Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vocativ)   Apparently, the Taliban are broke. Thanks Obama   (vocativ.com) divider line 101
    More: Interesting, Taliban, guerrilla warfare, Mullah Yaseen, Quetta, military operation plan, Fighting American, Inter-Services Intelligence  
•       •       •

8595 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2014 at 12:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-05 01:44:19 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: ikanreed: Corvus: Don't read the comments of that article. It's 100% pure derp. It will explode your brain.

So... the big reveal is that republicans think Obama is pro-terrorist?  I mean a lot of them think that he's the literal incarnation of human evil spawned to take over the world, it's not like being wrong is any problem for them.

Well what makes me laugh is the fact that all of the evil things Obama is doing that continues from the Bush legacy (NSA searches, drone strikes, keeping Gitmo opened [though he was blocked on that by pussy politicans who think closing Gitmo means the prisoners there will be running around freely in their state!]) are stuff that the general amount of Republicans who are pundits, politicians, or news people, would praise another Republican president for if elected after Obama's term is over. It's only "evil" until their guy is the one running things, than it's "patriotic" to never question the Republican president's actions or motives behind those actions. Point out the evil things that both sides do and help fix them Republicans, don't just give empty rhetoric to attempt to get reelected.

/of course who am I kidding, of course they'll continue on as usual and not do anything actually constructive for this country


Yeah, like I say to republicans, "I'd have voted for Romney if he'd actually promised to stop those abuses rather than criticize(mostly it was his supporters doing the criticizing, but that doesn't affect this principle) them as if that grants the moral high ground, and move on"
 
2014-02-05 01:45:32 PM  
Karzai is working on a bailout for them
 
2014-02-05 01:51:40 PM  

uber humper: Maybe that's how to remove the ceiling


LOL

/even a terrorist cat maintains a cuteness level of 8.5/10
//and the 9 to 1 ratio of attacks makes the use of the cats solvent
///those ceilings are toast
 
2014-02-05 01:55:55 PM  
So we finally stopped giving money to Pakistan?
 
2014-02-05 01:59:19 PM  
But... the MPAA says piracy funds terrorism...
Can't they just download some more copies of Hot Tub Time Machine and watch the money roll in?
 
2014-02-05 02:02:38 PM  

Magorn: He says he has left the front lines. As much as he wants to rejoin the jihad, he doesn't dare go back until he repays the $2,000 he owes his neighbors. He's not afraid to die, he says. What scares him is the idea that he might die with an outstanding loan. "Anytime I'm out there, I could be martyred," he says. "And God does not forgive anyone-even a martyr-who dies without paying his just debts."

 You know, if the US military would just team up with a few of America's sleazier credit card companies, and rent-to-own places and/or payday lenders;  I can see a real easy way to end this war and provide a win-win for everybody involved-on our side at least


Hmm, they may yet be of some use to us...
 
2014-02-05 02:03:18 PM  
The worst part of the budget cuts is the head office still calls them and says "Yeah... we're going to need you to go ahead and blow up tomorrow... That would be great..."
 
2014-02-05 02:05:22 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: machoprogrammer: Philip J. Fry: stopped bombing the shiat out of weddings so the local populace had one less reason to be enraged at us.

What? No we didn't. We have upped the drone strikes if anything

You would be wrong.  Link


And it's been going down steadily since 2010:

PDF (See Figure 5.4 on page 27)
 
2014-02-05 02:05:27 PM  

BigNumber12: It's too bad that most of these foot soldiers have no idea why the United States was there in the first place.


You don't feel they hate us quite enough? Well, I suppose that if they knew their country was attacked as a scapegoat, because the actual perps were oil-rich kings who enjoyed tongue kissing George Bush, I guess that might make them hate us a little more.
 
2014-02-05 02:06:33 PM  

Corvus: ikanreed: Yes even though reality is that he took out OBL and Bush gave up on him. He actually surged troop levels in Afghanistan their fantasy world is that he is "pro-terrorist".

I wanted to make an account just so I could have replied "Boy you guys are really butt hurt that Obama took out Osama Bin Ladin and Bush gave up on him".


Didn't you hear?  Obama just took out Bin Laden to change the subject from his failed economy.  And when Obama talks about the economy it's just to change the subject from Benghazi.

http://on.cc.com/1g0X2Sk
 
2014-02-05 02:07:47 PM  

Arkanaut: Ow! That was my feelings!: machoprogrammer: Philip J. Fry: stopped bombing the shiat out of weddings so the local populace had one less reason to be enraged at us.

What? No we didn't. We have upped the drone strikes if anything

You would be wrong.  Link

And it's been going down steadily since 2010:

PDF (See Figure 5.4 on page 27)


And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.

/I don't get the whole "OMG drones!!" thing.
 
2014-02-05 02:09:09 PM  

Corvus: And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.

/I don't get the whole "OMG drones!!" thing.


I don't either. Some people are just excited to have something new to fear, I guess.
 
2014-02-05 02:14:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Corvus: And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.

/I don't get the whole "OMG drones!!" thing.

I don't either. Some people are just excited to have something new to fear, I guess.


The news doesn't even report on civilian deaths from normal bombing, cruise missiles, or invasions but when it's drone strikes they make a big deal of the number.

Then idiots believe that drones cause more civilian deaths than these other methods do which is just not true.

In fact drones are probably the least likely to have civilian deaths (yes it happens- I can hear the strawman now) and most likely to hit the actual targets because they monitor the area for hours before they actually attack and can call it off. But some people you can't have talk to about this.
 
2014-02-05 02:16:48 PM  

Corvus: And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.

/I don't get the whole "OMG drones!!" thing.


The cruise missile attacks were different, and not very much feared, even to OBL.    Even before the drone strikes they were "shocked and awed"  how big a boom real bombs made.  Then Bin Laden was warning his minions to stay inside to not be seen by the drones that were picking them all off.
 
2014-02-05 02:18:42 PM  
Dubya's hurting just like us 'Murricans..
 
2014-02-05 02:21:31 PM  

Corvus: And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.


Sorry it was 75 but it was all in one day. But it was cruise missiles so it rained down magical happy flowers.


Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998)

And how many targets did it get? ZERO!

Why? It's farking a cruise missile which means you are firing at a target that you got intelligence on like hours ago at best firing blind. You have no idea who is there when you fire it off.

A drone you can actually monitor the target area to see what is going on and make a judgement on to hit it or not.
 
2014-02-05 02:22:31 PM  

netringer: Corvus: And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.

/I don't get the whole "OMG drones!!" thing.

The cruise missile attacks were different, and not very much feared, even to OBL.    Even before the drone strikes they were "shocked and awed"  how big a boom real bombs made.  Then Bin Laden was warning his minions to stay inside to not be seen by the drones that were picking them all off.


I see so the cruise missile were better because there were inefficient and didn't work?
 
2014-02-05 02:22:49 PM  

jso2897: Well, I suppose that if they knew their country was attacked as a scapegoat, because the actual perps were oil-rich kings


Oh look, someone who doesn't understand (or want to understand) the conflict between UBL's mujaheddin and the House of Saud. I wonder why y...

jso2897: oil-rich kings who enjoyed tongue kissing George Bush


Ah, a racist who suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Please continue foaming at the mouth, nothing I could possibly say will alter your prejudice.
 
2014-02-05 02:26:33 PM  

Corvus: Arkanaut: Ow! That was my feelings!: machoprogrammer: Philip J. Fry: stopped bombing the shiat out of weddings so the local populace had one less reason to be enraged at us.

What? No we didn't. We have upped the drone strikes if anything

You would be wrong.  Link

And it's been going down steadily since 2010:

PDF (See Figure 5.4 on page 27)

And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.

/I don't get the whole "OMG drones!!" thing.


"Drones!" are a lot catchier than "Remotely Piloted Vehicles!"
 
2014-02-05 02:26:50 PM  
Same as it ever was.

Absent foreign targets, no-one outside Afghanistan cares much about Afghanistan or what happens to it.
People get involved there *solely* as a place they can reliably tweak their enemy's nose for a relatively small investment.

Observers like to point out the obvious parallels between the Soviets in the 80s and US/NATO today.
But that goes further that foreign-backed insurgents bleeding and embarrassing a world power.
It also extends to the Taliban being inevitably abandoned by their backers, just as the CIA abandoned the mujahideen before them.

As the man, purportedly, said: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme"

/ and, with any karmic luck, the dickbags who were backing the Taliban will also reap what they've sown
 
2014-02-05 02:28:13 PM  
Imma let the historians decide who takes credit for this -- Clintobushma, whatever combination you want.

But can we at least think of this as Endgame -- that the Taliban has no significant chance of taking over after we leave?  Or are there still arguments to be made that the Taliban will be in charge of Afghanistan in the next decade or so?
 
2014-02-05 02:28:29 PM  
Also, I blame Jamie Foxx and Stealth.
 
2014-02-05 02:32:15 PM  
They should do a indiegogo or something..
 
2014-02-05 02:34:45 PM  

RedPhoenix122: And yet I still can't exchange Iraqi Dinar for USD.


You fell for that scam?  Sucker.
 
2014-02-05 02:35:54 PM  
"Their fundraisers used to come on foot to collect donations. Now they show up in luxury cars. It's clear they're stealing the money." A 40-year-old former Taliban commander echoes the complaint:

If only the religious right in this country would make such a logical inference...
 
2014-02-05 02:42:10 PM  

oxycodon: RedPhoenix122: And yet I still can't exchange Iraqi Dinar for USD.

You fell for that scam?  Sucker.


www.gardenvalleychurch.org

Yea, it's really two dollars not ONE!
 
2014-02-05 02:55:53 PM  

Corvus: netringer: Corvus: And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.

/I don't get the whole "OMG drones!!" thing.

The cruise missile attacks were different, and not very much feared, even to OBL.    Even before the drone strikes they were "shocked and awed"  how big a boom real bombs made.  Then Bin Laden was warning his minions to stay inside to not be seen by the drones that were picking them all off.

I see so the cruise missile were better because there were inefficient and didn't work?


I didn't say the cruise missiles were better.  The opposite. Bin Laden expected the US revenge for 9/11 would just be once again to lob a few $1M missiles and get over it.
Just saying even before the drones, they found out what real air warfare capability can be.
 
2014-02-05 03:13:02 PM  

zimbomba63: MaliFinn: Not sure what you all read, but headline translates to me as "batshiat crazy radical army for hire, cheap."

I thought some of them are fighting in Syria.  Got to go where the paymaster says.  Here's hoping Syria grinds on for a decade or more.


Al-Qaeda operatives maybe, but the Taliban are pretty much only concerned with carving out their wahhabist paradise in Afghanistan/Swat/Warizistan sort of area. They're locals fighting for the right to make their neighbors hate them. You may be right though, I may have missed something.
 
2014-02-05 03:15:42 PM  

Magorn: He says he has left the front lines. As much as he wants to rejoin the jihad, he doesn't dare go back until he repays the $2,000 he owes his neighbors. He's not afraid to die, he says. What scares him is the idea that he might die with an outstanding loan. "Anytime I'm out there, I could be martyred," he says. "And God does not forgive anyone-even a martyr-who dies without paying his just debts."

 You know, if the US military would just team up with a few of America's sleazier credit card companies, and rent-to-own places and/or payday lenders;  I can see a real easy way to end this war and provide a win-win for everybody involved-on our side at least


I like it. I always thought that, after 9/11, we should have just told a student loan collection agency that Osama had welched on Stafford Loans from the mid-90s and let nature take its course there.

We don't always do a good job of finding our true experts and letting them ply their trade.
 
2014-02-05 03:16:30 PM  
This sort of thing makes you wonder if Obama is even trying to destroy America.

I mean, consider the fact that pallets of money worth many billions of dollars disappeared in Iraq under the Bush administration. And can Obama fund even one little terrorist organization adequately? No. The man has no money sense whatsoever.

Here is his giving billions, hundreds of billions of dollars to America's domestic enemies (bankers, hedge funders, insurance companies, Wall Street con artists) and not one penny for a real enemy.

The Koch Brothers hate Obama. What does he do? He allows their fortune to increase by $25 billion when he is supposed to be robbing them blind along with the other one percent of one percent of one percenters (as they themselves claim). The military hates them but does it cost them one red cent? Neigh, says Frances the Talking Mule.

It's crazy. It's almost as if his enemies are bare-faced liars who'll say anything they want to believe not matter out astronomically out of touch with reality it may be.
 
2014-02-05 03:21:40 PM  
Corvus: "And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then."

Cruise missiles were generally targeted against infrastructure, not people. The intelligence was hours old, at best, and thus our capability to limit collateral damage was inherently hamstrung by the fog of war. When we blew up a wedding with a cruise missile, we'd often hear that one of the buildings was a munitions store, or a bomb-making facility and we couldn't have known a wedding would be going on when the order given and the weapon arrived. The excuses were plausible, understandable.

With drones, however, we often have *hours* to loiter over targets, and operators who are watching a near-real-time stream of the area. So when a drone strike blows up a wedding, there simply is no excuse from the military. They *knew* there was a party. We *know* they knew. And they fired anyway.

So even those people who agree that a given target was worth blowing up, may well be unsettled by and disagree with the priority the US paced on the given target; the lives they were willing to take, to make an *attempt* on that target. "Couldn't you have waited another ten minutes?" wasn't a valid option with a cruise missile. But it is with a large number of drone strikes.

That's the distinction between cruise missiles and drones that is unsettling to a larger number of people.

Also, the access to information is unparalleled today. When Clintonian cruise missiles hit a "baby milk plant" in the Sudan, it was all very he-said/she-said. You might have doubted the US version of events, but you couldn't exactly trust the Sudanese either. There just wasn't a lot of data available for someone to take issue with the intel, the target, the process, etc. These days, the limiting factor to how much information you can get on a target, a location, a strike or an innocent victim is often just your own willingness to keep searching, chatting and digging online. People who aren't totally sold on a strike or a policy have a lot more information with which to (in)validate their concerns and convince others.

And it certainly doesn't help, at all, that the administration keeps parading around these phony 'terrorists' at home. It seriously undercuts the public's context for how evil some of these bastards are, when they're repeatedly conflated with the line-up of inept morons who were enticed, set up and arrested by the FBI on terrorism charges.
 
2014-02-05 03:22:05 PM  
So, we don't give money to Pakistan any more?
 
2014-02-05 03:35:58 PM  

ringersol: As the man, purportedly, said: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme"


Good Lord, I really like that one.
 
2014-02-05 04:09:18 PM  

hammettman: Maybe they can connect with a zombie Reagan for some of that trickle down!!!

[i90.photobucket.com image 750x499]


Is that picture of the Trade Towers in the background shopped in?
 
2014-02-05 04:09:29 PM  

INeedAName: When you spend money training guys that eventually go blow themselves up, it's financially a net loss.


Eh, no more than a GPS guided cruise missile is a net loss.
 
2014-02-05 04:10:21 PM  
The pixels look off.
 
2014-02-05 04:10:58 PM  

DeadPuppySociety: So, we don't give money to Pakistan any more?


This.
 
2014-02-05 04:15:05 PM  

ciderczar: zimbomba63: MaliFinn: Not sure what you all read, but headline translates to me as "batshiat crazy radical army for hire, cheap."

I thought some of them are fighting in Syria.  Got to go where the paymaster says.  Here's hoping Syria grinds on for a decade or more.

Al-Qaeda operatives maybe, but the Taliban are pretty much only concerned with carving out their wahhabist paradise in Afghanistan/Swat/Warizistan sort of area. They're locals fighting for the right to make their neighbors hate them. You may be right though, I may have missed something.


I don't remember where I came across that tidbit and I don't know if it came from a reliable source.  From some of the videos I've seen, there appears to be a few fighters dressed Pashtun-style in Syria, but whether they're actual Talib, I don't know.  But, I've, also, heard about Chechens fighting in Syria, and you would think that they would be taking care of local business back in Russia, too.  I think, if the price is right, some of these guys will go anywhere, especially if they get to kill Shia.
 
2014-02-05 04:24:58 PM  
The organization's main sources of revenue have dried up.Wealthy Arab donors, Afghan businessmen and even Pakistan's powerful and secretive spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, have all reduced or stopped funding, each for their own reasons.

That`s who should have been bombed...
 
2014-02-05 04:46:23 PM  

ringersol: Cruise missiles were generally targeted against infrastructure, not people.


Wrong. The missile strikes I linked above were specifically target at PEOPLE not infrastructure.


The attack was made partly in an attempt to assassinate bin Laden and other leaders.[14] After the attack, the CIA heard that bin Laden had been at Zhawar Kili al-Badr but had left some hours before the missiles hit.[15]
 
2014-02-05 04:51:32 PM  

ringersol: Corvus: "And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then."

Cruise missiles were generally targeted against infrastructure, not people. The intelligence was hours old, at best, and thus our capability to limit collateral damage was inherently hamstrung by the fog of war. When we blew up a wedding with a cruise missile, we'd often hear that one of the buildings was a munitions store, or a bomb-making facility and we couldn't have known a wedding would be going on when the order given and the weapon arrived. The excuses were plausible, understandable.

With drones, however, we often have *hours* to loiter over targets, and operators who are watching a near-real-time stream of the area. So when a drone strike blows up a wedding, there simply is no excuse from the military. They *knew* there was a party. We *know* they knew. And they fired anyway.

So even those people who agree that a given target was worth blowing up, may well be unsettled by and disagree with the priority the US paced on the given target; the lives they were willing to take, to make an *attempt* on that target. "Couldn't you have waited another ten minutes?" wasn't a valid option with a cruise missile. But it is with a large number of drone strikes.

That's the distinction between cruise missiles and drones that is unsettling to a larger number of people.

Also, the access to information is unparalleled today. When Clintonian cruise missiles hit a "baby milk plant" in the Sudan, it was all very he-said/she-said. You might have doubted the US version of events, but you couldn't exactly trust the Sudanese either. There just wasn't a lot of data available for someone to take issue with the intel, the target, the process, etc. These days, the limiting factor to how much information you can get on a target, a location, a strike or an innocent victim is often just your own wil ...


So your whole point seems to be that Drones have a PR problem thats why they are worse.

That firing in cruise missiles that kills innocence is a common mistake because they have no idea what it is going to hit but doing it with a drone you do know so that makes it worse for it's collateral damage.

That seriously makes no sense. I keep trying to have this discussion and no one can make any sense why they are somehow worse then to use than cruise missiles.

"People hear more about the collateral damage (even though it might be less)" is not a logical argument.
 
2014-02-05 04:52:24 PM  

netringer: Corvus: netringer: Corvus: And when Clinton was in office he had something like 76 cruise missile attacks. But I guess since they weren't "drones" everyone seemed to have been okay with it then.

/I don't get the whole "OMG drones!!" thing.

The cruise missile attacks were different, and not very much feared, even to OBL.    Even before the drone strikes they were "shocked and awed"  how big a boom real bombs made.  Then Bin Laden was warning his minions to stay inside to not be seen by the drones that were picking them all off.

I see so the cruise missile were better because there were inefficient and didn't work?

I didn't say the cruise missiles were better.  The opposite. Bin Laden expected the US revenge for 9/11 would just be once again to lob a few $1M missiles and get over it.
Just saying even before the drones, they found out what real air warfare capability can be.


I thought you were disagreeing with the point I was making.
 
2014-02-05 05:54:10 PM  
Those poor babies. I guess Jihad doesn't pay very well.

/ CSB: there's some Muslim guy on AM radio in my area; he converted to Catholicism; he really does not like Islam. He power rants for his entire 3 hour show; somebody must have put their dick in his falafel
 
2014-02-05 06:51:20 PM  
They need powerball tickets.
 
2014-02-05 07:01:44 PM  
The CIA and DynCorps grabbed their opium crops for themselves?
 
2014-02-05 07:13:34 PM  

Easy Reader: hammettman: Maybe they can connect with a zombie Reagan for some of that trickle down!!!

[i90.photobucket.com image 750x499]

Is that picture of the Trade Towers in the background shopped in?


Yeah.  I did that for the "photobomb" photoshop contest.
 
2014-02-05 07:21:11 PM  

Corvus: Actually you can probably praise Bush about this mostly (see look I am saying good things about the other side when they deserve it). The anti-terrorism laws he put in to place that froze cash for terrorist organizations and made it much harder for them to get money through legitimate means was probably one of the biggest things he did to actually hurt terrorist organizations.


Reminds me of something P.J. O'Rourke wrote in "Foreigners Around the World": "During the Yom Kippur War, Syrian armored units were preparing to charge several fortified positions in the Golan Heights when the Israelis canceled their credit rating." :)
 
2014-02-05 09:55:05 PM  

hammettman: Easy Reader: hammettman: Maybe they can connect with a zombie Reagan for some of that trickle down!!!

[i90.photobucket.com image 750x499]

Is that picture of the Trade Towers in the background shopped in?

Yeah.  I did that for the "photobomb" photoshop contest.


That's pretty funny.
 
2014-02-06 04:42:33 AM  
How about an IPO?
 
2014-02-06 02:40:48 PM  

MaliFinn: Also, I love the look of that RPG the guy has, with all the nicks on the head of it, like he's been dragging it across the desert for a decade and ran it over with a jeep at least once, and isn't sure if it actually works... just a prop piece they've been dragging out for photo ops since the 70s


Hey, some of us can't afford the latest Pathfinder books, okay?
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report