Biden is now more dangerous to the west than the Taliban.

[Twilight Hue]

Notice how Antifa & BLM aren't included?
One might suspect some bias there.

Maybe it's too much ISIS emulation to even to meet Taliban standards.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Credit for getting servicemen killed because of his moronic moves, and credit for leaving allies there and then lying about it? Yes that's what he deserves credit for.

Now it's discovered that this lowlife and associates even intentionally tried to take credit for getting some Americans out of Afghanistan. .

State Department Accused Of Stealing Credit For Rescue Of 4 Americans From Afghanistan

The bumbling bragging leftists are simply lying sacks of ****. Common aspect of the left wing nature.

Like China, never ever trust them at doing or saying anything right. They are not genuine and will do anything to destroy this country.

 

[anna.]

I was asking you a question, not putting words in your mouth. I also note that you didn't answer it.

You made it up. Why should I humor your fiction?

All we're discussing is what has already been made public knowledge. We're not talking about phantoms here, but information which has already been disseminated to the public. True, we might have to wait for more information to come out, but what, exactly, do you think I'm speculating about?

Do you have some pipeline to classified information you haven't disclosed yet?

In theory, perhaps.

That's right.

Well, it's not speculation that the Taliban now rule Afghanistan. This is something that US leaders in both parties - and even the military - regards as a "bad outcome." I said this upthread, and you seemed to challenge this point, thinking that it's just speculation that it's a bad outcome. Because I'm not privy to the military intelligence and the decision-making processes of the military commanders. But I submit that that's irrelevant to the point being made.

I said things did not go as planned or expected, and you replied:

Yes, we do know that. You even said it yourself later on in the same paragraph:

They didn't know it would happen. I would think that qualify as "unexpected," yet you ask "Do we even know that?"

I also would find it difficult to believe that the government or military actually planned for the Taliban to take over, so I think it's safe to say that that outcome was "unplanned," yet you ask "Do we even know that?" Yes, we do know it, because the Taliban currently rule Afghanistan.

Other than that, what else are we arguing here? I'm looking at the results of what happened and what's been widely reported through the worldwide media, which all tell the same story: The Taliban rule Afghanistan.

Do I need to be privy to top secret military information to be able to comment on what has been widely reported?

Even if I did have this information, how would that change the obvious result of what we're seeing right now? That maybe they have good reasons? In other words, they might have a good excuse for this failure (but it's a secret and they can't tell us what it is)? Will it make any difference?

I'm an armchair peacenik myself, and I have no qualms about criticizing warmongers and military adventurists. I think the debacle of Afghanistan is a perfect example (but not the only one) of why we shouldn't engage in these policies at all.

That's what I've been saying. Mistakes were made.

That bolded makes the difference between us a little clearer. You seem ready to declare this was a debacle based on what you know so far and and I'm willing to wait for more information before calling it a debacle.

 

[Stevicus]

You made it up. Why should I humor your fiction?

What "fiction" are you referring to?

Do you have some pipeline to classified information you haven't disclosed yet?

Do you have some aversion to answering questions?

That's right.



That bolded makes the difference between us a little clearer. You seem ready to declare this was a debacle based on what you know so far and and I'm willing to wait for more information before calling it a debacle.

Either way, where is the speculation? What other information could there possibly be that would make any difference in what has already been reported. Even the US military is saying that the Taliban rule Afghanistan, and you think I need to have top security clearance to be aware of this information? It's already been broadcast and announced. Yet, you keep calling it speculation and fiction.

 

[anna.]

What "fiction" are you referring to?

Read back over our conversation, you'll figure it out.

Do you have some aversion to answering questions?

No.

Either way, where is the speculation? What other information could there possibly be that would make any difference in what has already been reported.

Are you serious?

Even the US military is saying that the Taliban rule Afghanistan, and you think I need to have top security clearance to be aware of this information? It's already been broadcast and announced. Yet, you keep calling it speculation and fiction.

No I didn't. You've moved the goalposts, this conversation wasn't about whether the Taliban rule Afghanistan, it was about how the administration and military handled the withdrawal.

I'm beginning to think you aren't arguing in good faith.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm beginning to think you aren't arguing in good faith.

Since you've made claims about my alleged "speculation" and "fiction," yet continually refuse to answer direct questions about them, I have good reason to question whether you're arguing in good faith.

I'm not even sure what your reason for arguing actually is or what exact point you're really trying to make here. You keep making the subject about me, while continually evading the topic and dodging direct questions and points which are undeniable.

I also haven't shifted the goalposts. My point all along is that the government and military screwed the pooch. This isn't speculation or fiction. The proof is in the results we already see. That's been the goalpost of this discussion as I see it.

You were the one attempting to obfuscate by bringing up irrelevancies such as a vague reference as to classified military planning which I obviously would not have access to. And you kept making snarky remarks along those lines. At some point, I thought you were going to go Col. Jessup on me and shout out "You can't handle the truth!"

 

[anna.]

Since you've made claims about my alleged "speculation" and "fiction," yet continually refuse to answer direct questions about them, I have good reason to question whether you're arguing in good faith.

Yeah, here's your fiction:

So, you think we should just keep our mouths shut and defer to the military, because the Army never makes mistakes?

I asked you not to put words in my mouth and you doubled down, noting I didn't 'answer' your question, the question based on fiction since I never said what came after your "so you think..."

If you can't see clearly what you did there, I don't see any point in continuing.

I'm not even sure what your reason for arguing actually is or what exact point you're really trying to make here. You keep making the subject about me, while continually evading the topic and dodging direct questions and points which are undeniable.

I see what you did there. : )

I also haven't shifted the goalposts. My point all along is that the government and military screwed the pooch. This isn't speculation or fiction. The proof is in the results we already see. That's been the goalpost of this discussion as I see it.

I said we could only speculate until we had more information, we couldn't know everything that went into the decision to withdraw the way we did, with the results we had at Bagram. You said, after several posts, that it wasn't speculation that the Taliban controls Afghanistan, which was something I'd never argued otherwise.

You were the one attempting to obfuscate by bringing up irrelevancies such as a vague reference as to classified military planning which I obviously would not have access to. And you kept making snarky remarks along those lines. At some point, I thought you were going to go Col. Jessup on me and shout out "You can't handle the truth!"

I read back over the exchange, and I'm comfortable with my half of it. How about we call it a day, because anything more is just beating a dead horse.

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah, here's your fiction:



I asked you not to put words in my mouth and you doubled down, noting I didn't 'answer' your question, the question based on fiction since I never said what came after your "so you think..."

If you can't see clearly what you did there, I don't see any point in continuing.

It was a question. The reason why I asked it was because you kept dismissing my points as "speculation" and suggested that the military might have "good reasons" for doing what they did. You suggested that, since I wasn't privy to all the classified military information, my opinion that the result of the Taliban taking over the government was a "bad outcome," was somehow worthless.

I perceived a decidedly pro-military stance (such as posting an article from Military Times to support your view and your insistence on giving them the benefit of the doubt because they might have had "good reasons"). That, along with chiding me about "armchair general" and associating me with "right wing rhetoric," I interpreted that to mean that you'd rather I just refrain from "speculation" and just wait for more information to come out (presumably from the military).

This paragraph also jumped out at me:

I'd say it would also depend on how knowledgeable the beholder is. As you said, it goes beyond politics into the realm of what's supposed to be non-political: military intelligence. Most of us outside those circles can't even make an educated guess, we can only speculate until information is released to the public.

Usually, when someone uses the tack of "you don't know what you're talking about," it's a veiled way of saying "shut up and let the experts handle it." It's an argumentative tactic which doesn't bring any new information to the discussion, but merely an attempt to control.

And the only thing we were arguing at that point was whether the result was a "very bad outcome."

I said we could only speculate until we had more information, we couldn't know everything that went into the decision to withdraw the way we did, with the results we had at Bagram. You said, after several posts, that it wasn't speculation that the Taliban controls Afghanistan, which was something I'd never argued otherwise.

The point about Bagram was early in our discussion, and after that, you were questioning my suggestion that the results were a "very bad outcome." The discussion itself had moved on from the original point, and then we were discussing another point. That can happen in discussions, but it wasn't a shifting of the goalpost, which implies something dishonest.

In post #40:

Well, they may have had their reasons, but whether or not they were good reasons remains to be seen. All we really now know is that there has been a very bad outcome from this affair, and someone needs to step up and take responsibility for it.

The spokesman seemed to be shifting blame to the Afghani government, hinting that it might have been their screw up and not the U.S. military's screw up. That's certainly plausible. But considering that the base wasn't secured and looters got in, then it seems clear that someone screwed up somewhere.

I addressed your point about possible "good reasons," but there wasn't really much to say without all of the pertinent information. I then said "All we really now know is that there has been a very bad outcome from this affair, and someone needs to step up and take responsibility for it."

It should be obvious from that point that I was referring to the results, that the Taliban now control Afghanistan.

This was your follow up post:

It does remain to be seen. I'm not going to assume they didn't know what they were doing.

And we don't really even know there was a "very bad outcome" except the right wing and certain drama-needy media want to push that narrative, which in my opinion makes the narrative suspect. In the meantime:

Biden Deserves Credit, Not Blame, for Afghanistan

Just for clarification, what did you think I was referring to when I said "very bad outcome"? Perhaps there was a misunderstanding over that particular point which caused the discussion to go south.

In all honesty, I really was referring to the fact that the Taliban control Afghanistan, which was obviously not part of the government's or military's plan. That much, at least, was public knowledge, not speculation. So, when you said "we don't really even know there was a 'very bad outcome'", I was taken aback.

I didn't see that I was moving any goalposts, but after looking back on the exchange, I now see that there may have been some misunderstanding.

I read back over the exchange, and I'm comfortable with my half of it. How about we call it a day, because anything more is just beating a dead horse.

Fair enough.

 

[tas8831]

Credit for getting servicemen killed because of his moronic moves, and credit for leaving allies there and then lying about it? Yes that's what he deserves credit for.

Moronic moves - why, did he invade Iraq based on fake news or something?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Moronic moves - why, did he invade Iraq based on fake news or something?

Deflection. How typical.

 

[anna.]

It was a question. The reason why I asked it was because you kept dismissing my points as "speculation" and suggested that the military might have "good reasons" for doing what they did. You suggested that, since I wasn't privy to all the classified military information, my opinion that the result of the Taliban taking over the government was a "bad outcome," was somehow worthless.

I perceived a decidedly pro-military stance (such as posting an article from Military Times to support your view and your insistence on giving them the benefit of the doubt because they might have had "good reasons"). That, along with chiding me about "armchair general" and associating me with "right wing rhetoric," I interpreted that to mean that you'd rather I just refrain from "speculation" and just wait for more information to come out (presumably from the military).

This paragraph also jumped out at me:



Usually, when someone uses the tack of "you don't know what you're talking about," it's a veiled way of saying "shut up and let the experts handle it." It's an argumentative tactic which doesn't bring any new information to the discussion, but merely an attempt to control.

I think part of the problem is you took everything I phrased as "we" or "they" - including myself, the general public, the media, etc. - and took it personally. It wasn't my intention to single you out, which is why I didn't say "you." I'm not impressed with the media, or with a lot of opinion out there by people who cannot possibly be in possession of all the facts, and I include myself. I too am speculating based on what partial information I do have.

Just for clarification, what did you think I was referring to when I said "very bad outcome"? Perhaps there was a misunderstanding over that particular point which caused the discussion to go south.

The withdrawal and how it was done.

In all honesty, I really was referring to the fact that the Taliban control Afghanistan, which was obviously not part of the government's or military's plan. That much, at least, was public knowledge, not speculation. So, when you said "we don't really even know there was a 'very bad outcome'", I was taken aback.

Okay, but that wasn't at all evident in your original post.

I didn't see that I was moving any goalposts, but after looking back on the exchange, I now see that there may have been some misunderstanding.

Fair enough.

 

[metis]

Credit for getting servicemen killed because of his moronic moves, and credit for leaving allies there and then lying about it? Yes that's what he deserves credit for.

You don't know what you're talking about. General Milley said in a press conference that it was the Pentagon that strategized the withdrawal after Biden gave them the green light. As in any military operation, there are always going to be risks as Milley stated, and trying to stop suicide bombers is very difficulty as we have repeatedly seen.

Where Biden did make a significant mistake was to start the vetting process later than advised, which added to the confusion at the airport in Kabul. This led to the decision to just get that crowd in the airport out and then sort them out in Qatar and elsewhere at half-way points.

BTW, another plane left the Kabul airport yesterday and another one is supposed to leave today.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You don't know what you're talking about. General Milley said in a press conference that it was the Pentagon that strategized the withdrawal after Biden gave them the green light. As in any military operation, there are always going to be risks as Milley stated, and trying to stop suicide bombers is very difficulty as we have repeatedly seen.

Where Biden did make a significant mistake was to start the vetting process later than advised, which added to the confusion at the airport in Kabul. This led to the decision to just get that crowd in the airport out and then sort them out in Qatar and elsewhere at half-way points.

BTW, another plane left the Kabul airport yesterday and another one is supposed to leave today.

He literally withdrew the military before the civilians allies. How did he think that was going to work? The buck stops with him. He got people killed for no reason and yes, there were other moronic decisions also.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe it's too much ISIS emulation to even to meet Taliban standards.

Did you just compare BLM and antifa to ISIS?

 

[metis]

He literally withdrew the military before the civilians allies. How did he think that was going to work?

Both Trump and Biden announced that they wanted us out and soon, with Trump having a May 1st deadline, thus months before Biden's timeline. And yet you still voted for Trump. Cry us a river.

The buck stops with him.

As Biden said it does.

BTW, did Trump even make a similar claim when things didn't work out? I dare you try and find even just once when he ever apologized for anything.

He got people killed for no reason and yes, there were other moronic decisions also.

No, think I know who's making far more "moronic decisions".

 

[ecco]

The bumbling bragging leftists are simply lying sacks of ****. Common aspect of the left wing nature.

Trump signed a peace treaty with the Taliban in Feb, 2020.

Trump officials back away from 2020 Taliban peace deal after withdrawal chaos

A number of former senior Trump officials have sought to distance themselves from the Taliban peace deal that was signed in February 2020, with chaos erupting after the militants took control of Afghanistan this week.

The big picture: The Trump administration agreed to withdraw from the country by May 1, 2021, if the Taliban negotiated a peace agreement with the Afghan government and promised to prevent terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State from gaining a foothold.
​

In eleven months, how many Afghan interpreters did the Trump administration get out of the country? Do you know?

Actually, for all four years of Trump's term, there was pressure to get interpreters out, Very few made it.

 

[ecco]

which is why I didn't say "you."

If one says "you", one is accused of attacking the individual.
If one says "you guys" one is accused of judging the individual by the group.

It's a no win situation.

 

[Moonjuice]

British military officer: Biden is more of a danger to the West than the Taliban

I agree with the British SAS Officer.

I don't think that part of the world is going to feel very secure now the Taliban has rule of the roost.

Why the Taliban is now being intentionally allowed to grow in power and influence over there, eventually their world ambitions of Islamic conquest will likely start crossing the border out into the neighboring countryside, what's next in store now?

My take is if they are not removed right now from the seat of power, while they are still relatively weak, then people ought to brace for what hell will be unleashed through various terrorist actions on nearby countries, courtesy of the newly empowered and equipped Taliban.

Thank the bumbling idiot and the glorious puppeteers for making the newly empowered and confident Taliban so very very happy for his wonderful contribution to future world terrorism.

You think this is Biden's fault? A 20 year war with no progress except death, destruction and the spending of 2 Trillion dollars of American taxes...and its all the fault of the guy who has been in office for the most recent 9 months? This is the conclusion you have come to? Genius.

 

[Yerda]

“He destroyed 20 years’ work in less than 24 hours.”

If your two decades worth of work can be undone in a day I reckon it's fair to say your work was crap.