Posted on Monday, 7/27/2009 - 8:46 p.m. PDT — by BuckleyRich
When your heart is seeking peace and your nation is at war, knowing your enemy(and knowing yourself) is one of the most important roles of civilians in a free and open society.
I find "The Captain's Journal" offers readers nearly 6 months lead to war news and insights ahead of the Press.
For example this morning in my local Bay Area newspaper we read about "the success" of new interdiction policies in Afghanistan that leave the opium-poppy farmers alone and free to grow poppies but focuses instead our resources on "interdictions" at warehouses.
The idea being, the farmers (and thus the local population) are not confronted by US Forces, while the king-pin big boss drug middle men (the Taliban) in theory are busted at the warehouse. Sounds reasonable. My local paper would lead you to believe this new policy is great success; it isn't.
"The Captain's Journal" has been reporting for many months that the Taliban have their claws on "all" agricultural products. The Taliban sweeps entire districts. When we interdict opium supplies at the warehouse, the Taliban is already extracting payments from the pomegranate growers, and extracting other "taxes" from the rest of the food chain. We know a similar phenomena here in the US as "protection money" paid to organized crime. Organized crime have their fingers into everything not just sex, drugs, tobacco and liquor. Additionally, the Afghan system is reported to be systemically corrupt leaving everyone wondering if the "confiscated drug merchandise" held in evidence by the police, isn't just sold back into the streets and somehow supplied to the high percentage of drug addicted Afghani solders anyway. It would truly surprise me to see a trustworthy, third party audit on the disposal of the confiscated drugs. I suspect its back on the street in hours.
I would encourage anyone interested in understanding the "peace process" to consider reading military posts for more candid and in depth assessments of what is working and what is not working in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military posts often give 6 months to a year lead on insights that enable you to sort through all news and figure out for yourself something closer to reality. The Captain's Journal is one such military post. Did you know for example that our field commanders' assessment of the Afghan National Army is that over 1/3 are on hard opiate based drugs rendering the squads dysfunctional and unable to accomplish their mission? Some assessments run as high as over 85% of each squad are drugged out. Dig around on these military sites as there are many in-field commanders feeding candid reports into these bloggers from the front line, often with video evidence supplied to the media. The motivation of these fighters is to succeed in our national policy to enable the Afghans to have and hold on to a functioning democracy. It is also believed that the failure of the Afghan Army to develop a Non Commissioned Officer (NCO) Corp of older, experienced soldiers, a force structure that has served US Services well, is considered to be one of the major leadership failures of the Afghan Army. We are asking our US servicemen and women to serve in harms way in a hot war and in many cases, you will discover, much to your personal infuriation, the missions assigned to our soldiers are not adequately supported and the rules of engagement are so complex as to render our forces idle when they should be chasing down and killing bad guys. You will feel the real pain of seeing our sons and daughters die for lack of a political will back here at home among people like you and me. When we go to war, we better win and we had better make the pain too great for the enemy to want to try it again. Sound surprising from a person who serves on the board of Peace and Conflict Resolution.Org? Perhaps, but I've also been there and done that. A more important question is contained in the Thesis of historian David Kennedy, Professor of Law and Director of the European Law Research Center at Harvard Law School, in his new book "Of War and Law." In a free democracy with our all volunteer army, it appears "too easy" for American Presidents to meddle in world affairs with our armed forces. We have meddled over 242 times and only formally declared war 5 times. The all volunteer aspect currently, of our armed forces means there is less a political price to pay for a US President to shoot first and ask questions later. Is that good for the nation? Are there possibly other approaches for our democracy that could serve us better? Smart minds need to think on these issues as they are complex.
When your heart is seeking peace and your nation is at war, knowing your enemy (and knowing yourself) is one of the most important roles of civilians in a free and open society.
Be fearless, be humble, be loving, seek truth.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 43
BuckleyRich;
What you say makes sense. I don't think we could ever win in Afghanistan with any number of US troops. For one is the rules of engagement. The Taliban have learned to use women and children as cover. So unless the rules of engagement are changed and we are allowed to wipe out the enemy and any supporters no matter their age or gender then we cannot win. No one wants to kill women and children but if the enemy wants to throw them under the bus ... well let them. The media would never let this happen of course.
Also the militant islamic muslim is like a cancer on the earth. You can remove a major tumor in Afg but their are thousands of other tumors that will replace it. Even here in the US we have these cancerous tumers that appear benign for now. If Osama was killed tomorrow it would not change anything. The Militant islamic muslim is on a Crusade to dominate and has been sisce the days of mohammad.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
So ... our enemy is an idea (militant Islamic radicalism). How do you defeat an idea?
Is there a standing army we can engage and inflict a major defeat, forcing them to withdraw forces from a region or to stop being aggressive? Is there a national government on which we can exert political, economic, and military pressure? At first, the enemy was al-Qaida ... a bunch of criminal thugs that might have been isolated and arrested with some solid police work and perhaps a surgical military strike. Then, it became the Taliban, who nurtured and protected al-Qaida training camps for its own political purposes. So we took out the Taliban (though somehow most of their military force managed to sneak across the border into Pakistan with most of their arms and personnel) and now we occupy Afghanistan ... a country whose people never did a thing to us and whose leaders have been expelled ... and we bribe or coerce or even support war lords and their poppy-growing legions (just as we did in Laos and Cambodia almost five decades ago). Meanwhile, part of the failure to "get" al-Qaida or to "defeat" the Taliban can be put squarely on the shoulders of the hawks and wanna-be imperialists in the Bush Administration who invaded a third country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 based upon false information (a good part of it manufactured in order to make the case for an invasion that otherwise would have received only minimal support here at home). We have been engaged in those two countries (and elsewhere) for six years, with no apparent end in sight. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars (the estimated cost, before the escalation in Afghanistan, was estimated at over $3 trillion), almost all of it off-budget and therefore a major unaccounted cause for the budget deficit ... for what?
The Obama administration, after just a few months in office, seems to have uncovered a fairly sophisticated and long-planned effort to recreate the 9/11 attacks. Are we any safer today from those demented criminals because of the actions we have already chosen? Isn't it time to explore different approaches?
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
valid perspective on this most troubling and confounded problem the western world faces with militant Islamics. As we know from our studies of the history of the world, this is not a new phenomenon. This struggle has been off an on for centuries. It became readily apparent that there was an active resurgence of this "cause" with the Munich Olympics incident and has been growing ever since.
Now the question we are all faced with is how can we control this intrusion on "other belief systems " in the world today by a radical religious group who has obviously no respect for alternative beliefs. As an educated, civilized, and hopefully non judgemental society we would like to be able to develop the ability for societies of differing beliefs to be able to be tolerant of one another and to "live and let live" so to speak. Obama has expressed his desire to attempt to develop this type of relationship with the Iranian government, which is quite admirable but unfortunately not likely to result in any success.
The brutal reality of this conflict is this, the radical Islamic community is NOT INTERESTED in co-existing with communities that do not share their belief in Islam. The fact of the matters is, if Islam is not accepted by those not of the Islamic faith, they are to be KILLED PERIOD!!! Now of course we realize that this is not a very realistic concept and the remainder of the non Islamic world population now has to decide how they wish to protect their freedom of choice. FORCE!!!! Is the only viable answer to this question. The only thing radical Islam will respect is MASSIVE, UNRELENTING FORCE!!!
Even Barack Obama, as liberal leaning as he is, understands this now and that is why we are not leaving the Middle East precipitously like a lot of the people that voted for him thought he would do. Now do I think we can "win" the rag tag war going on in Afghanistan? No! But I also know that Afghanistan cannot be allowed to return to a terrorist safe haven as it was circa 9/11. We have to consider this possibility re: our intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq......if we hadn't done it what might the consequences have been concerning additional domestic terrorist attacks? We just don't know now do we?? My money says that because we took those steps, a significant "dent" was put in these terrorists agenda.
Regarding our presence in Afghanistan, you state that we occupy a country where the "people" never did anything to us to deserve this. The fact of the matter is THE TALIBAN DID THAT AND BRUTALIZED THEIR OWN PEOPLE acting much like the Mafia did to their communities in the 30's in this country. Our mililtary presence in Afghanistan is probably providing more protection and care to the citizens than the Taliban ever provided. The Taliban is nothing more than a religious oriented tyrannical power that seeks to control the population and force them to adhere to their religious credo.
In closing I just want to say this, the world has never been as dangerous as it is right now and while Americans as a whole are a peace loving kind, we cannot let down our guard from the military standpoint. This is the ONLY thing people like this respect. It is about POWER and how it is used. They will use their power to destroy the non believers in Islam, we need to use our power to protect our freedom of choice.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
A new report from Pew places the Islamic population of the world at about 1.57 billion people ... about 25% of the world's population. Thank goodness most of those Muslims are ordinary human beings with typical, common, everyday worries and concerns and are not particularly interested in dominating the world. The trick ... difficult, but not impossible ... is to convince the majority of Muslims to control their own and to rein-in the extremists. We have plenty of religious fundamentalists and extremists in this country and amongst the Christian population around the world ... even people willing to die for their beliefs ... but manage to more or less police them ourselves. We had a chance to help Afghanis do that back in the period between say 2002 and 2004 ... we could have done exactly what the Indian government is doing: investing millions of dollars to build a broad highway from Kabul to the ports of Iran on the Persian Gulf and to build a high power electrical transmission network to Kabul to make electrical power available twenty-four hours a day. Instead, we are spending all of our time blowing people up and protecting those who are advising Afghanis how to do stuff. Had we used all of the resources we wasted in Iraq to hire Afghanis to build roads, bridges, railroads, transmission lines, irrigation systems, farms, schools, hospitals (the KBRs of the world could have won smaller contracts to advise and supervise) ... then AFghanis would have things to protect, and an investment in protecting them; they would have people trained in the skills needed to maintain the infrastructure and be much further along the road to self-sufficiency than they are today.
To kill every radical Muslim on the planet means you have to accurately identify them and root them out (somehow) without taking out two or three times as many non-radical Muslims; every normal person that gets offed, every home destroyed, every child maimed or wounded simply wins more people to the side of radicalism. You do not ever win a battle against terrorists and anarchists by waging "war" against them. If this were the case, you should be able to cite a half dozen examples of imperial powers (like the U.S.) who successfully defeated a terrorist insurgency. I think you will be hard-pressed to find one.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
community because I think they are ALL on the same page no matter how you stack it up!! Sure, they will tell the western world that they are not "like that" , but do you see them actively trying to rein in their militant bretheren that are involved in terrorism. NO, because these people are very clannish and stick together when its all said and done.
As far as waging a war against terrorists, we HAVE NO CHOICE. They are the one's that are bringing the war to us. So what are we supposed to do? Invite them over for dinner and try to make friends!!!! Yeah right!! These people hate our guts and are going to continue their assinine Jihadist attitude period!!! So what do we do? The only thing we can do, and that is to protect ourselves through a strong military response to their NONSENSE!!! It just is what it is and we have to deal with it accordingly and it's not by being "weenies" and not fighting back!!
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Watch the broad-brushing; it is always dangerous. Remember, there are 1.57 BILLION Muslims out there (about 25% of the entire planet's population). Do not ever stereotype ... that is the basis for mindless religious warfare (in this case) and all sorts of evilness. Here's a couple of interesting facts that might shake your stereotypes a bit. The largest number of Muslims are in Indonesia. There are more Muslims in China than in Syria, more in Russia than in Lebanon and Syria, and more in Ethiopia than in Afghanistan. There is no holy Imam uniting all these hundreds of millions of human beings in a massive jihad against anyone, though there are zealots and demagogues who have large followings who have multiple -- often competing -- goals and ambitions.
As to your concept of "war" ... who is it that we are fighting? Where are they? How do you propose to get at them? How will you know when you have won? What will you have won when you are done?
Do not misunderstand ... I fully comprehend the vehemence of the gangsters who have identified the United States as one of their enemies. They are thugs and criminals. They need to be rounded up and brought to justice. If they resist, then only the survivors will be brought to justice. But armies of occupation are not the answer, nor the best way to find them and capture them. Armies of occupation are targets. They are walking propaganda and play right into the hands of terrorists, who use the occupation and the visible presence and the unavoidable catastrophes/accidents that happen as recruitment tools. Remember, terrorists blend into the countryside and the population. They do not occupy buildings or forts or seaports; they do not raise or manufacture their own food, or have large supply lines that can be disrupted.
What we actually need to be doing is removing the attraction that they bring to the people where they operate. We need to do surprising and unexpected things that counter their propaganda ... like not support military strong-men just because they promise to honor agreements they reach with us and to do our fighting for us, but then turn around and terrorize or brutalize the very people we are trying to protect.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
then turn around and terrorize or brutalize the very people we are trying to protect.
and who is it again we are trying to protect?
(don't answer - I am being a bit snitty)
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I will answer, but not in a snitty way.
American foreign policy generally pretends to be idealistic and full of self-determination and "spread of democracy" stuff, even though once in a while guys like George W and his handlers come along. They're at least a little more direct about what it is that they are doing (and why) ... and even though anyone with half a brain knows they are lying through their teeth in the stories and rationalizations they make up to defend their actions, at least most of us know they don't believe in them themselves, unlike liberals who are quite capable of deluding themselves about all sorts of things.
So, generally, we proclaim that we are defending the right of the natives to decide for themselves how they want to be governed (provided, of course, they don't decide to elect a communist or a socialist or even a popular populist to power) by propping up corrupt and/or brutal dictators who then use the advanced technologies we give them ... usually with the stated purpose of defeating a neighbor we don't like (or at least make their rule a little challenging) or defeating a communist or a terrorist or a religious radical -- and maybe all at once ... to suppress the native population we supposedly are defending. So in Iraq, we topple the Sunni minority government and put in its place a radical Shi'a government who uses state power to crush and get even with any and all Sunnis; and in Afghanistan, we free the people from the radical Taliban dictators and prop up regional war lords that the Taliban had kept in check, then those warlords in turn wage war against the people of Afghanistan who do not swear allegiance to them.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
I like your sense of humor - and as always your posts are sound, intelligent and solid.
we proclaim that we are defending the right of the natives to decide for themselves how they want to be governed
This is why I was snitty - but not to you ;).
I hope this turns out. I think it's important to ensure the Natives are actually speaking for themselves and not assume. Ensure they are not under duress (sp?) distress, manipulation or simply not aware of the signifance of the questions being asked and what will happen as a result of the answers they give.
Thanks for the reply - good info BTW
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
Did you happen to see the segment on 60 Minutes last week on General McCrystal and his strategy presently in Afghanistan? He has shifted our tactics from search and destroy the Taliban to developing a closer, supportive, and protective posture re: the mainstream population. He apparently believes that if our presence in country can help improve the population's quality of life it will build a more trusting bond with our mission and hopefully garner more support for diluting the Taliban's influence. Based on your comments about the recruitment effect, I think this is a viable course of action, to quote a well known media centrist, "what say you?"
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
As I have said elsewhere (and have been saying since 2002), providing that "supportive and protective posture" is one part of what we should have been doing all along. Other parts of a reasonable policy to pursue while occupying a foreign country include identifying and supporting people willing to step forward and assume leadership roles (even if some of the things they say and/or advocate do not always toe the line we have drawn in the sand for "acceptable" or "permissible"), taking every single penny awarded in contracts to Halliburton (and all of its subsidiaries) and all other domestic bidders and use it to fund Afghanis doing the work that Halliburton (et. al.) would have hired foreigners to do, providing supervisory and advisory contracts to Halliburton (et. al.) to oversee this work and to train Afghanis (as necessary) to do it and (just as importantly) to assume lead roles in implementing the projects, and then pump tons of the saved money into infrastructure projects that I have identified in previous posts.
I would add, in regards in the general, that he had no business leaking his request for more troops to the press (if, in fact, it was him or someone on his staff) and if it was not he and/or his staff, then whoever it was that did needs to by taken out behind the shed and given a pretty stern talking to. This country is run by civilians, and our elected officials -- good, bad, and otherwise -- determine how we will fight a war and what it is that we hope to accomplish. Generals do whatever it is they can do within the parameters defined and described by the civilians. They do NOT step outside the chain of command.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
Tmacoo, damn, I was your wing man ..... right up to a point. BTW, I think the Munich tragedy was an unresolved issue between Israel and militant terrorist - than a war of Islam verses western values.
Look at it this way. Israel won the war in Palestine and claimed Palestinian land and Islamic holy sites. If you are a Palestinian or a devout Islamist - that isn't good. Can you kind of understand their anger?
Now, we have been politically supporting and bankrolling Israel for 60 years. Writing Israel a blank check, so to speak, for all kinds of peace defeating behaviors. Unfortunately, we have made a commitment that can not be resolved. The Islamic terrorist don't distinguish - they see the U.S. and Israel as targets of equal opportunity. They are our sworn enemies because we continue to meddled in their affairs.
The good news is that Islam like all religions is not a monolith. Islamic countries are more nationalistic than tied together by the Islamic religion. There have been wars in the middle east since the beginning of recorded history. Shia vs. Sunni is still a dispute in progress.
Guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan is unwinnable unless we abandon all our morality and endure world outrage. As it is now, all we can hope for is a never ending stalemate with the resulting and predictable casualties. I don't know if Afghanistan is any more governable than Somalia. It's a fuedal soceity, a thousand years behind the leaning curve.
Perhaps we should disregard the taliban and nation building, but rather locate and destroy Al qaeda in country and in Pakistan. After that, I think we should make the war on terrorism more of a policing issue than deploying armies to defeat militants.
We will always have enemies who would do us harm. I think we would do better to enhance the capabilities and communications between local law enforcement, F.B.I. and National security agencies to keep the terrorist out of the Country in the first place. I don't think another 9/11 could happen now because of the increased policing effort. Of course, never say never, but I think we are much more prepared.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Look at it this way. Israel won the war in Palestine and claimed Palestinian land and Islamic holy sites. If you are a Palestinian or a devout Islamist - that isn't good. Can you kind of understand their anger?
Uhh - if you ever get a chance to Talk with a Palestinian that was born and raised there you might get a different story. As it was told to me - Israel was turned back over to the Jews via UK (this is true). So the Palestinians went through a series of incidents (although more extreme) over territory that was once theirs and all of a sudden given to the Jews, eventually "provided" with Westbank swallers to live in and yes lots of wars or terrorist activity.
Never spoke of a war that they fought where the Jews won -
Nope. Basically, UK's lease ran out (like in other countries - China, Canada) and they decided to give it back to the Jews. Yes there WAS war. But the Palestinian's considered it home and it was all they knew. Bit by bit they were pushed away until now you practically have fort knox.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Maybe the solution to the problem is Arabic Gaming - yeah!
The Palestinians can start opening Casinos on the Westbank. It'll be a hit - Saudis love to gamble.
Then - as time goes by - they can be taxed for the gaming and the proceeds can be used to fund artillery to protect Israel.
Sound good?
NOT
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
"thing', but I believe if one was to really disect the theme of that incident it was the beginnings of the radical Islamic thing. I have ALWAYS been of the opinion that the REAL agenda with these radicals re: America, is based on the entire Arab community's hatred for Israel and our reluctance to openly denounce Israel in favor of the Palestinian cause. The last time I checked our posture re: this seemingly insurmountable dilemma is that we are supposedly nuetral and wish both sides to bury the hatchet and peacefully coexist. The fact that so many Israelis have dual citizenship with the U.S., this only gives the Palestinians more reason to lump Americans right in there with the Israelis.
Regarding the Afghanistan problem, as far a I can see there really is not much difference between Al Queda and the Taliban politically speaking, so we have a significant amount of societal "cancer" so to speak in that country that has to be nuetralized one way or the other. Unfortunately the general population is so illiterate that trying to get the message across to them which path to take is difficult at best. Corruption is probably the biggest stumbling block in the process. The only reason Osama has been able to stay at large is because he keeps EVERYBODY'S palms thoroughly "greased" with his seemingly unlimited source of funds.
Now remember, your liberal president Clinton actually got the Palestinians and the Israelis together during his administration and ALMOST got something done, but Arafat wasn't willing to compromise, which makes me suspicious of the Palestinians willingness to solve this problem in a civilized manner.
In closing, I am predicting if Obama doesn't start making it crystal clear to the rogue nations of the world that the U.S. is not becoming a paper tiger, we are going to see another domestic terrorist event in this country on his watch and he will have hell to pay for that!!!
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
A few minor corrections to your otherwise cogent argument, tmacoo:
The Taliban gave sanctuary to al-Qaida because they had been allies during the war with Russia (incidentally, both receiving substantial military aide and assistance from the U.S., as it was in our interests to create problems for the Soviets), and a strong Islamic tradition springing from Bedouin culture that involves providing aide and protection to those in need. They share some values, but they also are bitterly divided along many key points (e.g., members of al-Qaeda are teetotalers and strictly enforce rules and customs regarding alcohol and drug consumption; the Taliban support themselves through poppy sales). A recent report suggests that the Taliban are extremely reluctant to share power (and space) with al-Qaeda, now that they are heavily invested in winning back Afghanistan: they view al-Qaeda as the primary reason they lost power (true) and don't see that al-Qaeda has done much to help them in the struggles they have been waging. This is one of the key pieces in the strategy Barack Obama seems to be developing ... focus less on al-Qaeda except in Pakistan.
Barack Obama has also told the Israelis that there can be no more expansion along the West Bank or in Gaza. There can be no peace (or trust) in the area until the Israelis stop expanding into Palestinian territories.
As to future acts of terrorism: they are a given. They will happen. They might even be masterminded, funded, and even carried out by foreign nationals. There's a much better chance that future acts of terrorism, however, will be carried out by American citizens. And they may not be Muslim.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Tmacco - here's my 2 cents - from a person that has been exposed to this personally , or should I say immersed years back.
Palestinians and the Israelis together during his administration and ALMOST got something done, but Arafat wasn't willing to compromise, which makes me suspicious of the Palestinians willingness to solve this problem in a civilized manner.
This is the problem too. Need to look at it through the eyes of someone born in this area in the 1950's and 1960's - think of that age group. I already knew the outcome - it did not suprise me a bit, did not expect much from this. Your statement makes perfectly reasonable sense, but not through their mindset.
As long as you oppress them and place force - you will have zero results. Proof = this is how it has been handled all along - how is it working? NOT.
The comments about present day situation? If you knew how they were, you would know that they will not share anything. They have had a bad experience with "sharing" or accepting less. Think of any other society or culture that has done this with the majority and the outcome or true motive behind it ? It is ingrained within their culture and understood amongst themselves. Hard to explain.......it is not viewed as a negative trait.
The whole thing sucks for everyone. If I was Israeli I'd be pissed at the UK and the US additionally. Who wants to live in fort knox?
There are some things you just don't get involved with. We did and now here we are - the informed to the uniformed alike.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Sorry for the confusion I pasted and posted in the incorrect thread
Oops!
Please disregard
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
The brutal reality of this conflict is this, the radical Islamic community is NOT INTERESTED in co-existing with communities that do not share their belief in Islam. ..................................
Now of course we realize that this is not a very realistic concept and the remainder of the non Islamic world population now has to decide how they wish to protect their freedom of choice. FORCE!!!! Is the only viable answer to this question. The only thing radical Islam will respect is MASSIVE, UNRELENTING FORCE!!!
*****************************************
Here here - Agreed.
Tad bit frustrated? I can understand. Since they do such a good job with minimal technology?
So if we could just get em a few laptops and telephones and let you at'em I am sure you'd do a great job ;) No fooling.
(Just be nice to the kitties ;)
Listen - I was exposed to the negatives for years. I am aware of the radical mindset.....peace is not an option and would be suprised if part of their language. You will not get any delusional fluffy words regarding this - it is reality.
I think you brought up a point some time back in regards to why Islamic leaders don't speak up? I saw something recent in the news - negative comments that had a Muslim stamp on it. Nothing - no counter responses or comments to stand up for the fact that the traditions and beliefs are being misrepresented.
So you are correct - they need a spokes person or ... hmm
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 902
all Muslims protect each other. you won't hear a Muslim denounce anything, no matter how horrible, if it was caused by a Muslim
Probably insider Muslims in the white house, on top of B.O. relatives that tip-off every major advance , etc
all Muslims are together until as a group they denounce the Taliban, which they refuse to do. they do the opposite.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Now here is an intellectual argument ... have you ever tried to get a classroom of normal, everyday seventh graders in middle-class America to turn over one of their own for breaking a rule?
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Good one - Shays ;)