US Peace Envoy Claims Progress Regarding Talks with Taliban
Zalmay Khalilzad states that significant progress has been made with Taliban talks.(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool, File)
The U.S. Peace envoy declares that a lot of progress has been made in negotiations with the Taliban. The hope is to, “End the destructive war in Afghanistan”. One has to ask, “By which standards?”
The Taliban doesn’t want to include the Afghanistan government in these talks. They want a withdrawal of US and NATO forces. They insist that no substantive progress can be made in the talks without puling the troops out.
It appears that the Taliban are dictating terms, and not offering something substantive that they would live up to their end of the bargain.
From Associated Press:
It wasn’t clear whether Khalilzad is seeking written guarantees from the Taliban that they will distance themselves from al-Qaida operatives, including Ayman al Zawahiri, who live among them or at the very least have safe passage and havens within territory they control.
It’s similar to what happened towards the end of the Vietnam War. The removal of U.S. troops in 1973 contributed to making it harder for us to guarantee that the North would live up to its end of the peace accords. Removal of U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan removes one solid way we could pressure the Taliban to live up to their end of the “understanding”:
More from Associated Press:
It wasn’t clear how the U.S. could verify Taliban promises to ensure Afghan territory is not again a staging arena for attacks outside its borders.
There was also no indication that the Taliban would agree to a cease-fire, which Khalilzad has been seeking, or when the Taliban would hold direct talks with the Afghan government, something they have continued to reject.
A couple of the graduates from Guantanamo Bay were among the leadership that served as Taliban negotiators. They were two of the five GITMO graduates traded to the Taliban in exchange for Bowe Bergdal.
The Taliban negotiating team that met this week in Qatar with Khalilzad were all senior members of the movement. They included…Muhammad Fazl and Khairullah Khairkhwah.
Both Fazl and Khairkhwah were among five Taliban freed from the U.S. prison at Gunatanamo Bay in 2014 in exchange for U.S. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who had been captured by the Taliban in 2009 after he wandered off his base.
The entire Associated Press article on this topic can be read here:
Category: Afghanistan
This presence of two of the five Slamonazi’s traded by 0 for Berg-Boi proves what a terrific deal maker he was. Obviously, we need one his acolytes at the helm in 2021.
How do you negotiate peace with a warlord? Honestly, you either take the warlords out or you “live” with the consequences of letting them live.
As long as our people are out of that shithole, I don’t care what lies are told and what agreements are signed. Too many lives and too many years, for what? “All in or all out” should be the motto hanging over every doorway in the Pentagon.
Agree absolutely!!
More treason from Obama. Literally giving away enemy leaders in exchange for a traitor, ignoring Congress as he did so you’ll recall. How is BHO remembered as anything but a foul up and moron?
I remember him mainly as a narcissist and traitor who sold his soul to his party’s agenda!
Also another great example of a “public servant” who never has a real job but becomes a millionaire.
But, but …but, what about all that hard work as a lawer representing that real estate gangster/felon?
It’s similar to what happened towards the end of the Vietnam War. The removal of U.S. troops in 1973 contributed to making it harder for us to guarantee that the North would live up to its end of the peace accords. Removal of U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan removes one solid way we could pressure the Taliban to live up to their end of the “understanding” Except that there are some very major differences: The first is that North Vietnam was by every measure a modern state with a modern (and very competent) military force. The chances that they WOULDN’T violate the 1973 Peace Agreement weren’t microscopic once US forces no longer had any way to apply leverage. By contrast, the Taliban is made up of the same bunch of ragged camel jockeys that has been sniping at each other since the days of Alexander the Great and the chance of them being able to form an actual functioning government (much less a capable military force) are laughable. Next, not only were the NVA a modern military force, but they were backed up by not one but TWO world powers, the USSR and Red China, while there is no shadowy world power backing up the Taliban, just the usual number of radical islamic losers who form the global “gang that couldn’t shoot straight.” Third, this is a post 9/11 world. What I mean by that is that when the NVA initiated their surprise attack in early 1975, with some very limited goals, the ARVN folded like a cheap suit and they took advantage of the chaos to push for a final resolution, while the US, badly burned by Vietnam, Watergate, the Middle East crises, etc, simply wrung it’s hands and said “sorry, there’s nothing we can do” until Saigon finally fell. By contrast, if a resurgent Taliban were to somehow come close to re-takin all of Afghanistan (which I doubt they could do) and raise the specter of another failed state that would serve as a breeding ground for Islamic terror groups, the US and its allies would likely… Read more »
I’ve not only studied History, I’ve done a tour in A-stan and have come to the conclusion that some people CANNOT be civilized. In their culture family and Tribe come first, someone from Ablablablaptui Village will never give even a tiny tinker’s damn about anywhere else, thus they still can’t muster a decent Army, that and that Country has MAYBE a thirty percent literacy rate that and most of them will change alliances, even in the middle of a battle.
That’s one reason I wonder why we insisted on keeping Iraq a single state. Seems they all hate each other, so we should have split it into three (Shia, Sunni, and Kurds).
Well, off hand I’d say 3 states = 3 times the work and 3 times the problems for us to deal with. Leaving it as a single state means Iraq can deal with the internal issues themselves (as a nation should and did under previous rulers.)
Seems to me the only thing we should send to any of these shitholes is ordinance… the smallest of which should be a MOAB… I have absolutely no problem with the deployment of nuclear weapons in these areas… the only reasons they’re not a deterrent are 1. Because it’s been so long that very few remember what happens when they’re used, and 2. Noone thinks we’ll use them… IMHO it’s way past tme to change both of those issues..
Martinjmpr: Except that there are some very major differences: The differences don’t matter on the account that in both situations, a sizeable U.S. presence isn’t available. The North Vietnamese had representatives on the ground counting the number of U.S. troops boarding aircraft. They wanted to make sure that we were out of the way. The Taliban is insisting that the US and NATO pull out. Martinjmpr: The first is that North Vietnam was by every measure a modern state with a modern (and very competent) military force. The Taliban has taken control of large areas in Afghanistan, and they’ve been around since the 1990s. They’ve held up, and are now negotiating an “end” to our engagement while not guaranteeing that they fulfill their end of the bargain. They’ve had a comeback after we toppled their government. Once we pull out, they’re a force that has to be dealt with, especially if they don’t live up to their end of the bargain. Martinjmpr: The chances that they WOULDN’T violate the 1973 Peace Agreement weren’t microscopic once US forces no longer had any way to apply leverage. They couldn’t apply that leverage after they pulled out. It’s why I mentioned the statement that you quoted. We had other ways to apply pressure, but a combination of what Nixon got himself into, and a Congress that wanted to defund the South Vietnamese, reduced what we could do in the event that the North broke its side of the agreement. Martinjmpr: By contrast, the Taliban is made up of the same bunch of ragged camel jockeys that has been sniping at each other since the days of Alexander the Great and the chance of them being able to form an actual functioning government (much less a capable military force) are laughable. The same could be said of the Huns and the Mongols before they were unified and turned to threaten the powers in their area. The ones that were able to do the unifying had to engage in a combination of combat and verbal engagement to bring competing factions together. The Taliban started as… Read more »
So what’s your point? We should stay in Afghanistan forever? Or until they are a functioning and moderate state (which will never happen?)
The biggest mistake we made during the Cold War was seeing commies under the bed everywhere we looked.
There’s no reason for us to do the same with “radical islam.” And there is certainly no reason for us to keep expending blood and treasure in Afghanistan. We’ve done what we can do. Now it’s time for Afghanistan to stand or fall on its own.
And if it falls, so what? The only reason we even cared about Afghanistan is because the terrorists who conducted the 9/11 attacks used Afghanistan as their base. That’s not going to happen again as we have taken off the gloves and shown that we will attack terrorists no matter which 3rd world shithole they’re in.
I’m not afraid of the Taliban. The Taliban were NEVER able to control all of Afghanistan, even when we WEREN’T beating them like a red-headed step child.
This isn’t the 12th century. The last thing in the world we need is a new crusade.
(Dr. Phil Voice): And how’s that working out for them? 😉
Martinjmpr: So what’s your point? We should stay in Afghanistan forever? Or until they are a functioning and moderate state (which will never happen?) One of the points that I argued, above, is that Western civilization is locked in a mortal struggle against an ideology that wants to eliminate Western civilization, and other non-Islamic civilizations, and replace them with a global government under the banner of Islam. This is called the, “War on Terror”. This doesn’t capture the historical, and current, reality, of the enemy and struggle that we are up against. I call it the, “Response to the radical Islamic war to eliminate Western civilization in order to establish global Islamic caliphates,” paraphrased. Again, they had their start, in their war against the “infidels”, during the medieval period. They expanded throughout the Arabian Peninsula, and then into Africa, Southwest Asia, and into Europe. Even though the rise of the Western empires halted their advance, they have not lost sight of their ultimate goal… The whole world being ruled under the banner of Islam. The cold hard reality is that everything is at stake. There are only two options that we face, we fight them and cause changes in their area, or the radical elements in their area convert the United States, and the rest of the non-Islamic world, into a series of Islamic caliphates. Arguing that they would never have a functioning moderate state is not justification to just pull out and “let them handle the problem over there”. Keep in mind that there was even doubts after World War II about whether we would be able to accomplish our objectives in Europe and Asia. There’s even an article, written in 1946, titled, “America Losing the Peace in Europe”. Heck, we were in the Philippines, as a military presence, for almost a century. Even today, the Philippine government is having a hard time keeping Mindanao under control. By your reasoning, the Filipinos should just abandon Mindanao as it would “never accept being a part of a Roman Catholic country”. Our reducing our signature in that area would not be… Read more »
Martinjmpr: There’s no reason for us to do the same with “radical islam.” And there is certainly no reason for us to keep expending blood and treasure in Afghanistan. We’ve done what we can do. Now it’s time for Afghanistan to stand or fall on its own. That is exactly what the radical Islamists what you, and everybody else, to think. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve listened to a video, that came from the Middle East, where key religious leaders talked about the eventuality that Islam will push outward and conquer additional parts of the world. It speaks volumes when radicals from the Middle East talk about the “black flag of Islam over the White House”. Recently, a high-ranking Iranian talked about the White House being converted into an Islamic immunity center. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even argued that not even the mountaintops would serve as an escape from Islam. A cleric that is on the no-fly list, said on video, that Islam will rule the world, “whether we liked it or not”. You have to listen to what they are saying over there, as it is their philosophy that is driving their actions. Whether you like it or not, they cast a vote in whatever actions we take. Those folks, participating in pro Islamic demonstrations, who are calling for deaths against those who insult Islam, who chant that “Mohammed’s army will come”, are hell-bent in making that a reality. The “weapon of choice” are acts of terrorism that would be recognized as acts of terrorism, and other acts that could easily be dismissed or even ignored as “nonthreatening”. For example, it’s no secret that birth rates are declining in the Western countries. Not so much with regards to Islamic families. They’re experiencing a growth rate. In fact, there have been video segments showing refugees, from the Middle East, bragging about the fact that they have plenty of kids per family and… And how they intended to leverage that in countries where the native birth rate is declining. Declining native Western population in the face of an increasing population… Read more »
Martinjmpr: The only reason we even cared about Afghanistan is because the terrorists who conducted the 9/11 attacks used Afghanistan as their base. No, that is not the only reason. Given the fact that Afghanistan was used as a planning base was only a part of the problem. If you listen to the speech that President Bush made, shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, he laid out a plan designed to address unrestricted warfare. It was a multiple pronged plan that utilized military, economic, political, and other spheres of influence to battle the threat. It called for battles to take place not just in one geographic area, but in multiple geographic areas. This war was never just about Afghanistan, the terrorists, Osama bin Laden, etc. Those were just the symptoms of what I call, “The radical terrorist war to exterminate Western civilization and to establish radical global rule.” Martinjmpr: That’s not going to happen again as we have taken off the gloves and shown that we will attack terrorists no matter which 3rd world shithole they’re in. However, it doesn’t do us any good if we take the gloves off, smack them around silly, and put the gloves back on while they are still fighting. If we pull out our forces, and simply “let them duke it out over there”, it would not be seen as you portray it here. It wouldn’t be seen as both sides coming up to an agreement. It would simply be seen as a defeat for the United States and for Western civilization. What matters here is how those in the Middle East view this. Specifically, those who would join the ranks of the radical terrorists… As well as the terrorists themselves. Regardless of what we do, they cast a vote, via their actions, on the ultimate outcome for us and the world in the future. And, when that happens, they’re not going to take us seriously if we go in and “take off the gloves again” elsewhere. Why? They know that they would simply have to outlast us and we would… Read more »
What Martinjumper doesn’t understand is that although he doesn’t care about the Slamonazi’s, they care about him and the rest of us. Their plan for him involves the removal of his head. And now they have both a senator and a member in the house.
Given the context that I provided above, that would be equivalent to asking, in response to President Trump running for president in the year 2000, “And how did that work out for him?”
Again, you have to see this from their perspective, not from ours. Our invasion put a dent into that. However, our leaving allows them to regroup, strengthen, and resume what they were doing before we invaded.
Continuing my thought: There’s another side of this though:
If it’s “their” (i.e. the Afghans) war to fight, then it also ought to be up to them to decide how to fight it. Expecting a 3rd world country to live up to the kinds of ROE that we impose on our own forces is setting them up for failure.
If anything, this is yet another reason for us to pull our forces out. Right now the Afghans are stuck trying to obey overly restrictive ROE while fighting an enemy whose only ROE is “whatver you need to win, do it.”
Mason that is in fact what is prior to the end of WW1, it was the Brits who foisted that mess on us.
From 1800s to the end of WW1 it was three provinces Mosul/Baghdad/Basra.
The Kurds tried to create their own state at that same time and succeeded for a short while.
So yes three separate provinces/nations now would be a wise idea as well, except other players in the region might try assimilating the smaller components.
Interesting. My knowledge of history in that part of the world is rather limited before WWI.
Didn’t the British negotiate a peace before they retreated from Kabul to Jbad?
Afghanistan is also known as “The Graveyard of Empires”, just ask the Brits, French and Russians.
Why in the hell are we even “negotiating” with the Taliban anyhow. Phuque them. Pull all of the American Boys and Girls out, all of the American Treasury, tools, equipment…everything. Leave a few Global Hawk type Hell Fire Platforms handy, or a B1B loaded with some cruise missiles.
These SOBs have been killing one another for 1000s of years and will still be killing one another 1000s of years from now. If the whole damn place was nuked to oblivion and only 2 survived, those two would attack one another with fist.
Nearly 18 years of blood and treasure spent. Nearly 18 years of training. Most of us were trained to be lean, green killing machines in 6 months to a year. I guess we are that much smarter.
You know, that’s another good point. War Figthing 101 seems to be pretty clear that you can either (a) negotiate or (b) fight the war until one side or the other admits defeat.
You can’t do both. So at the point where we start “negotiating” with our enemies, we take “victory” off the table.
Look at the Korean war. We started negotiations in mid 1951. The war dragged on for two freakin’ years beyond that and tens of thousands of killed and wounded, and when the final ceasefire was agreed to, the position of the combatants was pretty close to where they were in 1951.
Look at Vietnam. We started negotiating with the North Vietnamese government (and by association, with the VC) in early 1967. At that point, there was ZERO possibility of “winning” the war, so every casualty that occurred after that time was someone who died for .. what? So LBJ wouldn’t ‘lose face?’ So the Democrats wouldn’t go down in history as the party that “lost Vietnam” (as they had been accused of “losing” China in 1949?)
If it’s time to negotiate then it’s time to stop fighting and pull out. Because all “negotiation” guarantees is that whoever walks away first will “lose” and since there’s nothing in Afghanistan that is worth the blood of even ONE American soldier, that will always be us.
And that shouldn’t really concern us too much, to be realistic. Afghanistan is one of those “tar baby” countries that NOBODY wants.
It’s like the old joke: You just entered a contest to win a trip: First prize is a week in Afghanistan.
Second prize is two weeks. 😉
My recollection (which may be a bit off after 17 years) of the reason we invaded Afghanistan is that the Taliban sheltered Al Qaeda. If the Taliban has learned their lesson and says it won’t shelter them again I say we should declare victory and get the hell out.
As far as I am concerned, at this point any excuse is a good excuse.
^^^ What he said.
“Winning” in Afghanistan won’t happen because to quote James Caan’s character of SFC Clell Hazard in the movie “Gardens of Stone”, there is “nothing to win and no way to win it.”
The inept and corrupt Afghan government is doomed to fall after we leave.
Whether we leave in 2 months or another 2 decades.
The Taliban are lying and will not keep any of their promises.
We need to get out and cut our losses.
Thebesig: I’m not going to respond to every point you made, but I’m a student of history too (my undergrad major.) We grossly overestimated both the capabilities of the Soviets and the “unity” of the World Communist movement. In reality, most of the “communist” countries were simply repeating Soviet propaganda points so they could get Soviet support for their nationalist and anti-colonialist movements that were not, contrary to the paranoid beliefs of too many in the US, a part of a sinister conspiracy to surround the US and deprive us of our precious bodily fluids. I see much the same with the current gross inflation of the capabilities of the so-called Islamic radicals. When I look at the world I don’t see the failing Western democracies fighting a desperate rearguard action against a relentless and conquering tide of Islamic power. I see a more or less functioning world that is doing its own thing and minding its own business while a small number of crazy Muslims continue to undermine the development of THEIR OWN countries and try to drag them back to the 11th century while the rest of the world just tries to keep them contained in their own dusty parts of the globe. That’s not to say the radicals – particularly where they’ve infiltrated the Muslim communities in Europe – are not dangerous, they are. But they are not an existential threat because they’ll never be able to do more than just stage the occasional random attack and kill a few dozen people with bombs or automatic weapons. Now that’s horrible for the people who get killed or injured, and for their families too, but it doesn’t threaten the foundations of liberal Western society because the power to destroy is never enough: They also have to have the power to accomplish something. And what have the radical islamists accomplished? What have they actually done? They haven’t even managed to topple the rotten edifice that is Syria. Libya? OK, I’ll give them that. They got Libya. And they got Egypt, but then they lost it again so that doesn’t… Read more »
Martinjmpr: Thebesig: I’m not going to respond to every point you made, There’s no rule, on TAH that I am aware of, that requires the reader to respond to every point made in the post they are responding to. However, from reading your reply, I could tell that you could’ve at least thoroughly read what I stated above. Martinjmpr: but I’m a student of history too (my undergrad major.) I’ve been a student of history since the late 1970s, which would make this interest a four-decade long interest for me. I’ve been a news junkie since the summer of 1982. That’s over 3 ½ decades of being a news junkie. Both of these go hand in hand with regards to my interests. For comparison, I’ve only been tracking global weather since 2007. In the mid-1980s, I used both of the above to be able to piece together a picture that allowed me to predict that the Soviet Union would disintegrate. Likewise, before I graduated high school in the late 1980s, I wrote papers in class that basically predicted that the United States would be involved in combat operations in Central America and in the Middle East. Years later, when I visited my high school, I ran into my teacher that I wrote those papers for. She told me that she wished that she kept my papers given what had already happened by that time. We had a ready engaged in combat operations in Panama as well as in Kuwait/Iraq. In the last decade, I made a series of predictions in my debates against the leftists. These predictions related to our actions in Iraq given what I was arguing we should do, and what the opposition was arguing we should do. I also provided an “if [your way] happens, then [prediction] what happen.” The Arab Spring? The conservatives argued that this would develop into a ripple effect. The leftists dismissed that. I explained how that ripple effect would happen, it wasn’t some “pulled from the air theory” that the Republicans concocted. The verdict? Every prediction that I made and ended up… Read more »
Martinjmpr: I see much the same with the current gross inflation of the capabilities of the so-called Islamic radicals. These are not “gross inflammation of capabilities”. Also, they are not “so-called”. If you watch the video, that I posted above, by someone who grew up in Egypt, you would see but one example of what we are dealing with. Again, I lost count of how many times I watched a video, featuring someone speaking in the Middle East, where they talk about how Islam will conquer Europe, North America, and South America. Even when they don’t say this directly, you can see it in their videos via symbology. The radical Islamists are engaging in unrestricted warfare. Your argument, on this thread, can best be captured in this statement from Unrestricted Warfare: Colonel Qiao Liang and Colonel Wang Xiangsui, circa 1999 Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military… This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means. This phrase perfectly describes your argument. They argued that our “holding” the quoted philosophy was our weakness, and how a weaker nation, or entity, could defeat us. If a person was to only consider the “traditional means”, then what you argue would be applicable. However, the radical Islamists have already proven, and have a track record, of utilizing means outside of traditional means to wage their war against the West and other non-Muslim civilizations. I listed some of those methods above, in my previous replies. When ISIS declares that they would send their fighters to the west, via the refugees, and then you have video clips show up listing some of these refugees as talking about how precisely they would end up dominating our culture, then add to that the assaults, rape, and crimes taking place in Europe, and you end up getting a… Read more »
Martinjmpr: That’s not to say the radicals – particularly where they’ve infiltrated the Muslim communities in Europe – are not dangerous, they are. But they are not an existential threat because they’ll never be able to do more than just stage the occasional random attack and kill a few dozen people with bombs or automatic weapons. Again, this was the predominant assumption made prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Believe it or not, we used to think that in the 1980s. Acts of terrorism against US interests and US personnel was an issue that Americans wanted to deal with. We never saw these terrorists as being part of a larger organization intent on overthrowing the West. We thought exactly what you are thinking here. We figured that although there were some minor pockets of radicals in that region, that “they were not the majority or mainstream”. In fact, during the initial phases of the terrorist attacks that took place in 2001, the initial assumption that the pilots, and others involved with “rescue”, was that these terrorists were going to make demands and that, in the end, everybody was going to be released. Perhaps some people would’ve been shot, but most were expected to be rescued eventually. That didn’t happen. Instead, three aircraft slammed into buildings, and one crashed into the ground when the passengers found out what was going on. Thinking, the way you are thinking here, contributed to our not taking steps that could have averted those terrorist attacks. There was a statement, in the 9/11 Commission Repot, that faulted a “lack of imagination” regards to dealing with this kind of threat. Your mindset here is precisely the kind of mindset that was prevailing prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Contrary to what you claim, these radicals are dangerous. The philosophy is widespread throughout the Middle East, as well as throughout Muslim communities in the West. They are an existential threat to the West. Understand that them doing a random attack here and there, and killing targets here and there, is just a… Read more »
Martinjmpr: And what have the radical islamists accomplished? What have they actually done? Again, you have to see this in context of history, the bigger picture, and the fact that they’re utilizing indefinite patience to accomplish their goals. For starters, look at what they’ve done in Afghanistan since the start of the War on Terror. They were dislodged from government, but they ended up making a comeback to the point to where they have control of a sizeable percent of Afghanistan. The other things that they’ve done, I’ve mentioned above. They’ve made a change, in the House of Representatives to allow for the wear of religious headwear when none was previously considered. They did so to accommodate the Muslims. This is an impact indicator of not just what the radicals have done, but what a critical mass of Muslims and enablers have done. When seen from the Asiatic perspective, which is what they’re using, a series of successful small accomplishments over a long period of time is just as acceptable than one big accomplishment in a short period of time. You’re seeing this from a Western perspective, one big, sustaining, accomplishment after another a la World War II or other similar event. That’s not what they’re thinking, they’re thinking one small accomplishment over a period of time bringing them closer to their objectives. The radical Islamists need the rest of Western Civilization to think the way you’re thinking here in order for them to achieve their objectives. Martinjmpr: They haven’t even managed to topple the rotten edifice that is Syria. Because they have a coalition of forces against them, doing what others and I say they should be doing against the militant efforts of the radicals. Martinjmpr: Libya? OK, I’ll give them that. They got Libya. And they got Egypt, but then they lost it again so that doesn’t really count. As I mentioned earlier, I argued in favor of a prediction made that essentially became the Arab Spring. With the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and with Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey at different stages of what we… Read more »
Martinjmpr: By all outward appearances the radical muslims are nihilists. False. Again, you need to quit seeing this from a western perspective, and start seeing this from their perspective. Claiming that they’re nihilists is claiming that they don’t value life. From their perspective, they do value life. They’re willing to give up on their “earthly life” for a cause that’d get them favorable condition in the “heavenly life”. In that process, they’re sacrificing their lives for that of others who would benefit, on Earth, from what they see are “true moral principles”. Martinjmpr: All they are about is destroying. False. Their main objective is to expand what they see as the Muslim Nation to include what they currently see as part of the “land of the unbelievers”. Using acts of terror to destroy and kill is just one of the tools that they have in their tool bags. I’ve mentioned, above, another tactic that they have used. If they could expand Islam without the use of force, they’d use that. They have used that. They know that their biggest success would come through “soft kill” methods. I mentioned one of them with regards to population growths relative to population declines among the native populations of the countries they go to. Martinjmpr: That doesn’t exactly make people flock to their cause. False. If they actually achieve, or are perceived to have achieved, victory in any sphere of conflict, they will have material to recruit to their cause. Some good examples of this are videos that they spliced, and create, making the viewer think that they defeated the West on the battlefield. They use these videos along with voice or instrumental music in their recruiting videos. They keep doing this, as this has proven to be successful with regards to their recruiting efforts. People and factions would change sides on a drop of the dime in that area, partly because people over there like to be “on the winning team”. Martinjmpr: We simply have very different views of the world. However, this isn’t a case where two different people could have different… Read more »