OceaniaAmerica has always been at war with EurasiaHaqqani Network.

They are unhappy with the TAPI.

Still waiting for the Häagen-Dazs network.

Punani network?
Seen!

I was wondering when the next boogeyman would be unveiled.

/New! for 2012!... Heeeeeerrrrrrrrrreeeeee's Haqqani!

Crunch61: I was wondering when the next boogeyman would be unveiled.

/New! for 2012!... Heeeeeerrrrrrrrrreeeeee's Haqqani!

Well Bin Laden's dead, Saddam's dead, Ahmadinejad never really caught on, and Gaddafi's as good as dead... We're running out of Goldsteins.

You can only kill so many "high-ranking Al Qaeda leadership figures" before people start asking questions. So now it's "high-ranking figures in the Haqqani network".

Next thing they should pay attention to is that they accidentally kill 7 civilians for every actual bad guy they claim to kill.

dookdookdook: OceaniaAmerica has always been at war with EurasiaHaqqani Network.

Sadly, it's kind of true. The major terror attacks that we've been dealing with in the south, and in the urban areas have been Haqqani efforts.

We've been fighting the haqqani's for years (those are what the drone strikes in Pakistan are all about), but after last month's brazen daytime terror attack and admiral Mullen's pointed comments towards Pakistan it's finally coming out in the open.

RevCarter: dookdookdook: OceaniaAmerica has always been at war with EurasiaHaqqani Network.

Sadly, it's kind of true. The major terror attacks that we've been dealing with in the south, and in the urban areas have been Haqqani efforts.

We've been fighting the haqqani's for years (those are what the drone strikes in Pakistan are all about), but after last month's brazen daytime terror attack and admiral Mullen's pointed comments towards Pakistan it's finally coming out in the open.

It is much more fun to pretend that "the man" is just inventing new enemies.

Does that mean; next up Pakistan?

RevCarter: We've been fighting the haqqani's for years (those are what the drone strikes in Pakistan are all about), but after last month's brazen daytime terror attack and admiral Mullen's pointed comments towards Pakistan it's finally coming out in the open.

I'd like to see how we determined the Haqqani network was related to 9/11.

The mooslims outnumber the xtians, what, 3-1, and most of them are under 30. This gives us a better than average shot at ... getting shot right back at for as far into the future as we want to take this thing. Meh. Why not just leave that region to the peeps that lives there. Once they're done shredding themselves, we can always check back when the dust settles. Worth a shot, no? Or would this idea be sailing way to closely to any rubric of uncommon, commonsense?

biglot: The mooslims outnumber the xtians, what, 3-1, and most of them are under 30. This gives us a better than average shot at ... getting shot right back at for as far into the future as we want to take this thing. Meh. Why not just leave that region to the peeps that lives there. Once they're done shredding themselves, we can always check back when the dust settles. Worth a shot, no? Or would this idea be sailing way to closely to any rubric of uncommon, commonsense?

Why do you hate America?



U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

sprawl15: RevCarter: We've been fighting the haqqani's for years (those are what the drone strikes in Pakistan are all about), but after last month's brazen daytime terror attack and admiral Mullen's pointed comments towards Pakistan it's finally coming out in the open.

I'd like to see how we determined the Haqqani network was related to 9/11.

They're allies with the Taliban, at least in the sense of helping each other out for the sake of anti-American insurgency. They're also "affiliated with Al Qaeda" but considering the whole concept of Al Qaeda ever having Cobra-levels of organized is specious to begin with, and all the off-brand Al Qaeda copycats, that could mean anything.

At any rate, it doesn't really matter to the US if the Haqqani was related to 9/11, it matters more that they're a deadly insurgent force that's been stepping up to the plate in the past few months.
You don't really question what someone's motives, background or affiliation is if they're attacking you already. Something the US could stand to learn.

m2313: At any rate, it doesn't really matter to the US if the Haqqani was related to 9/11, it matters more that they're a deadly insurgent force that's been stepping up to the plate in the past few months.

There's quite a difference between authorization to defend against whatever dickheads decide to grab some assault rifles and rocket launchers to attack troops and determining they are within the scope of the 9/11 AUMF. Drone strikes in Pakistan - and adding members of the Haqqani network to the kill/capture list - both would seem to require the latter, rather than the former.

jakomo002: You can only kill so many "high-ranking Al Qaeda leadership figures" before people start asking questions. So now it's "high-ranking figures in the Haqqani network".

Next thing they should pay attention to is that they accidentally kill 7 civilians for every actual bad guy they claim to kill.

No kidding. Kind of made you feel bad for a while for anybody who was called al Qaeda's number 2 guy.

biglot: The mooslims outnumber the xtians, what, 3-1, and most of them are under 30. This gives us a better than average shot at ... getting shot right back at for as far into the future as we want to take this thing. Meh. Why not just leave that region to the peeps that lives there. Once they're done shredding themselves, we can always check back when the dust settles. Worth a shot, no? Or would this idea be sailing way to closely to any rubric of uncommon, commonsense?

Why we have any ground troops there anymore is beyond me. Really these guys are tribal nomads. All the money and lives we pour into it are never going to turn them into a modern, secure country. Rope off a few airbases, put up some high walls, and just use the predators to strike any groups that actually are a threat to the US in any meaningful way. Other than that we are long past having any real interests in the region. It's not like Afghanistan is a good source of oil or anything.

this isn't farking new at all, it's just this country is stupid as fark and can't stop arming its enemies

Meh. I was in Afghanistan fighting the Haqanni Network before the Haqanni Network was cool.

/call me when the HiG makes the news.

Captain_Ballbeard: They are unhappy with the TAPI.

I want you to know, I enjoyed your joke.

save russian jews: this isn't farking new at all, it's just this country is stupid as fark and can't stop arming its enemies

Yeah, really. How many billions of dollars did Dubya shovel over to Pervez Musharaff when he was the guy in charge in Pakistan (due to military coup, of course, not elected)?

Pakistan was an "integral part" in the war on terror blah blah blah so you had to send them funds blah blah blah and then haha oops you guys were funnelling it to use for your own national purposes uoh oopsie.

Seriously, Musharaf was like America's biggest ally for a good 5 or 6 years if I remember correctly, and was the beneficiary of billions and billions of dollars to fight terrorism in his own country.

My feeling is that once confronted, the terrorists said, "Okay, Pervy, here's your choice. Either we're going to focus on killing American troops in Afghanistan or we're going to focus on killing Pakistanis in Pakistan. Choose."

Old news is old.

sprawl15: RevCarter: We've been fighting the haqqani's for years (those are what the drone strikes in Pakistan are all about), but after last month's brazen daytime terror attack and admiral Mullen's pointed comments towards Pakistan it's finally coming out in the open.

I'd like to see how we determined the Haqqani network was related to 9/11.

Why would we bother? You might have noticed, we've decided to interpret the AUMF much more broadly while significantly expanding the drone strikes program.

Rashnu: You might have noticed, we've decided to interpret the AUMF much more broadly

In what respect, Charlie?

sprawl15: Rashnu: You might have noticed, we've decided to interpret the AUMF much more broadly

In what respect, Charlie?

In the respect that it's certainly enough by our thinking that the Haqqani network has close ties to both the Taliban and al-Qaeda to justify targeting and killing their leadership with drones. No explicit causal link to 9/11 needed.

sprawl15: m2313: At any rate, it doesn't really matter to the US if the Haqqani was related to 9/11, it matters more that they're a deadly insurgent force that's been stepping up to the plate in the past few months.

There's quite a difference between authorization to defend against whatever dickheads decide to grab some assault rifles and rocket launchers to attack troops and determining they are within the scope of the 9/11 AUMF. Drone strikes in Pakistan - and adding members of the Haqqani network to the kill/capture list - both would seem to require the latter, rather than the former.

The Haqqanis are basically one of the main tribes of the Taliban - and it's the Haqqanis that helped shelter AQ members in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The AUMF is pretty broad, and you don't need an invitation to shoot back and people who are launching rockets at you.

In the end, I'm not sure what our long-term goal in Afghanistan is. We're not going to be able to fix the problems there. We should be more focused on Iraq, which is a place that at least had civil society at one time. But Obama's basically leaving Iraq to the Iranians and bugging out, so we'll end up losing both Iraq and Afghanistan in the end. That's great for Iran, but bad for us and worse for Sunni states in the Middle East.

The worst option of all the bad options we have is to bug out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. But that's what we're doing, which basically cedes the battle to our enemies. Granted, Obama did inherit both wars, but we should be focused on maximizing our gain rather than just giving up.

/ Wait until Iran gets nukes.
// Then the Saudis will get them.
/// They'll hold World War III without us.

If by "new hotness" you mean "been there basically the entire time", then yes.

WombatControl: The Haqqanis are basically one of the main tribes of the Taliban - and it's the Haqqanis that helped shelter AQ members in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I was under the impression they were more Johnny-come-latelys who were more allies of the Taliban since they were nationalists of sorts, but I honestly don't know. That's why I said I'd like to see how they're linked.

WombatControl: you don't need an invitation to shoot back and people who are launching rockets at you.

I said as much in the post you quoted.

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.

dookdookdook: OceaniaAmerica has always been at war with EurasiaHaqqani Network.

Sort of true. "The Haqqani Network is an insurgent group originating from Afghanistan during the mid-1970s that is allied today with the Taliban and affiliated with al-Qaeda." (new window)So, we have been at war with the, since we've been at war in Afghanistan.

Of course, when we were at (cold) war with the USSR, we helped get the Haqqani Network off the ground. Sins of the father and all that.

Sounds like the name they should change MTV to.

Sounds like the name of headhunters on Gilligan's Island.