The Pentagon gave Biden severe warnings, about the possibility of the Taliban overrunning the Afghan army

[stevenkongju]

On 8/21/2021 at 5:07 PM, Stonker said:

Well ... umm ... how?

Well Gee, for 20 years they did not get to Kabul, maybe they did something right.

[Poolie]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

You don't truly believe these things, do ya? 

Ask the Japanese people in Okinawa if they want the Americans there.

[Stonker]

52 minutes ago, stevenkongju said:

Ridiculous. They don't "patrol" jack shit. 25,000 soldiers there are a trip wire and instill confidence that there is a real alliance. North Korea could obliterate Seoul in two days, they don't wish to be obliterated 2 days later. 

Well, what it's called is "patrol".

Sorry if that doesn't suit you.

55 minutes ago, stevenkongju said:

10,000 permanent soldiers at Bagram et al. would have ensured a lot

Well, yes, I suppose it would, but I'm not sure what your point is since the US didn't have "10,000 permanent soldiers at Bagram et al" and wasn't prepared to put them there.

So basically ... so what?

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Again, you are parsing words.

No, I'm quoting what you said which was totally incorrect.

If you wanted to say something else but didn't that's hardly my fault.

2 hours ago, longwood50 said:

 

Name one, just one Muslim terrorist who was the grand child, or great grandchild of a U.S.A. citizen.  That would be "home grown" 

 

Well, third or fourth generation may be your version of "home grown", but that's not how the US sees it.

Under the circumstances, I think I'll go along with the US version rather than yours as it's a bit more widely accepted.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, stevenkongju said:

Well Gee, for 20 years they did not get to Kabul, maybe they did something right.

My question, which you quoted, was in response to a comment from @dmacarelli which was very specific and had nothing to do with your comment.

Please don't deliberately misquote a comment I've made out of context as a reply to something else - it's puerile in the extreme.

[stevenkongju]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

You don't truly believe these things, do ya? 

Only when they are true.

[stevenkongju]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Well, what it's called is "patrol".

Well lets see... I an now 35 km from the DMZ. I am not depending on a patrol os soldiers to protect us here. There are some Americans at the DMZ, but mostly South Koreans.

Most US troops are far from th border. Not patrolling, but doing their jobs.

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Well, yes, I suppose it would, but I'm not sure what your point is since the US didn't have "10,000 permanent soldiers at Bagram et al" and wasn't prepared to put them there.

My point is they should have, and certainly could have had them there.

[stevenkongju]

50 minutes ago, Stonker said:

My question, which you quoted, was in response to a comment from @dmacarelli which was very specific and had nothing to do with your comment.

Please don't deliberately misquote a comment I've made out of context as a reply to something else - it's puerile in the extreme.

You specifically asked how the US could have kept Bagram Air Base. I said they could as they had for the last 20 years. Bagram and Kabul. 

 

Was that puerile?

[Stonker]

59 minutes ago, stevenkongju said:

You specifically asked how the US could have kept Bagram Air Base. I said they could as they had for the last 20 years. Bagram and Kabul. 

Was that puerile?

No I didn't, that's completely untrue.

What I asked was "how" in reply to @dmacarelli's comment which was:

On 8/21/2021 at 1:37 PM, dmacarelli said:

I agree with most of what you say. I was simply stating what my nephew said. He implied that the specialists could run Bagram, and could have possibly delayed the overrun of Kabul, long enough to get out the people who have been most loyal to the allies, and give them the respect they deserved. 

"specialists", regardless of whatever he means by that, have not held Bagram and Kabul for the last 20 years, and unlike you he never claimed they had.

 

Whether you want to call your complete mis-representation of his comment and my reply puerile, stupid or just plain dumb I don't really mind.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, stevenkongju said:

Well lets see... I an now 35 km from the DMZ. I am not depending on a patrol os soldiers to protect us here. There are some Americans at the DMZ, but mostly South Koreans.

Most US troops are far from th border. Not patrolling, but doing their jobs.

I never suggested otherwise, or said anything about who was "depending" on anyone to "protect" them.

 

1 hour ago, stevenkongju said:

My point is they should have, and certainly could have had them there.

Well, that's your view which you're fully entitled to.

Unfortunately for you, but probably fortunately for the US and coalition forces who would have been there, no American or coalition politician in any position of responsibility agrees with you, nor does any senior American or coalition  military commander.

[9S_]

10 hours ago, stevenkongju said:

Robert Gates...you've obviously never heard of one of the most important foreign policy guys of the past 25 years. The "m" and "t" are not close on a keyboard.

Probably auto correct

[longwood50]

15 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well, third or fourth generation may be your version of "home grown", but that's not how the US sees it.

Somehow after reading your comments, I can see how you would think that a person whose parents were terrorists but had a child born and raised in the USA and also indoctrinated as a terrorist would be homegrown.   You can define a duck as a chicken but that does not make it such no more than someone who bears more allegiance to a foreign country being "homegrown" 

As stated, name one, just one Muslim terrorist attack, done by a grandchild, or great grandchild of someone residing in the USA.  

Being "born" in the USA hardly gives you "roots" and "allegiance" to the USA.  

My great grandmother and great grandfather, immigrated from Poland, first generation my grandmother spoke only polish, with my grandfather some English.  My mother, spoke both English and Polish and myself and my sister and brother spoke only English. 

Such is the "transition" to being homegrown.  The child born in the USA of foreign parents who are terrorists and indoctrinate their children as such is no more home grown than the eggs from the Burmese Pythons who hatched in the everglades a "native home grown" species"

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Somehow after reading your comments, I can see how you would think that a person whose parents were terrorists but had a child born and raised in the USA and also indoctrinated as a terrorist would be homegrown.   You can define a duck as a chicken but that does not make it such no more than someone who bears more allegiance to a foreign country being "homegrown" 

As stated, name one, just one Muslim terrorist attack, done by a grandchild, or great grandchild of someone residing in the USA.  

Being "born" in the USA hardly gives you "roots" and "allegiance" to the USA.  

My great grandmother and great grandfather, immigrated from Poland, first generation my grandmother spoke only polish, with my grandfather some English.  My mother, spoke both English and Polish and myself and my sister and brother spoke only English. 

Such is the "transition" to being homegrown.  The child born in the USA of foreign parents who are terrorists and indoctrinate their children as such is no more home grown than the eggs from the Burmese Pythons who hatched in the everglades a "native home grown" species"

What you don't seem to understand is that it's not "my" opinion, or what "I" think.

It's what the US lays down as legal criteria, for being President for example, and what the FBI, Immigration and Citizenship, DHS, etc all think.

You may not agree, but it's not "me" you're disagreeing with.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, longwood50 said:

As stated, name one, just one Muslim terrorist attack, done by a grandchild, or great grandchild of someone residing in the USA.  

Just a passing thought, but why do you keep asking me to name only those third generation Americans responsible for a "Muslim terrorist attack" when in recent years (10 - 15) more people in the US have been killed by right wing extremist terrorists than by "Muslim terrorists"?

Are they given a "bye" for some reason?

How about you naming any of those right wing extremist terrorists, who killed more people than the Muslims, who weren't "home grown" by your definition?

Or, in your view, is that all "part of the "transition" to being home grown" and part of your ""roots" and "allegiance" to the USA" so acceptable?

Just wondering ...

 

[longwood50]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Just a passing thought, but why do you keep asking me to name only those third generation Americans responsible for a "Muslim terrorist attack" when in recent years (10 - 15) more people in the US have been killed by right wing extremist terrorists than by "Muslim terrorists"?

First off, as mentioned 38% of the terrorist attacks were Muslim despite being only 1.1% of the population.  The fact that being born in the USA is somehow defined as "homegrown" is ludicrous.  So using that definition, if my parents who happen to be terrorists come to the USA as "tourists" to scout out and during their time in the USA have a child who is now a USA citizen.  Move back to the Middle East and train him to be a terrorist, and he moves to the USA and creates a terror attack that ludicrous example would qualify as being "homegrown"  

Also of the 107 acts defined as "terror attacks"  There is a stark difference to a person such as Adam Larza who used a gun at Sandy Hook to kill 26 people had Aspergers Syndrome and suffered from depression, anxiety, and was bi-polar versus Sayed Mizwan and Tashfeen Malik who used guns to kill 14 people in the name of Allah and pledged allegiance  to Isis.  The second was clearly a "terror attack" designed to create fear and anxiety in the American Populace.  The first was a "sick" individual who was not out to create terror or in the name of any cause.  Yet both are listed.  So is the Las Vegas shooter who was not a mercenary for a cause but rather a sick individual.  

Yes, there have been right wing nut cases such as Timothy McVeigh.  However as pointed out if you let 1 million people in from Asia, or Europe who are not Muslims your chance of having a terror attack from one of them is virtually Zero.  However when you have only 3.45 million Muslims "living" in the USA and Muslims are involved in 38% of all the mass shooting. Letting 1 million who are not even U.S. residents virtually guarantees you are letting in a significant group of people who have as part of their purpose in coming to the USA to incite violence and death. 

Not all Muslims are terrorists, or hate the USA.  I have friends and work associates who are Muslim.  However unless the USA can 100% be assured that who they are allowing in from the Middle East are not prone to radicalism they should not let them in.  

Using Covid as an example, those countries with high rates of Covid infection have a higher barrier to entry to other countries than countries with a low rate of Covid infection.  Same with terrorism.  Allowing entry to the USA from countries whose ethnic population is involved in a high level of prior terror incidents should bar a higher barrier to entry, and undergo a greater degree of scrutiny.  

Sorry but the PC horse fertilizer that calls for everyone to be treated "equally" when statistics show that the threats from different ethnic groups is markedly different is just plain stupid. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by longwood50

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

The fact that being born in the USA is somehow defined as "homegrown" is ludicrous.  So using that definition, if my parents who happen to be terrorists come to the USA as "tourists" to scout out and during their time in the USA have a child who is now a USA citizen.  Move back to the Middle East and train him to be a terrorist, and he moves to the USA and creates a terror attack that ludicrous example would qualify as being "homegrown"  

Also of the 107 acts defined as "terror attacks"  There is a stark difference to a person such as Adam Larza who used a gun at Sandy Hook to kill 26 people had Aspergers Syndrome and suffered from depression, anxiety, and was bi-polar versus Sayed Mizwan and Tashfeen Malik who used guns to kill 14 people in the name of Allah and pledged allegiance  to Isis.  The second was clearly a "terror attack" designed to create fear and anxiety in the American Populace.  The first was a "sick" individual who was not out to create terror or in the name of any cause.  Yet both are listed.  So is the Las Vegas shooter who was not a mercenary for a cause but rather a sick individual.  

Yes, there have been right wing nut cases such as Timothy McVeigh.  However as pointed out if you let 1 million people in from Asia, or Europe who are not Muslims your chance of having a terror attack from one of them is virtually Zero.  However when you have only 3.45 million Muslims "living" in the USA and Muslims are involved in 38% of all the mass shooting. Letting 1 million who are not even U.S. residents virtually guarantees you are letting in a significant group of people who have as part of their purpose in coming to the USA to incite violence and death. 

Not all Muslims are terrorists, or hate the USA.  I have friends and work associates who are Muslim.  However unless the USA can 100% be assured that who they are allowing in from the Middle East are not prone to radicalism they should not let them in.  

Using Covid as an example, those countries with high rates of Covid infection have a higher barrier to entry to other countries than countries with a low rate of Covid infection.  Same with terrorism.  

But you're not "letting them in" - they're mainly US citizens already or have US residency, and if not they've been vetted and approved.

 

It doesn't matter if you think it's "ludicrous" that they're considered "home grown" after one generation as that's the system, and the only alternative is to have some system of citizenship, where only third or fourth generation are citizens - good luck with that .

 

According to the FBI and US Immigration, even if the most stringent rules (rescinded by the courts) had been applied, that would have stopped one person between 2002 and 2019, so had minimal effect on reducing terrorism in the US.

They could be wrong, of course ...

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Allowing entry to the USA from countries whose ethnic population is involved in a high level of prior terror incidents should bar a higher barrier to entry, and undergo a greater degree of scrutiny.  
 

Well, according to the Immigration service they do, far higher.

They could be wrong, of course.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Sorry but the PC horse fertilizer that calls for everyone to be treated "equally" when statistics show that the threats from different ethnic groups is markedly different is just plain stupid. 

So the problem isn't the immigrants coming in from certain countries, but the "ethnic groups" including those already in the country  unless they're at least third or fourth generation Americans.

I see.

At least, I'm beginning to .....

[longwood50]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

But you're not "letting them in" - they're mainly US citizens already or have US residency, and if not they've been vetted and approved.

I am not talking about the ones already in.  I am saying NO MORE.  As to the vetting, approved, again, you miss my point.  They give a full body exam to a 90 year old wheel chair bound veteran but wave through anyone in a hijab for fear of being labeled a racist. 

As to the vetting and "approved"  if it was working so well then why do 38% of all the terrorist incidents involve Muslims.  

It like saying there are 1 million pills and only 2,000 of them are poison and the majority of the poisonous ones come from one region in the world but applying the same scrutiny to all. 

As said, I have been to Israel.  I can assure you, they know everything about you, your background, your work, who you are traveling with, long before you get on the plane and they verify that upon entry.  

The USA gives a blank pass to someone who they can not establish a background for saying nothing should prohibit them from entry.  The standards 'SHOULD BE that they have a background establishing them as safe.  Not just hope that since you found nothing, they are ok. 

[Rain]

 

[AussieBob]

On 8/16/2021 at 8:24 PM, MrStretch said:

It wouldn't have mattered what contingency planning they put in place.  Without actual military presence and control, Afghanistan was already doomed to fall to the Taliban.

That's what they want...that's what they get.  Leave them to it.

It's time the US let countries like Afghanistan implode.  We should do our best to contain them inside their own borders, but if they want to be fundamentalist asses, let them be.

Exactly - and it is about time the USA stopped wasting their money and their lives on 'appeasement' and 'occupation'.  If they need to be destroyed, then get in and destroy them - and then as quickly as possible get the Phark out (like Iraq) - let them get on with it themselves. There are many vested interests involved in an 'occupation' and they have huge influence in Government (call it bribes or donations). They use the examples of Germany and Japan whereby the west invaded/destroyed them, and then 'changed' things to make them better countries.  That does not work outside the western world - period.  USA needs to teach the world one simple lesson - push us too far and we will destroy your world and then leave the mess behind for you to pick up - leave us alone and we will leave you alone.  But with all the 'human rights' crap in the UN since WW2 they are not 'allowed' to pursue such a course of action.  Prior to the US invading Afghanistan there was SFA UN investigations of all the atrocities being conducted by the Taliban, and yet since the USA invaded they have been investigating almost every claim against the US troops. Luckily, the US has refused to sign the UN Courts Agreement, and therefore their troops cannot be charged and put on trial. But the USA needs to do more - and I reckon they completely pull out - everything and everywhere. And if/when the World needs them AGAIN - the USA should tell them to far cough - "you made your bed, you lie in it - we are sick of cleaning up your crap".  The USA motto should be "live and let live, but phark with me and I will phark up your world/country".

And that includes Israel, which is the 'source code' of the middle east 'problem'.  Give them the arms and technology to deal with it themselves, and then stay out of it. If they survive then that is great - if they do not, then so be it. There is no 'solution' - there is no 'appeasement' - stay out of it and let them resolve it themselves - one way or the other. 

[Stonker]

14 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I am not talking about the ones already in. 

I realise that, but since the Directors of the FBI, the FBI Counter Terrorism Division, and National Intelligence all say that they're the problem, and that's what they testified to Congress, you're talking about the wrong people.

14 hours ago, longwood50 said:

As to the vetting, approved, again, you miss my point.  They give a full body exam to a 90 year old wheel chair bound veteran but wave through anyone in a hijab for fear of being labeled a racist. 

No, I don't miss your point, but according to the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, what you're saying is wrong.

 

14 hours ago, longwood50 said:

As to the vetting and "approved"  if it was working so well then why do 38% of all the terrorist incidents involve Muslims.  

Because they're already in the US and the vast majority (83%) are US citizens or residents - reportedly 20% of Muslims in America are converts. As Anwar al-Awlaki, the American born cleric who became a leader in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, put it in a 2010 post, “Jihad is becoming as American as apple pie.”

14 hours ago, longwood50 said:

It like saying there are 1 million pills and only 2,000 of them are poison and the majority of the poisonous ones come from one region in the world but applying the same scrutiny to all. 

Well,  the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says that's not the case.

14 hours ago, longwood50 said:

The USA gives a blank pass to someone who they can not establish a background for saying nothing should prohibit them from entry.  The standards 'SHOULD BE that they have a background establishing them as safe.  Not just hope that since you found nothing, they are ok. 

Well, so you keep saying, but  the Directors of the FBI, the FBI Counter Terrorism Division, National Intelligence and  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services all say otherwise.

Now, who do I believe ..... 

[billywillyjones]

Blinken enters the bedroom of the President. He nudges the President.  Joe begins to  wake.

Joe: Hmm... mommy I don't want to go to school today.

Blinken: Wake up Mr. President.. it's me Blinken.

Joe: You are a blinking idiot for waking me up at 11.  

Blinken:  No no Mr. President.  We have just received word that the Taliban have given us until the 31 to evacuate all Americans or face the consequences.

Joe: Well that's great news isn't it?  See they are letting us evacuate.  Just like they promised when we made the deal to pull out.

Blinken:  But Mr. President...

Joe:  Now go away and don't wake me up until next Tuesday.  And I want to see some of those Taliban buy Hunter's art like they promised.

Blinken: Yes Mr. President.

[WaccineChinawatiiRaporn]

There he is!

 

[TopDeadSenter]

21 hours ago, Stonker said:

According to the FBI and US Immigration, even if the most stringent rules (rescinded by the courts) had been applied, that would have stopped one person between 2002 and 2019, so had minimal effect on reducing terrorism in the US.

Well if you don't have enough ROP terrorists in the US, why not airlift another 100 more in? With the border open to any criminal that fancies walking over, with the police defunded, with electoral integrity shattered, with logical and accurate voices censored, and now with Biden kicking the mother of all hornets nests and running away, it seems like the Biden admin is actively trying to destroy America.

"As many as 100 Afghan evacuees flown out of war-torn Kabul are on intelligence agency watch lists, a United States government official warned on Tuesday as it was revealed one passenger flown out to Qatar has potential ties to ISIS."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9924131/Up-100-Afghan-evacuees-flown-war-torn-Kabul-terror-watch-lists-official-warns.html

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by TopDeadSenter

[Convert54]

So much strong talk about should  and could have. Now how to clean a mess for US. Nobody know what about Afghan people after. China playing nice. China is much practice at buying not bombing. Taliban can take money and watch Chinese dig up all they want. Maybe be like Sultan in Dubai? Anyway is  goodbye USA, same as goodbye Russia, England and before maybe Genghis Khan and more. Now will be less poppies again.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

... ROP terrorists ...

Sorry - "ROP"?