They've always been operating out of Pakistan's tribal areas. Beats the duck-or-die reception they get in Afgh.

In other news, the mole in the leftmost hole second from the top has been whacked.

Yeah, they're all in Pakistan! Mission accomplished!

/DNRTFA.

Everybody knows they were in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was defeated and Al Qaeda is in it's death throws. It's good thing Bush invaded Iraq because Al Qaeda would be on our doorstep with nuclear weapons.

I don't think Al-Queda are actually based (pardon the pun) anywhere. That's part of the problem IIRC

Well, judging by Pakistan's change of mood recently, they should have no problem with us marching in there to straighten out the problem.

Right Pakistan?

Don't let me down, I've been really impressed with your attitude lately. Keep up the good work.

Exodus2001: Everybody knows they were in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was defeated and Al Qaeda is in it's death throws.

Knives or nunchucks?

dodecahedron: Exodus2001: Everybody knows they were in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was defeated and Al Qaeda is in it's death throws.

Knives or nunchucks?

We use smoke. You know, to smoke them out!

dodecahedron: Exodus2001: Everybody knows they were in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was defeated and Al Qaeda is in it's death throws.

Knives or nunchucks?

Really small rocks?

Spray your apartment and the roaches just move to your neighbors until they spray and the roaches move back to yours.
-Orkin's Art of War

Exodus2001: Everybody knows they were in Iraq.

sarcastrophe: dodecahedron: Exodus2001: Everybody knows they were in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was defeated and Al Qaeda is in it's death throws.

Knives or nunchucks?

Really small rocks?

I hear Al Qaeda throes really small rocks.

*yawn* news to who, again?

Exodus2001: Everybody knows they were in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was defeated and Al Qaeda is in it's death throws.

This guy has a good track record. I think the statement is legit.

Afghanistan and Iraq have switched places in terms of which country is becoming a pain in the ass for the U.S. and its allies and which is beginning to stabilize. So don't celebrate the eviction of Al Qaeda just yet. The reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be Obama's next great challenge.

Kumana Wanalaia: Exodus2001: Everybody knows they were in Iraq.

The times are a-changin'.

Kumana Wanalaia: Well, judging by Pakistan's change of mood recently, they should have no problem with us marching in there to straighten out the problem.

Right Pakistan?

Don't let me down, I've been really impressed with your attitude lately. Keep up the good work.

One of the more interesting things that Obama said during the campaign trail was that he wouldn't hesitate to make a move against AQ if they had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government failed to act. It will be interesting to see if that holds true and the effects of such an action.

WhileAmericaBurns: Afghanistan and Iraq have switched places in terms of which country is becoming a pain in the ass for the U.S. and its allies and which is beginning to stabilize. So don't celebrate the eviction of Al Qaeda just yet. The reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be Obama's next great challenge.

He should just start working more with Iran for the benefit of both projects.

40below: They've always been operating out of Pakistan's tribal areas. Beats the duck-or-die reception they get in Afgh.

Uh, no, actually they were based in Afghanistan from the moment Bin Laden was kicked out of Sudan and taken in by the Talibans. They stayed there, firmly entrenched, until early 2002 when the Talibans were completely routed and they had no choice but to flee for their lives, where most ended up hiding along the Afghan-Pakistan mountainous region where they share a border.

manduwala: I don't think Al-Queda are actually based (pardon the pun) anywhere. That's part of the problem IIRC

No, Al-Qaeda certainly has a base of operation. Nowadays, it's much more mobile and far less important than it was pre-9/11, but there is such a thing.

The problem is that Al Qaeda functions through satellite groups who have very little contacts between each others or the HQ and most of the communication is one-way and made obliquely (internet postings, coded messages, etc..)

While Al-Zawahiri still directs the overall goals of the organization, there is much leeway given to different cells on the ground on how they want to conduct their part in the global jihad.

WhileAmericaBurns: The reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan

They never left. A good chunk of them just shaved their beards and started to work with the local governments, while the others asserted their controls in sattelite regions, growing stronger through local warlords that were sympathetic to them.

Reality on the ground is, and has been for quite a few years now, that the US and NATO forces control a few strategic blocs in the country, but the rest is pretty much under Taliban control and they are gnawing away at what we control already.

This is why we need more troops asap.
KaponoFor3: One of the more interesting things that Obama said during the campaign trail was that he wouldn't hesitate to make a move against AQ if they had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government failed to act. It will be interesting to see if that holds true and the effects of such an action.

He has already, and I trust he will in the future as well.

Oh yeah. Keep telling yourselves that. It'll let us jump from fighting in Iraq to fighting in Pakistan without ever remembering we were in Afghanistan.

/still better than "Priests don't get to have sex hur hur hur"

Tatsuma: WhileAmericaBurns: The reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan

They never left. A good chunk of them just shaved their beards and started to work with the local governments, while the others asserted their controls in sattelite regions, growing stronger through local warlords that were sympathetic to them.

Understood. I meant that they're regaining the power they lost after the 2001 invasion.

Tatsuma:
KaponoFor3: One of the more interesting things that Obama said during the campaign trail was that he wouldn't hesitate to make a move against AQ if they had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government failed to act. It will be interesting to see if that holds true and the effects of such an action.

He has already, and I trust he will in the future as well.

I agree, but with one addition: America doesn't strike Pakistan without Pakistan okaying it.

sattelite? I need a nap

WhileAmericaBurns: Understood. I meant that they're regaining the power they lost after the 2001 invasion.

Indeed. They started gaining real traction around late 2005

Silovik: I agree, but with one addition: America doesn't strike Pakistan without Pakistan okaying it.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There are pros and cons for each sides there.

Why do I have a feeling that WhileAmericaBurns is the new Death to America?

Tatsuma: Silovik: I agree, but with one addition: America doesn't strike Pakistan without Pakistan okaying it.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There are pros and cons for each sides there.

I haven't seen much evidence to suggest otherwise, Pakistan could knock down drones or helos if they wanted, and a lot of the drones are launched from inside Pakistan by Americans anyhow.

sarcastrophe: Oh really? Have they changed so that now al Qaeda was in Iraq before W knocked the joint over?

Yeah, I thought not.

Kumana Wanalaia: Why do I have a feeling that WhileAmericaBurns is the new Death to America?

I thought death to new rome was the new alt.

Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan have any clues how to own up to their own responsibilities in this region, and until they man up and lead their countries better, we're going to be up to our asses in this conflict. The passive-aggressiveness they both display is staggering.

Kumana Wanalaia: Oh really? Have they changed so that now al Qaeda was in Iraq before W knocked the joint over?

Yeah, I thought not.

No. But that doesn't make much difference now, does it? So when we go to full-on invade Pakistan, are you going to "b.. b.. but Bush" us into another sovereign country or are we still fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

Like I said... new boss, old boss, etc... but here you go for clarification:

Silovik: Tatsuma:
KaponoFor3: One of the more interesting things that Obama said during the campaign trail was that he wouldn't hesitate to make a move against AQ if they had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government failed to act. It will be interesting to see if that holds true and the effects of such an action.

He has already, and I trust he will in the future as well.

I agree, but with one addition: America doesn't strike Pakistan without Pakistan okaying it.

Remind me again why that is? If Pakistan can't get its shiat together, why the fark do we need their permission to take care of the problem ourselves? This isn't the Cold War: they don't have ICBMs capable of hitting our country in retaliation. Maybe they'd go crazy and strike India or another neighboring country, but that might happen anyway if the Taliban gets the nukes.

Kumana Wanalaia: Why do I have a feeling that WhileAmericaBurns is the new Death to America?

I'm new here. 'Splain to me who this Death to America fellow is?

doomfistinc: Oh yeah. Keep telling yourselves that. It'll let us jump from fighting in Iraq to fighting in Pakistan without ever remembering we were in Afghanistan.

Don't try to make sense of it. Everyone know those 19 thugs came from Pakistan.


Silovik: Tatsuma:
KaponoFor3: One of the more interesting things that Obama said during the campaign trail was that he wouldn't hesitate to make a move against AQ if they had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government failed to act. It will be interesting to see if that holds true and the effects of such an action.

He has already, and I trust he will in the future as well.

I agree, but with one addition: America doesn't strike Pakistan without Pakistan okaying it.


On meet the press today, David Gregory asked Pakistan's president about drones and aid. Sounds like he doesn't want any help.

he sounded pissed off actually. He went all the way back to 1989 and to the days he was locked up. He basically said what good has our policy done.

sarcastrophe:

We aren't going to HAVE to "full on invade" Pakistan, because Pakistan is going to be sensible about facing our mutual problem. They've said as much.

Funny how working with other nations instead of cutting them off has that sort of effect.

Kumana Wanalaia: We aren't going to HAVE to "full on invade" Pakistan, because Pakistan is going to be sensible about facing our mutual problem. They've said as much.

Funny how working with other nations instead of cutting them off has that sort of effect.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. I refer you to my earlier pictures.

Kumana Wanalaia: sarcastrophe:

We aren't going to HAVE to "full on invade" Pakistan, because Pakistan is going to be sensible about facing our mutual problem. They've said as much.

Funny how working with other nations instead of cutting them off has that sort of effect.

Haha Did you even watch him on Meet the Press today? He said the aid sucks (said it was 1/10 of the bailout to AIG), he doesn't want our drones and laughed at the idea of helping militarily. He claimed Pakistan is a sovereign nation and basically blamed us for the problems.

sarcastrophe:

I saw the president of Pakistan state his position personally.

If you're going to tell me that I've been duped by the MSM, I'm going to have to give you a [Citation needed].

Kumana Wanalaia: I saw the president of Pakistan state his position personally.

If you're going to tell me that I've been duped by the MSM, I'm going to have to give you a [Citation needed].

I think you've answered your own question, actually.

tatsuma don't.. you be.... patronising.... me, maaan

Kumana Wanalaia: sarcastrophe:

We aren't going to HAVE to "full on invade" Pakistan, because Pakistan is going to be sensible about facing our mutual problem. They've said as much.

Funny how working with other nations instead of cutting them off has that sort of effect.

Uh huh. So surrendering territory to the Taliban is being "sensible"? Of course, if the Pakistani military is really that weak, then I can't blame them for surrendering, which is all the more reason why we can't trust them to take care of the problem.

mesohorny: doomfistinc: Oh yeah. Keep telling yourselves that. It'll let us jump from fighting in Iraq to fighting in Pakistan without ever remembering we were in Afghanistan.

Don't try to make sense of it. Everyone know those 19 thugs came from Pakistan.


Silovik: Tatsuma:
KaponoFor3: One of the more interesting things that Obama said during the campaign trail was that he wouldn't hesitate to make a move against AQ if they had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government failed to act. It will be interesting to see if that holds true and the effects of such an action.

He has already, and I trust he will in the future as well.

I agree, but with one addition: America doesn't strike Pakistan without Pakistan okaying it.


On meet the press today, David Gregory asked Pakistan's president about drones and aid. Sounds like he doesn't want any help.

he sounded pissed off actually. He went all the way back to 1989 and to the days he was locked up. He basically said what good has our policy done.

I would have to say posturing on his part for the public, Pakistan wants access to their own drones and military technology.

The problem with Pakistan is that it is basically an army holding together a British colony, hell even the name as invented by Cambridge. Pakistan can deliver a Taliban push into the Northwest, and probably will, but the military will go back to running the show because the people are too divided by class, religion, tribe etc for a democratic government.

Obama needs to work with Iran, mostly in Iraq, but in Afghanistan too. Then he needs to tell the PRC that Chinese Assualt rifles and mortars are hurting Americans/NATO and we will expect them to stop this 'illicit trade.'

Well, I'm not about to argue with a man who can bring people out of a comatose state by uttering a phrase.

We are winnar? What is prize?

Exodus2001: dodecahedron: Exodus2001: Everybody knows they were in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was defeated and Al Qaeda is in it's death throws.

Knives or nunchucks?

We use smoke. You know, to smoke them out!

Now there's an idea. Just send the Taliban and AQ nutjobs all the pot the police here has confiscated. Get them smoking pot. They'll be too stoned to bother with oppressing women and plotting terrorist attacks.

Not sure there is a 100% right answer for what to do in Pakistan. I do not envy Obama or any of the other people that are going to have make decisions about this.

dazuwood: Not sure there is a 100% right answer for what to do in Pakistan. I do not envy Obama or any of the other people that are going to have make decisions about this.

Sure there is. Announce that the US will perform an orderly withdrawal from its police stations military bases around the world. Announce that the US will no longer enforce it's political views on the world. Announce that each nation has their sovereign right to define their own destiny. Announce that the US may voice disagreement with a foreign nation, but we will not enforce our position using military force unless we are attacked.

Problem solved.

Silovik:

I would have to say posturing on his part for the public, Pakistan wants access to their own drones and military technology.

The problem with Pakistan is that it is basically an army holding together a British colony, hell even the name as invented by Cambridge. Pakistan can deliver a Taliban push into the Northwest, and probably will, but the military will go back to running the show because the people are too divided by class, religion, tribe etc for a democratic government.

Obama needs to work with Iran, mostly in Iraq, but in Afghanistan too. Then he needs to tell the PRC that Chinese Assualt rifles and mortars are hurting Americans/NATO and we will expect them to stop this 'illicit trade.'



So if he just wants aid and technology, Why do we still need drones and troops over in that region? Just to piss off the rest of the world?

If we stay this course, the region will end up like North Korea. Militarized for eternity with tensions always being high or worse ww1 = Treaty of Versailles = ww2.

if we leave, it will end up like Vietnam, a peaceful region with no problems 30 years from now.

Our solutions always end up becoming the problems of tomorrow.

heineken I really don't think access to narcotic depressants is an issue in Afghanistan......