Taliban winning in Afghanistan
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 23:18
VIEWED: 20106
PAGE 11 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Nuking Japan, followed by Republican Senators publicly saying Russia should be nuked next, caused a multi-trillion dollar nuclear arms race, which that dimwitted President Harry Truman couldn't see coming when he allowed the nukes to drop. Nuking Mecca would be an even stupider move, and eventually more expensive, than nuking Japan.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
After 9/11, we should have just turned Mecca to glass and the entire world would be a much better place right now.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
It wouldn't have been more expensive than the last 20 years were with nothing to show for it.
We had the world on our side back then. We would have been justified.
P.S. Despite the lack of squiggly lines under it in your browser, "Stupider" is not a word.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't think you understand the nature of what will probably happen between the Chinese and the Taliban. They've been learning diplomacy from the Russians, and with the Russians it's not an "all or nothing" reaction.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wouldn't worry about the Taliban and China teaming up.
One suicide bombing will end that relationship very quick.
The Taliban is what Antifa would be if they were feral and took 2000 year old fantasy books as the literal truth of the universe.
Very good at details: expectations, red lines, rewards, and consequences. For example, Russia has been tolerant (until now) of Israeli bombing of Iranian positions in Syria bc THEIR positions weren't targeted. Even when Turkey shot down a Russian jet (this, after Russia saved Erdogan's bacon by warning him of the coup) the Russians reacted harshly but kept on building their Turk Stream pipeline.
So if the Chinese are listening to the Russians on diplomacy, I don't expect to see the Chinese getting miffed over a single event and overturning everything.
*****
BTW, I don't think the American intervention was all for naught. It definitely raised expectations for the status of women, and made it LESS likely that the Taliban will revert to their view of women as subhuman.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, I doubt you will read because you are you, but Which Is Correct: “Stupider” Or “Stupidest”? Stupider or more Stupid?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
P.S. Despite the lack of squiggly lines under it in your browser, "Stupider" is not a word.
Is stupider a word?
It turns out stupider is an actual word. The word stupid is an adjective that refers to someone or something that’s foolish or senseless.
This adjective, however, only gets you so far. When you want to compare two nouns, you’ll need what’s called a comparative adjective. For example, in the sentence “Sam is bigger than Selena,” the adjective bigger is comparative. It tells you that Sam is larger in size than Selena.
If you want to compare two things that are stupid, you would use the comparative form of the adjective stupid to describe which has a greater level of stupidity. In most cases, comparative and superlative adjectives follow a simple pattern. You add the suffix –er to the original adjective when you want to form the comparative. Stupider is one acceptable form of the comparative form.
But there is another.
Stupider or more stupid
More stupid is also accepted as a comparative form of the adjective stupid. Stupider and more stupid are used interchangeably. In the English language, stupid is one of just a few adjectives that have two grammatically correct options for their comparative form.
Why is that? Well, some two-syllable adjectives (in particular, adjectives ending with –y, –er, –le, and –ow) follow the –er rule above. This includes dirty (which becomes dirtier and dirtiest), little (littler and littlest), and narrow (narrower and narrowest).
In most other cases, adjectives with two syllables use the words more and most to create their comparative and superlative forms. For example, important and public are both adjectives with multiple syllables. Their comparative forms are more important and more public. Their superlative forms are most important and most public.
Stupid is a two-syllable adjective. Based on the rule above, it should use the words more and most to form its comparative and superlative forms, and it does. However, it also breaks this rule by using –er and –est as alternative forms.
A few other adjectives use –er and –est as well as more and most, such as clever, likely, and pleasant. This means both of these sentences are grammatically correct: “Betty is more likely to win the election than Bobby” and “Betty is likelier to win than Bobby.”
Much more at https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/stupider-vs-more-stupid/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I don't think you understand the nature of what will probably happen between the Chinese and the Taliban. They've been learning diplomacy from the Russians, and with the Russians it's not an "all or nothing" reaction.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wouldn't worry about the Taliban and China teaming up.
One suicide bombing will end that relationship very quick.
The Taliban is what Antifa would be if they were feral and took 2000 year old fantasy books as the literal truth of the universe.
Very good at details: expectations, red lines, rewards, and consequences. For example, Russia has been tolerant (until now) of Israeli bombing of Iranian positions in Syria bc THEIR positions weren't targeted. Even when Turkey shot down a Russian jet (this, after Russia saved Erdogan's bacon by warning him of the coup) the Russians reacted harshly but kept on building their Turk Stream pipeline.
So if the Chinese are listening to the Russians on diplomacy, I don't expect to see the Chinese getting miffed over a single event and overturning everything.
Putin isn't just going to let all that happen the way you explain it in his backyard.
Quote:
BTW, I don't think the American intervention was all for naught. It definitely raised expectations for the status of women, and made it LESS likely that the Taliban will revert to their view of women as subhuman.
That's what their religion tells them is true.
Best case scenario they start making sure that they don't beat their women in the face and keep it in areas that are going to be covered while they're out in public.
Or they could just revert to the old standby and say they don't know where their wife disappeared to.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GOP removes page praising Donald Trump’s ‘historic’ peace deal with Taliban.
I wonder why.
https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20201010184542/20210815231342/https:/
/gop.com/president-trump-is-bringing-peace-to-the-middle-east-rsr/
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CONTINUED TO TAKE THE LEAD IN PEACE TALKS AS HE SIGNED A HISTORIC PEACE AGREEMENT WITH THE TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN, WHICH WOULD END AMERICA'S LONGEST WAR
On February 2, 2020 , the Trump Administration signed a preliminary peace agreement with the Taliban that sets the stage to end America's longest war.
Under the agreement , the U.S. will withdraw nearly 5,000 troops from the country in 135 days in exchange for a Taliban agreement to not allow Afghanistan to be used for transnational terrorism.
Time Magazine reported that other components of the agreement included an agreement that U.S. counterterrorism forces stay in the country, permissions for the CIA to operate in Taliban-held areas, and details of how the Taliban's promises to reduce violence will be monitored and verified.
The deal has been called the " best chance to end this conflict ," a " decisive move " towards peace, and " the best path " for the United States.
The war in Afghanistan is the longest in U.S. history, a conflict that has killed more than 3,500 U.S. and NATO troops and cost U.S. taxpayers nearly 900 billion dollars.
As part of the peace agreement, the Taliban and the Afghan government recently began historic peace, talks which would end decades of war that Afghanistan has consumed.
The negotiations will cover the terms of a " permanent ceasefire, the rights of women and minorities, and the disarmament of the country's many militia groups ."
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DELIVERED ON HIS PROMISE TO END ENDLESS WARS BY BRINGING OUR TROOPS BACK HOME
Due to President Trump's leadership, the United States will pull out thousands of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by November.
President Trump has been pushing for a reduction since 2016 and has fulfilled his promise by taking action to ensure the Iraqi Security Forces to have the ability to operate independently .
The reduction in Iraq troops from 5,200 to about 3,000 " reflects the Trump Administration's confidence in the ability of U.S. trained Iraqi security forces to handle the militant threat from the Islamic State group ."
Iraq, Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, said that with the reduction, the U.S. will still be able to accomplish core tasks, and " we've shown more than ample goodwill and our willingness to demonstrate that we don't want to be an occupying force in this country ."
" The U.S. Decision is a clear demonstration of our continued commitment to the ultimate goal, which is an Iraqi security force that is capable of preventing an ISIS resurgence and of securing Iraq's sovereignty without external assistance ."
Iraqi forces have improved their ability to fight ISIS and that " the fact we're getting smaller is actually a sign of campaign progress."
Starting in March, U.S. forces began pulling back from bases across Iraq, turning them over to Iraqi security partners .
The reduction is part of a long-planned consolidation which reflects the " success of the anti-ISIS fight ."
WHILE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CHAMPIONED PEACE, JOE BIDEN HAS TAKEN THE LEAD IN PUSHING FOR ENDLESS WARS, INCLUDING THE DECADES LONG WAR IN IRAQ
While President Trump has continued to push for peace in the Middle East successfully, Joe Biden has had a history of pushing for endless wars, and failed leadership:
In 2001, then-Senator Joe Biden supported an invasion of Iraq and said that the U.S. should move forward regardless if there were no support of others .
In 2002, Biden affirmed his previous statement and voted for the use of force in Iraq ; the decision led
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
GOP removes page praising Donald Trump’s ‘historic’ peace deal with Taliban.
I wonder why.
I don't wonder why. It's a great thing, so of course the Legacy Media is against it, and they're going to try spinning the blame for whatever fallout there is over there on Trump and the GOP.
The only thing that baffles me is why Biden* actually went through with it.
All of your shit-show Lefty trash online sites are not behind Uncle Joey's decision to do so.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You would be wrong. Everybody who knows what they are doing knows that Afghanistan War was scheduled to end 3 months ago. But that goddamn General David Petraeus wants the War to continue because ending it makes him look bad. The CIA wants the War to continue because they were having so much fun. Even Trump wants the War to continue because he is not President, so he is even more uncaring than in 2020. He actually believed he would get a Nobel Prize for ending the War in 2020. What a fat idiot.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
GOP removes page praising Donald Trump’s ‘historic’ peace deal with Taliban.
I wonder why.
I don't wonder why. It's a great thing, so of course the Legacy Media is against it, and they're going to try spinning the blame for whatever fallout there is over there on Trump and the GOP.
The only thing that baffles me is why Biden* actually went through with it.
All of your shit-show Lefty trash online sites are not behind Uncle Joey's decision to do so.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What We Need to Learn: Lessons From Twenty Years of Afghanistan Reconstruction
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/lessonslearned/SIGAR-21-46-LL.pdf
The mission was doomed to fail, regardless of how much longer U.S. troops were kept there.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/sigar-report-afghanistan-d
ebacle.html
Want more detail?
Quote:The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
The U.S. failed in every aspect of its strategy, and often for reasons that are endemic to the way that its bureaucracy functions or to the limits — social, political, and economic — of Afghanistan. The failures were so broad and deep that they raise “questions about the ability of U.S. government agencies to devise, implement, and evaluate reconstruction strategies” in any foreign country.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Propaganda Multiplier
A Study by Swiss Propaganda Research
Translated by Terje Maloy
2016 / 2019
“Therefore, you always have to ask yourself: Why do I get this specific information, in this specific form, at this specific moment? Ultimately, these are always questions about power.” (*)
Dr. Konrad Hummler, Swiss banking and media executive
It is one of the most important aspects of our media system, and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.
The key role played by these agencies means Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.
A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles were based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews were in favor of a US and NATO intervention, while propaganda was attributed exclusively to the opposite side.
“How does the newspaper know what it knows?” The answer to this question is likely to surprise some newspaper readers: “The main source of information is stories from news agencies. The almost anonymously operating news agencies are in a way the key to world events. So what are the names of these agencies, how do they work and who finances them? To judge how well one is informed about events in East and West, one should know the answers to these questions.” (Höhne 1977, p. 11)
A Swiss media researcher points out: “The news agencies are the most important suppliers of material to mass media. No daily media outlet can manage without them. () So the news agencies influence our image of the world; above all, we get to know what they have selected.” (Blum 1995, p. 9)
Even the head of a news agency noted: “There is something strange about news agencies. They are little known to the public. Unlike a newspaper, their activity is not so much in the spotlight, yet they can always be found at the source of the story.” (Segbers 2007, p. 9)
In view of their essential importance, it is all the more astonishing that these agencies are hardly known to the public: “A large part of society is unaware that news agencies exist at all … In fact, they play an enormously important role in the media market. But despite this great importance, little attention has been paid to them in the past.” (Schulten-Jaspers 2013, p. 13)
So what are the names of these agencies that are “always at the source of the story”? There are now only three global news agencies left:
The American Associated Press (AP) with over 4000 employees worldwide. The AP belongs to US media companies and has its main editorial office in New York. AP news is used by around 12,000 international media outlets, reaching more than half of the world’s population every day.
The quasi-governmental French Agence France-Presse (AFP) based in Paris and with around 4000 employees. The AFP sends over 3000 stories and photos every day to media all over the world.
The British agency Reuters in London, which is privately owned and employs just over 3000 people. Reuters was acquired in 2008 by Canadian media entrepreneur Thomson – one of the 25 richest people in the world – and merged into Thomson Reuters, headquartered in New York.
In addition, many countries run
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Most of the journalists who work for the 3 news agencies report the same things in the same ways (stay ensconced at the same hotels, tap the same sources, focus on the same topics).
In addition, they don't pick the news that they'll be covering. That's done by the chief editor.
And news is done as cheaply as possible, which means transcribing government reports, press releases, and press conferences.
Finally, while the talking heads and more local reporters may. or may not. be liberal, they don't determine what gets disseminated. The Editor in Chief (or station chief) does that.
The 'liberal' media is anything but. It's a highly truncated narrative created by an extreme focus, and packaged into a narrative that fits into the business 'infotainment' model. Any apparent bias in either direction is merely part of the Punch-and-Judy show that does everything but tell people what they need to know.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME