is easier than rocket science but it still a harder scientific and engineering task than the military can routinely do.

    It is not a job that our officers out of military academy have learned how to do.

    So this task is comparatively simple and doesn't require Wernher von Braun, the first great rocket scientist, who led the Apollo mission from a scientific and engineering point of view.

    However, planning for this military operation is indeed a task for the attention of our best military scientists and engineers rather than a task left to the professional military serving in Afghanistan to tackle all on their own.

    It needs a specialist team of scientists and engineers to lead. My bet is that no such team has been set up. That's the issue. Unpreparedness by government for a hard but possible task.

    Obama is no JFK. He wants to bring the troops home. He doesn't want to set up a special team to design fortified air bases for Afghanistan.

    It's a problem of political leadership. We need leaders with something of JFK about them, to lead the people to strive to do the harder task, even though it is not as hard as going to the moon.

    I could help do the science and engineering required but I'm in no way well positioned or suited to doing the political leadership job.

    So for this task, I could do the Wernher von Braun role, as could many other scientists out there. But who is going to do the JFK part of the job?

    Where are the political leaders who will get the government to set up the required team of scientists and engineers?

    The political and military leaders, politicians and generals, we have in post just now, don't seem to be thinking about this issue.

    I don't have any doubt that if I were in charge of our military I could manage this but, sadly, I'm not in charge and those who are in charge, worry me as to their competence, to be honest.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click for LARGER image

    This diagram shows my suggested layout for the perimeter defences for a military base.

    Explanation of the diagram features.

    Central Base - the green disc in the diagram represents the central well-defended area of the military base, or "Green Zone" where various buildings, vehicles and personnel of the base are normally situated.

    Autocannon, machine gun, missile and mortar towers - the red and pink dots represent static, armoured fortifications or towers for one autocannon, machine gun and anti-tank missiles and its 3-man team of gunners which encircle the base at a distance of about 6 miles or 10 kilometres from the edge of the central Base. The spacing between adjacent gun towers is about 333 metres or 333 yards.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The Pyramid of Cestius, Rome, photoshopped into a gun tower

    The idea of gun towers is to give the gunner a good view of the desert terrain which is unlikely to be completely flat and dips in the ground could otherwise provide cover for attacking mortar teams. Gun towers also enable the gunners easily to see over and beyond any obstacles in the vehicle barrier into the Threat Zone. The gun towers should be robust enough so that they could take a number of artillery shells without collapsing.

    The plan calls for one team of gunners per tower serving on base. The gunners are organised into 3 duty shifts of at least 8 hours and so normally only 1 in 3 of the towers will be manned at any one time. The gunners spend their off-duty time in the central Base where their quarters are situated.

    If, when and where the perimeter defences are attacked by the enemy, the off-duty gunners can be called back on emergency duty as required by their officers.

    There would be a minimum of about 200 gun towers required and for each tower I propose -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    • a 25mm cannon, which typically have a range out to 2.5 km / 1.5 miles with
    • a 12.7mm (0.5") or 7.62mm machine gun back-up.
    • anti-tank missiles, such as TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire command data-link) guided missiles
    • mortars

    The tower's weapons are mounted into some kind of swivelling gun turret, with working parts somewhat like the gun turret on top of an infantry fighting vehicle maybe.

    A cost-effective option might be to buy off-the-shelf turrets which are already in mass production for vehicles like the Bradley IFV with some additional armour capped on top of it because it doesn't need to be light, just very strong against incoming mortar or artillery fire.

    The one issue there might be with IVF turrets is that it really needs lower gun elevation than is standard for an IFV turret. IFV guns often don't dip below -10 degrees below the horizontal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's not ideal because the gun turrets are going to be much higher off the ground than they would be in an IVF and ideally the gunners ought to be able to target the ground beneath them as well as the ground hundreds of metres away.

    Naval ship mounted cannons tend to dip lower, down to -20 degrees and that would be better, but naval cannons are not usually well armoured for the gunner's protection.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They do come in remotely operated versions which is an interesting option to consider.

    Infantry barriers - barbed wire and anti-personnel mines to stop enemy infantry from advancing into the centre of the base. The infantry barrier extends from 100m to 2000m from the towers.

    Vehicle barriers - obstacles and anti-tank mines which prevent enemy vehicles from advancing into the centre of the base. The vehicle barrier extends from 2000m to 3000m from the towers.

    Towers tunnel - Although not drawn in, I propose tunnels which connect the towers together underground via internal staircases / lifts from the tunnel to the gun turret. The tunnels also have radial branches that lead to the central base.

    A towers tunnel would allow each 3 man-team to either deploy as all three men in one tower or one man in each of three neighbouring towers; the team could change its deployment without being observed by the enemy.

    Reaction Force Zone - Quick reaction forces deploy in armoured vehicles from the central base into the Reaction Force Zone to fire at enemy attacking forces.

    Threat Zone - A circumferential military zone around the perimeter defences where the base defenders may assume a hostile intent on the part of uninvited intruders into the Threat Zone and from where locals are forbidden and variously warned off from intruding upon. This land is occupied or leased to the military base and is closely watched using surveillance technology. Warning shots or sub-lethal rounds may be fired upon suspected innocent intruders and identified enemy forces can be fired upon to kill without warning.

    The diagram represents a Threat Zone which extends to 10 miles / 16 kilometres from the edge of the central Base. The plan therefore recommends that it is inappropriate to site a well-defended base within 10 miles of an urban area or a public highway which would cause local people and local traffic to enter into the defined Threat Zone routinely making the early detection of real threats difficult to distinguish.

    A large Threat Zone is desirable for security purposes because it makes for a safer perimeter defence but does add significantly to the land requirements of the base therefore the availability of a wide area of undeveloped land is ideal when choosing a location for the construction of a new military base.

    Some existing military bases are located close to urban areas where a large Threat Zone cannot be defined and this is likely to make such bases much less secure.

    Access road Road to access the base from the surrounding road network.

    STOP police control barrier Military police stop traffic wishing to enter the base and perform final checks that visitors and loads are authorised to proceed. The control barriers prevent terrorists driving off the road and prevent vehicles proceeding without permission.

    The control barrier fortifications need to be very robust so as to survive an enemy truck bomb.

    Trust Zone People, vehicles or buildings in the Trust Zone which is everywhere outside of the Threat Zone are assumed to be trustworthy and non-threatening in so far as the base defenders are concerned.

    People in the Trust Zone are assumed to be respecting the base's security and the base defenders treat people in the Trust Zone with the same mutual respect for their own security.

    Protestors
    Protestors who wish to demonstrate for whatever reason their political viewpoints are allowed to approach the base as far as the Warning Line which surrounds the Threat Zone but it is the responsibility of the local authorities to ensure that protestors do not intrude into the Threat Zone without invitation otherwise a hostile intent may be assumed and defensive actions taken.

    Defence force For the smallest bases, this plan calls for a defence force of three serving companies of gunners - one company for each of the 3 shifts.

    One company needs at least 200 gunners and their officers so 3 companies total at least 600 gunners and their officers. In addition, military and support personnel are needed for other duties such as policing visitors, cooking, vehicle and plant maintenance engineers, medical, supplies storage & management, camp tidying up, latrine digging, reserves etc.

    The defence force required would be of an infantry battalion size of perhaps of about 800 soldiers / marines and support personnel in total and so the base defence force commander would likely be ranked at Lieutenant Colonel or higher.

    For larger bases with central Base areas that could be miles wide, such as military air bases that require aircraft runways, the lines of perimeter defences would need to be longer and so more gunners etc would be required.
     
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The terrorists are now infiltrating the military in Afghanistan and with that more allies will be killed. What is going to prevent that from happening and continuing to have more infiltration in the ranks?
     
  14. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Thank you for your question.

    Have you read my post number 61 in this thread?

    Afghan forces. Green-on-blue attacks. The solution - Post #61.

    In my post #61 I explained how foolish our leaders have been to fund the Afghan national forces who are commanded independently by the Afghan president because that leads precisely to the problem of enemy infiltration and the killing of our soldiers in so-called "green-on-blue" or "insider" attacks.

    I also explained that the solution to prevent this from happening was to establish and to fund instead a new force of Afghans which was not an Afghan national force, which was not commanded by the Afghan president but which was recruited and commanded instead by our NATO country generals. This kind of force is called an "auxiliary" or "irregular" force.

    This would give us precise control over which Afghans we wanted to recruit to work with us. So we would not be dependent on the trustworthiness of the Afghan president and his generals but be in the much more reliable hands of our own generals.

    We could use such an auxiliary force of Afghans to support our mission objectives rather than the objectives of the Afghan president. So in many ways it is a much better plan to pay for an armed force which you control rather than a force that someone else controls.
     
  15. barcelonic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    @OP -- I don't know about you but I do not feel confident I could destroy the Taliban without leaving a single survivor, and given how no genocide in history has ever been successful and left not one survivor, it seems unlikely.

    One survivor would mean you massacred all those people for absolutely nothing!

    As far as ethics is concerned -- case closed
     
  16. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Obama visits Pakistan joke

    President Barack Obama makes a state visit to Pakistan. Michelle and the kids come too.

    Obama is a guest 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?".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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
    Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube

    Part 2. Backlash
    Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    American communities may be 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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The AfPak Mission links

    Channel AfPak Mission - YouTube
    Forum For Freedom Forums
    Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
    Flickr Flickr: AfPak Mission's Photostream
    Blog AfPak Mission
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2014
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I bet Peter Dow could exterminate the Taliban all by himself with his manly biceps.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Is that a TOW missile in your pocket, or are you just happy to see my waist-to-hip ratio?
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Hey guy, I think I found you the perfect woman.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Teheheheh! Spidee youz a bad boy.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  22. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
  23. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    "nothing" as is web page not served?

    I am curious as to what you mean by "got nothing"?

    Do you mean when you click on those links you didn't get the pages from my website?

    I am wondering if the server I use for my website is not serving pages to your location in your part of the world, or if the authorities where you stay are blacklisting my website?

    As far as I know, my site should be available world wide, but I would not be surprised to learn that it was being blocked in say China, not know for internet freedom.

    Can you investigate at your end please? Can you ask someone local to you if they can access the site or if he / she also finds "nothing"?
     

Share This Page