Patterico's Pontifications

6/23/2021

Full Withdrawal from Afghanistan Is a Mistake

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Seeing this tweet this morning caused me to lay down my marker:

The Taliban is going to completely retake the country. Everyone will look back on this, as they looked back on Obama’s complete withdrawal from Iraq, and say it was a mistake. “Why didn’t anyone predict this? Why didn’t they tell us?”

I am predicting it.

I told you so.

154 Responses to “Full Withdrawal from Afghanistan Is a Mistake”

  1. Its ISIS all over again

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  2. That said, a force with lots of equipment and fixed positions is an easier battle for US technology than trying to track down ghosts in the mountains.

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  3. We’ve been in Afghanistan for 19½ years now; what more can we accomplish that we haven’t been able to get done over the past 19½ years?

    Yes, Afghanistan will be a mess, and the Taliban will take over, and they’ll impose their idiot version of Islamic law again. At this point, all I can say is, so what?

    The only places we have been able to impose wholly new systems and political culture have been Germany and Japan, after they were almost completely destroyed, their fighting age men mostly killed or wounded, and the boys growing into fighting age thoroughly cowed by the devastation. We never even attempted that in Afghanistan — or Vietnam, or Korea, or Iraq — so it’s no surprise that the fighting aged men haven’t given up yet, and are willing to move forward with their fight once we leave.

    And the civilians? The Afghan civilians are still providing the fighters with money, clothing, food, shelter, concealment, and sex. In their own way, the civilians have voted for just what they are going to get.

    My older daughter was pulled from an assignment in Kuwait and served a couple of months in Afghanistan.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  4. Seems like all of the gear and equipment needs to come home with the troops.

    We’ve got politicians that don’t want US citizens to have semi-automatic weapons but we’re leaving artillery in Afghanistan?

    frosty (f27e97)

  5. I doubt that a single Afghani*, just one, sees us as liberators. Our “allies” see us as bodyguards for their opium running and the rest of the population sees us as a military occupation. We should have bugged out 19 years ago.

    *(Malala is Pakistani for those comrades in Rio Linda.)

    nk (1d9030)

  6. Seems like all of the gear and equipment needs to come home with the troops.

    Way to take the bread out of the mouths of the children of the military-industrial complex, there, frosty. If they bring the materiel home, they won’t get orders for new stuff to replace it, now, will they? Or contracts with the Afghanis who have them, whoever they end up being, for repair parts and ammunition?

    nk (1d9030)

  7. The British tried to rule Afghanistan in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Soviets tried to rule Afghanistan in the 1970s. And now we have tried to ‘rule’ Afghanistan in the early 21st century.

    Does anyone see a pattern here?

    Afghanistan isn’t really a country. It is a collection of tribes, and tribal rulers, but our 20th and 21st century thinking doesn’t allow us to see anything but countries, but nation-states. Much of Pakistan falls into the same category, as do the Kurdish regions of Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The ‘nations’ in Africa are nations primarily due to European colonial borders, not the people living there.

    We should have learned from the breakup of the Soviet Union: there are ‘countries’ which aren’t really countries, but smaller areas held together by force, sometimes external forces. The same was true of Yugoslavia, and even Czechoslovakia broke apart into its constituent tribes. Even Canada is having unity problems between the Anglophones and Francophones.

    Americans have a difficult time understanding this, because we are such a heterogeneous people, and never had a nation based on ethnicity or language.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  8. Our so-called ally, Pakistan, not only harbored the Taliban, but also Bin Laden. With friends like that, who needs enemies? As with Viet Cong sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos, Pakistan provided sanctuary for the enemy.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  9. So far posts 3 and 7 are the best arguments against staying, because there are no good arguments for staying. The Afghan government tolerates us, Afghan civilians and military rank and file hate us, so there is really no in-country support for our presence.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  10. Allegedly it was Secretary of State Madeline Albright who said that Pakistan had to be notified in advance, and some in the Pakistani government sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda then notified Osama bin Laden.

    Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  11. One, the Taliban had their chance, and they don’t deserve another.
    Two, there are no “good Taliban” to deal with. They’re militant Islamists, scarcely different from the al Qaeda and ISIS extremists they host.
    Three, the Taliban hosts al Qaeda and ISIS extremists, and have not disassociated from or condemned either party. More the opposite.
    Four, both Trump and Biden learned nothing from Obama’s cut-and-run “plan” from Iraq.
    Five, we had a few thousand troops in-country to hold the line. Between training Afghan forces and Spec Ops and military and humanitarian aid, the Afghan government was managing, albeit haphazardly. In the larger context of things, the status quo wasn’t costing us that much.
    So yes, Biden is making a huge mistake.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  12. The North and the South shall open their mouth to a Ghilzai flag unrolled,
    When the big guns speak to the Khyber peak, and his dog-Heratis fly:
    Ye have heard the song — How long? How long? Wolves of the Abazai!

    — Kipling

    The Taliban are mainly Ghilzai, historical adversaries of the Durani tribe that Hamid Karzai belongs to. The two tribes have been fighting for control of Afghanistan maybe since they deserted from Alexander’s army.

    nk (1d9030)

  13. They managed to suppress The Path to 9/11. I wonder if they will do the same with The Path to 9/11, Part 2.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  14. On the morning of 9/11, my business partner was convince that we ought to just H-bomb Kandahar as our full and complete response. I strongly disagreed at the time, but all things considered maybe he was right.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  15. It is often said that the US is “not the world’s policeman” — and maybe we shouldn’t be — but we are that because the world implicitly trusts us. Or at least trusts us more than any other potential replacement. China? Not hardly. Russia? Not any time soon. England? Not capable. France? Not interested. The UN? Soulless failure.

    If we step back, someone else will step forward. Probably China. Is that the path to a better world?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  16. Although, I would not mind seeing the Chinese try their hand with the Taliban. The only problem is that they’d probably turn it into another genocide, making yet more elbow room for the Han Chinese.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  17. What should be the goals of the continued US military presence? How many troops should be there? Given that at the peak of US involvement there were over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, and still the Taliban was not defeated, should we have sent more? Since there are approximately 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan today and are no longer involved in combat (since 2015), but counterterrorism and training, advising, and assisting Afghan forces, why is our presence a deterrent?

    Given the fact it was the Trump Administration who signed an agreement with the Taliban to leave the country (without the participation of the Afghan Government), it is disingenuous to claim the Biden Administration “lost” Afghanistan. We won a long time ago, capped by the killing of Bin Laden. We should have declared victory then and left.

    The only unfinished business is the fate of Afghans who worked for the US. We owe them protection, and they should be allowed into the US (following appropriate background checks).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  18. Sorry, but you can’t help people who don’t want help, or want to help themselves. The Taliban are going to take over because the people of Afghanistan will let them.

    We can’t stay there forever, or even for the foreseeable future like in Western Europe. Our troops in Europe are just a trip wire, stationed in a fully functioning Western European democratic nation. Our troops have no job but to dissuade a possible Russian incursion.

    Our troops in Afghanistan face a totally different situation – one that is untenable in the long run.

    So bring our boys home. Ensure the Taliban knows we will take out any foreign terrorist training camp we find in Afghanistan and there won’t be a thing the Taliban can do about it.

    And if China wants to dabble in Afghanistan – let them.

    Hoi Polloi (ade50d)

  19. Full Withdrawal from Afghanistan Is a Mistake

    ROFLMAOPIP!

    … and Putin smiled.

    _____

    Guess P’s never heard of the Anglo-Afghan Wars of the 1800’s, the Khyber Pass– the decade long disaster of the Soviet-Afghan War which accelerated the decline of the CCCP — or Vietnam and the failure of what the Big Dick called ‘Vietnamization.’ My neighbor, a jarhead w/a wife and kid, has been deployed to Afghanistan multiple times over the past 20 years. Two decades- at an astronomical cost to America, all on Uncle Sam’s credit card– [bought or sold ay Afghan War Bonds lately?? ;-)] He says outside the ‘comfort’ of the camps and air-conditioned installations it’s a sh!thole country; a waste of time, resources– and the lives of American and NATO personnel, because the shepherds and goat herder crowd essentially won’t help themselves- suspicious and unwelcoming of all occupiers and just wanna scratch out a living, tend to their flocks and live amongst the rocky terrain.

    Gee, to bad there’s no oil there. That former President Trump and President Plagiarist agree is telling. Americans have never been very good at this long term crap. And Biblethumpers crow that ‘God helps those who help themselves.’ As Afghans gnawing on roast mutton by a campfire– and history, will tell you.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  20. Actually, Vietnamization succeeded. It turned the war over the South Vietnamese, allowed us to withdraw our troops, and wash our hands of the whole matter.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  21. If we step back, someone else will step forward. Probably China. Is that the path to a better world?

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/23/2021 @ 10:20 am

    Instead China knows how to actually do it–through economic colonialism. That’s what the whole purpose of the Belt and Road program, for example. All it costs them is the materials and the transportation costs to plant their colonists/workers in the country, and then they’ve established their foothold because the native country’s economy ends up becoming reliant on those workers staying.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  22. And if China wants to dabble in Afghanistan – let them.

    Geography, geography, geography. These bureaucrats should start looking at maps. It’s why, no matter what they say ’bout themselves, Britain really is tied to Europe– and China kisses Afghanistan.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  23. @20. No. It didn’t.

    Thanks for playing

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  24. Back in 2014, only 7% of Afghans wanted the Taliban to return to power, and it bears repeating that they have still not disassociated from al Qaeda and ISIS, the folks who started this War Against Militant Islamism in the first place.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  25. … and wash our hands of the whole matter.

    That’s a helluva piece of short hand what w/58,000 U.S. dead, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed– of which we’re still paying the costs to tend to; a society ripped apart akin to the Civil War, countless Vietnamese dead and billions of dollars wasted, equipment abandoned or tossed overboard into the sea. History has a lot to offer. If only officials would learn from it.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  26. “What should be the goals of the continued US military presence?”

    The most basic rationale for continued U.S. military presence is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist safe haven, something more likely to materialize if the Taliban comes to control much of the country’s territory. When U.S. troops leave, the war will continue unabated…peace talks will evaporate….and there is no question that the Taliban has taken names and is looking for payback. The reality is that deprived of critical U.S. air support and intelligence in battle, Afghan forces are likely to crumble. U.S. intelligence predicts a Taliban victory in 2 to 3 years. That instability will only fuel Iran’s mischief in the region…to add to Putin’s Ukraine mischief. Why is that in our national interest?

    A collateral interest is that there are significant numbers of Afghanis that have been risking their butts for us for years….who will be placed in serious jeopardy. So I would argue that there is a terrible human and moral cost to a pullout…that senior leadership who were invested in Afghanistan understand…but others not so much. By staying we have leverage….and at minimum a place to project power from. We are likely allowing a humanitarian nightmare…..to save a pittance when accounting for what likely will go wrong.

    Military casualties have been low. We’ve kept soldiers in South Korea and Germany for regional deterence for decades. I’m not seeing the argument for why that is suddenly a bad idea for the Middle East….only that some are exhausted….as if China and Russia aren’t watching. It just seems like one more case where Biden is wrong on foreign policy…why follow him?

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  27. @26. It will be their own fault.

    After 20 years, you bet.

    ______

    @27. The most basic rationale for continued U.S. military presence is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist safe haven, something more likely to materialize if the Taliban comes to control much of the country’s territory.

    Bin Laden was holed up in Pakistan for years.

    Military casualties have been low.

    That’s a fairly cavalier attitude toward other people’s lives thrown away in a lost cause.

    We’ve kept soldiers in South Korea and Germany for regional deterence for decades

    And you think Germans liked it- especially the young? No. Do they like the $ spent so they don’t have to? Yes. See NATO dead beats for details, too. The Korean War isn’t over; it’s a ceasefire and young 21st Koreans want the U.N. and Yankees to go home, too. Maybe to occupy northern Mexico– or the old Confederacy, where they’ll be welcomed w/open ‘arms.’ 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  28. … and wash our hands of the whole matter.

    That’s a helluva piece of short hand what w/58,000 U.S. dead, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed– of which we’re still paying the costs to tend to; a society ripped apart akin to the Civil War, countless Vietnamese dead and billions of dollars wasted, equipment abandoned or tossed overboard into the sea. History has a lot to offer. If only officials would learn from it.

    True, but it is what motivated Nixon-for Nixon it was always a “Democratic War”. Since the South Vietnamese government and military, like the Afghan government and military, had more of an interest in corruption than winning a war, losing their respective wars was inevitable. Billions of dollars in equipment were turned over to the ARVN, yet they couldn’t win because of corrupt leadership. Continuing US participation in either war because of the sacrifice of US soldiers is not a good reason to continue fighting. If the local population the US is defending doesn’t care or support the effort, why should the US care?

    US forces led combat operations in South Vietnam, as Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces (RVNAF) were incapable of defending their country against North Vietnam and VC aggression. The incoming Nixon Administration had campaigned on ending the war in Vietnam. How could the United States achieve an acceptable military outcome while appeasing the growing sentiment for withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam? On 28 March 1969, the US strategy aim shifted towards Vietnamization of the war as a policy of the administration to end American involvement in Vietnam. Through expanding, equipping, and training South Vietnamese Forces, the United States would withdraw combat troops while simultaneously seeking a peace settlement with North Vietnam. Although the policy expanded the armed forces of South Vietnam, by 1975, the Government of South Vietnam collapsed.

    Source, page 1.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  29. AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 6/23/2021 @ 11:08 am

    I think of one additional practical reason to maintain a military presencein a foreign land; to better train and maintain a minimum level of preparedness of our forces, and their ability to handle the logistics of supply lines.

    felipe (484255)

  30. Military casualties have been low.

    Only because major US combat operations ended in 2003 (and again in 2015, after the “surge”). What casualties there have been are Special Forces operations and insider attacks (another reason to leave).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  31. Who cares?
    Nation building is for chumps.
    The people of Afghanistan are going to get exactly what they deserve. No more, no less.

    Curtis (86aa49)

  32. If the local population the US is defending doesn’t care or support the effort, why should the US care?

    Precisely.

    Unless, of course there’s oil. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  33. The people of Afghanistan are going to get exactly what they deserve. No more, no less.
    Curtis (86aa49) — 6/23/2021 @ 11:51 am

    “Deserves got nuthin’ to do with it.” – Will Money (Clint Eastwood)- Unforgiven.

    felipe (484255)

  34. The PP’s told ’em; The Big Dick knew it was unwinnable.

    Such a waste. Unless you invested in or worked for Bell Aircraft and Dow Chemical. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  35. @20. No. It didn’t.

    Yes it did, right up to the point where — after the US was gone — the US Congress cut off ARVN’s support. Without a means of defense they quickly collapsed as everyone tried very hard not to be left holding the bag.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  36. Unless, of course there’s oil.

    That would be a minus for Biden.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  37. Breaking-
    John McAfee found dead in Spanish prison following ruling on extradition to US on tax evasion charges.

    Rip Murdock (2975ef)

  38. McAfee obit. A Spanish court yesterday cleared the way for his extradition.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  39. @26. No. It didn’t. They could barely operate the equipment and shed their uniforms ran like hell when the North moved down. Complete waste of $$$$ and resources. Another dicking by the treasonous Big Dick, who knew the thing was unwinnable in 1969, w/McNamara’s PP in hand.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  40. That would be a minus for Biden.

    Corporatists control Squinty McStumblebum and Pantssuit Queenie. His balz are getting squeezed by ’em. Hers, too. She’s finally been forced to go to the border; El Paso bound.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  41. The 9/11 terrorists were hiding out in that hot bed of sinister evil, San Diego. And, of course, were chiefly Saudi nationals– you know: “allies.”

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  42. kabul/osama bin ladin city! 1975 saigon/ho chi min city. Didn’t mention this I wonder why ? Send Dubya, cheney, all the neocons and democrats who voted for war in iraq(that includes biden/clinton over their to fight the taliban and all you war mongers who want to stay their.

    asset (44f8a7)

  43. I am predicting it.

    I did too. In fact, who is not predicting it, at least as a possibility? Anybody who might have to deal with the consequences is predicting it. NATO Allies who have embassies in Kabul.

    The Pentagon is predicting it. President Joe Biden is predicting it. He ordered an aircraft carrier moved from the waters around China to the waters closer to Afghanistan, so that a Saigon type evacuation of the U.S. Embassy can be done successfully. He even authorized the U.S. military even after official withdrawal, to offer air support to the Afghan government. (from an aircraft carrier?) This was the main way U.S> forces were still involved.

    The two leading politicians in Afghanistan are coming to Washington to discuss strategy.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/20/statement-by-white-house-spokesperson-jen-psaki-on-the-visit-of-president-ashraf-ghani-of-afghanistan-and-dr-abdullah-abdullah-chairman-of-the-high-council-for-national-reconciliation

    The United States is committed to supporting the Afghan people by providing diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian assistance to support the Afghan people, including Afghan women, girls and minorities. The United States will remain deeply engaged with the Government of Afghanistan to ensure the country never again becomes a safe haven for terrorist groups who pose a threat to the U.S. homeland. The United States continues to fully support the ongoing peace process and encourages all Afghan parties to participate meaningfully in negotiations to bring an end to the conflict.

    Totally useless, as Pakistan will prevent any agreement, even a bad agreement that hands them some teritory, money offices and impunity, such as reached in Colombia with the narco terrorists.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/narco-terror-is-being-rewarded-in-colombia-1467932606

    …The agreements with FARC are clever in the way they disguise impunity. While there will be investigations, trials and sentences for human-rights violations, those who plead guilty will in every case be exempted from prison time. The agreement explicitly grants convicted—and confessed—human-rights violators the right to run for public office, a right that the Colombian Constitution expressly withholds from convicted felons. Think of what will happen: FARC kingpins who ordered massacres, kidnappings, child-soldier recruitment and extortions, will now run for mayors and governors of the regions they victimized.

    The agreements also grant total amnesty for drug trafficking. By being labeled a “political crime,” drug trafficking becomes eligible for executive amnesty. There will be no prison in Colombia or extradition to the U.S. for those running the world’s largest cocaine cartel.

    But not even that will be allowed to happen in Afghanistan.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  44. 3. The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597) — 6/23/2021 @ 9:11 am

    The only places we have been able to impose wholly new systems and political culture have been Germany and Japan, after they were almost completely destroyed, their fighting age men mostly killed or wounded, and the boys growing into fighting age thoroughly cowed by the devastation.

    They weren’t all killed or wounded, but they knew they lost, and they had no allies trying to bring the old system back, and the chief leaders of the people responsible for the war and other crimes, were either killed themselves or were hanged.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  45. Didn’t the vietnam war teach you any thing?

    asset (44f8a7)

  46. 18. Hoi Polloi (ade50d) — 6/23/2021 @ 10:32 am

    The Taliban are going to take over because the people of Afghanistan will let them.

    Is that true of every tyranny?

    Our troops in Afghanistan face a totally different situation – one that is untenable in the long run.

    The problem is, we’re leaving Pakistan entirely alone.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  47. Osama bin Laden was hiding out in that hot bed of sinister evil, Abbotabad, Pakistan, near Pakistan;s military academy.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  48. I would say that there is about a 50 percent chance of a genocide following a likely Taliban takeover. One especially likely target are the Hazaras, who have been already been the target of bombings, including the one that killed up to 59 girls in a girls school, recently.

    That would give Susan Rice no fewer than four genocides for her record. (She helped conceal the Rwandan genocide in order to protect Bill Clinton’s political viability.) The Clinton administration did intervene to stop the murder of Bosniaks, late and clumsily. Of course we all know about the ISIS genocide after Obama prematurely pulled out of Iraq. But not everyone knows that Obama once admitted in his first campaign for the presidency that, if we elected him, and followed his policies, genocide might result in Iraq. As far as I know, neither he nor Rice feel any guilt about the genocide they enabled in Iraq.

    Nor did her record prevent Biden from giving her a high position in his administration, in domestic policy this time.

    Rice is a fine basketball player, something Obama values.

    We should not forget that this withdrawal is the Trump/Biden policy, pursued against the advice of military leaders in both administrations. So it isn’t that neither man hasn’t been warned.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  49. And this may be one reason our news organizations have been so reluctant to criticize Rice: “Rice married former ABC News executive producer Ian Officer Cameron[135] on September 12, 1992, at the St. Albans School chapel.[17] They met as students at Stanford.[136] The couple have two children.”

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  50. The problem is, we’re leaving Pakistan entirely alone.

    To face what? Pakistan created and supports the Taliban:

    Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting, Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban’s virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and on several occasions apparently directly providing combat support. …..Pakistan’s army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force. ……[S]enior Pakistani military and intelligence officers help plan and execute major military operations. In addition, private-sector actors in Pakistan provide financial assistance to the Taliban.

    Source. Footnotes deleted.
    Even though this quote is from 20 years ago, absolutely nothing has changed. The only other group that benefits from the US/NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan (besides the Taliban) is the Pakistani government. Pakistan has no interest in the US remaining in Afghanistan. Pakistan is more in competition with India in Afghanistan than the US.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  51. We have always been at war with Eurasians.

    nk (1d9030)

  52. SF: The problem is, we’re leaving Pakistan entirely alone.

    51. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/23/2021 @ 4:07 pm

    To face what? Pakistan created and supports the Taliban:

    I guess my words were ambiguous. I meant we’re not doing anything to interfere with Pakistan’s support for the Taliban. (or rather, its rogue military intelligence agency, The ISI – the InterServices Intelligence agency)

    The only thing we ever did do was make the raid on the house Osama bin Laden was living in withput telling them. But we did no more.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  53. Meanwhile, Biden throws down on Americans:

    President Biden says there have always been ways to “rationally limit” owning weapons since the creation of the Second Amendment: “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1407808797029113857

    So, if Americans get uppity about their government, Biden is prepared to use F-15s and nukes? Really?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  54. Should have pulled out the day after we dumped OBL in the ocean. Obama should have gone on TV and said, we’ve achieved our war aim and we are leaving now.

    Jim Breed (727999)

  55. Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c) — 6/23/2021 @ 4:22 pm

    its rogue military intelligence agency

    You say rogue, I’m not sure that means what you think it means. Rogue from who? It’s not rogue with respect to the Pakistani government.

    frosty (f27e97)

  56. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/23/2021 @ 4:39 pm

    So, if Americans get uppity about their government, Biden is prepared to use F-15s and nukes? Really?

    The taliban didn’t need either. They just needed some patience.

    frosty (f27e97)

  57. So, if Americans get uppity about their government, Biden is prepared to use F-15s and nukes? Really?
    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/23/2021 @ 4:39 pm

    There was a time when real patriotic Americans dissected the idiotic words that came out of President Trump’s mouth. Those patriotic Americans are now quiet silent.

    Hoi Polloi (b28058)

  58. I didn’t vote for Biden.

    NJRob (01231a)

  59. Royalists gotta royal; terrorists gotta terra; generals gotta general; termites gotta eat and the MIC’s gotta profit.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  60. Hoi Polloi, His point seemed pretty clear; the 2nd amendment as it’s understood today doesn’t allow the populace to own weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government. What in that do you disagree with?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  61. @57, Republican’s just need to get more votes then Dem’s and they can take over the government.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  62. Even translating
    “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
    from English to Greek and back to English, I don’t see how Biden was saying
    “if Americans get uppity about their government, Biden is prepared to use F-15s and nukes”.

    He was knocking down the tired old argument that the Second Amendment was intended as a bulwark against government tyranny with an armed citizenry ready and able to rise up against government abuses.

    A little unsporting, to beat up on a worn-out decrepit old straw man like that, but then so is Biden. A worn-out decrepit old straw man.

    nk (1d9030)

  63. Charlie Wilson. =mike-drop=

    Enough of this crap; if the towelheaded-shepherds can’t hold on to their government after billions of bucks, thousands of lives and 20-plus years- overt and covert- of help: piss on ’em. There are other ways these day to manage the pests; it’s 2021, not 2001.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  64. “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.” – President Plagiarist

    Rotary phone thinking. A $5 thumb drive and some malware is all you need to bring nations to their knees.

    “You won’t be needing this. Old Man.” – James Bond [Sean Connery] ‘From Russia With Love’ 1963

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  65. Abdur Rahman, the Durani king of Kipling’s poem, “Armenian genocided” an estimated 60% of the Hazaras (half a century ahead of the Turks) according to Jim Miller’s link at 49.

    “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
    Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat.”
    — Also Kipling

    Bring our PAWGs home!

    nk (1d9030)

  66. They can keep an ‘eye’ on things w/their boots on the ground, sitting at video consoles in Nevada trailer parks by drone and satellites.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  67. #65

    The Chinese almost did it with a moderate strength viral pneumonia

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  68. Patterico is not alone in his prediction:

    Afghan government could collapse six months after U.S. withdrawal, new intelligence assessment says

    KABUL—The U.S. intelligence community concluded last week that the government of Afghanistan could collapse as soon as six months after the American military withdrawal from the country is completed, according to officials with knowledge of the new assessment.

    American intelligence agencies revised their previously more optimistic estimates as the Taliban swept through northern Afghanistan last week, seizing dozens of districts and surrounding major cities. Afghan security forces frequently surrendered without a fight, leaving their Humvees and other American-supplied equipment to the insurgents.

    The new assessment of the overall U.S. intelligence community, which hasn’t been previously reported, has now aligned more closely with the analysis that had been generated by the U.S. military. The military has already withdrawn more than half of its 3,500 troops and its equipment, with the rest due to be out by Sept. 11.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  69. First we wait until the Taliban has consolidated power and taking their victory laps. Then we nuke them.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  70. I enjoyed the videos from Syria where we used $200,000 missiles to destroy the Humvees we gave to the Iraqi Army which they in turn had regifted to ISIS

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  71. @71. Watching the USN shove gifted South Vietnamese Hueys off the decks of carriers into the sea back in ’75 was much more entertaining.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  72. “Cast your military budget upon the waters and it shall return to Raytheon after not all that many days.” — Proverbs, 32:2

    nk (1d9030)

  73. @69. See #60.

    ‘Generals gotta general…’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  74. Private citizens of wealth in America had access to better firearms than the Continental Army.
    Then 100 years later there was Arthur L. Howard. Better known as “Gat”

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  75. His point seemed pretty clear; the 2nd amendment as it’s understood today doesn’t allow the populace to own weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government.

    That pretty much settles whether Jan 6th was an insurrection or not.

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  76. #73
    One of my good friends is a VP in the “make the bad guys miss” division of Raytheon.
    They also have a division that maintains equipment like the rotor blades on Apache/Cobra etc.
    Not stuff you can really do without.

    The DoD loves to get involved and allow no more than x% profit and overhead. Of course then the game is to create a chaos of middlemen that all put a mark up on so the stuff goes through as many hands as possible leaving you with the profit you thought was fair in the first place

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  77. ‘Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason?
    For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.’ — John Harrington

    Just because dolts bring an Ashli Babbitt to a gunfight, doesn’t mean that they weren’t trying to overthrow the government by force or violent means. It only means that they’re dolts.

    nk (1d9030)

  78. His point seemed pretty clear; the 2nd amendment as it’s understood today doesn’t allow the populace to own weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government.

    That pretty much settles whether Jan 6th was an insurrection or not.

    BuDuh (7bca93) — 6/23/2021 @ 6:47 pm

    It does nothing of the sort. “[W]eaponry sufficient to overthrow the government” implies “in a frontal assault on our military.” Jan 6 was aimed at our civilian, constitutional government, not at our military.

    lurker (59504c)

  79. It implies it to you.

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  80. Mr Murdock wrote:

    Actually, Vietnamization succeeded. It turned the war over the South Vietnamese, allowed us to withdraw our troops, and wash our hands of the whole matter.

    Peace With Honor™

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  81. This has got to do with the attempts by people to overthrow the government of the United States of America, something that hasn’t happened in well over 100 years,” said Maryland Rep. Kweisi Mfume. “And it’s not something that we can slough off.”

    https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-dc-wire-capitol-siege-government-and-politics-757b9cbcf2e29cc44b3b5baf8029c144

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  82. Was the storming of the US Capitol a coup? An academic group now says yes

    • After studying the events of Jan. 6, the Coup D’etat Project at the University of Illinois’ Cline Center for Advanced Social Research has determined that the storming of the U.S. Capitol qualifies as an attempted coup.

    • The center’s evaluation found that the Capitol rioters posed a credible threat to the power of the legislative branch, that the attackers were trying to change who controls the government, and that the assault included at least some elements of advance organization.

    https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/feb/01/was-storming-capitol-coup-academic-group-now-says-/

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  83. Mr 123 wrote:

    the 2nd amendment as it’s understood today doesn’t allow the populace to own weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government.

    The Constitution grants to Congress the power to issue letters of marque, which are the licensing of privateers. The United States hired privateers during the War of 1812.

    To issue a letter of marque, you have to admit the private ownership of warships and cannon. An originalist would have to say that private citizens are allowed to own such weapons.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  84. Mr Duh wrote:

    Was the storming of the US Capitol a coup? An academic group now says yes

    • After studying the events of Jan. 6, the Coup D’etat Project at the University of Illinois’ Cline Center for Advanced Social Research has determined that the storming of the U.S. Capitol qualifies as an attempted coup.

    • The center’s evaluation found that the Capitol rioters posed a credible threat to the power of the legislative branch, that the attackers were trying to change who controls the government, and that the assault included at least some elements of advance organization.

    Sure doesn’t seem like that. The first Capitol kerfuffler to be convicted, one of the first ones to breach the Capitol, was allowed to plead to one misdemeanor and got zero jail time.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  85. There was probably no Civil War, either, for Mary Anna Custis Lee not to have gone to jail.

    nk (1d9030)

  86. The first Capitol kerfuffler to be convicted, one of the first ones to breach the Capitol, was allowed to plead to one misdemeanor and got zero jail time.

    True, but she had already spent two days in jail, and this:

    Rothstein called probation appropriate because Morgan-Lloyd had no known ties to extremist groups, did not plan to enter the Capitol, stayed inside one hallway for only about 10 minutes and did not commit any violence or destruction while there. She also cooperated with law enforcement and quickly accepted responsibility, the prosecutor said.

    She was also appropriately repentant and contrite. The ones who committed actual violence won’t get that kind of break.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  87. #87 Sure, but the people from Code Pink got nothing to speak of even though they are tied to leftist extremist groups, they planned to enter the Capitol, stayed inside until forcibly removed and during the forcible removal committed violence against the police. They were not repentant nor contrite.

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  88. Absent mandatory minimum, imprisonment is not the default sentence. It is imposed only if the judge finds that it is necessary for the protection of the public and the interests of justice require it.

    nk (1d9030)

  89. With 1/6 there is the additional factor in mitigation of circumstances unlikely to reoccur. We hope. We better.

    nk (1d9030)

  90. I don’t suppose anyone actually noticed that the Taliban started their offensive on May 2.

    Why is this date important? It’s the day after the US initially agreed in February 2020 to pull out of country. Not a single American life was lost in combat during that period, precisely because the Taliban stuck to their agreement to not attack Americans. The Biden administration, not wanting to give Trump something to crow about, dawdled and then did the pointless 9/11 pullout announcement, giving the Taliban full justification to consider the deal null and void, and providing them all the reason they needed to launch this offensive. And considering the US didn’t live up to its end of the deal, there’s little reason to for the Afghan army to think that Ghani is anything more than a puppet rather than a real leader.

    It’s pretty embarrassing when the Taliban actually live up to their promises in a peace deal but the US fails to do so.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  91. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/23/2021 @ 5:51 pm

    What in that do you disagree with?

    All of it.

    frosty (f27e97)

  92. Hearts and minds. Vietnam 1975. afganistan 2021. Do what reagan did in central america install drug cartel government getting rid of corrupt semi democratic governments feeding off america aid. They can go into taliban villages and “DEAL” with the problems without us military niceties.

    asset (e90c1e)

  93. 93. Signed, ‘Barry Seal-ed’ and delivered!

    Reaganomics! 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  94. @94 Have you read dark alliance by gary webb?

    asset (e90c1e)

  95. Biden is a traitor to America. His speech yesterday sealed it.

    NJRob (01231a)

  96. Whatever results in Afghanistan from America’s departure, it couldn’t be much worse than the streets of Windbag City, Chicago.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. @76, Nope. It was an attempted insurrection. They were doomed to fail. But if I try to kill a couple fo fully kitted out Navy Seal when I’m armed only with a hunting knife it’s still attempted murder even if I don’t kill them. Which is what would happen.

    But keep trying to pretend the terrorists that attacked our country were something other then that.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  98. steveg (ebe7c1) — 6/23/2021 @ 8:31 pm

    CodePink didn’t violently disrupt a constitutional proceeding with the intent to stop or reverse a legitimate electoral result.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  99. His point seemed pretty clear; the 2nd amendment as it’s understood today doesn’t allow the populace to own weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government.

    The day that the only thing holding up our government is the military, it is already overthrown. The arms available to citizens are perfectly capable of overthrowing civil authority. Should unrest grow to that point (e.g. a president continues in office despite losing re-election) the moral authority of the government is lost. The military could certainly impose order and the rule of the gun, but the government that existed up to that point has been overthrown, first by the people and second by the military.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  100. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/24/2021 @ 6:22 am

    I partially agree (my disagreement is likely bias) with Kevin, because it is people who make up a government, not weapons. Also because there are effective “weapons” with which resourceful humans can be armed that cannot be purchased or confiscated. IYKWIMAITYD.

    felipe (484255)

  101. What defeated Trump on 1/6 was not the military nor the police. It was the outrage of the public, along with their support of our institutions.

    That isn’t guaranteed, of course. It is possible for government to squander the support of the governed and at that point it has two choices: to allow sufficient change to occur to regain that support, or to suppress the desire for change militarily. Again, both courses are revolutionary, but only one leads to stability.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  102. I can count on the MSM to lie – constantly; for their loved POTUS, and against their hated POTUS.

    felipe (484255)

  103. 98… a fever dream take on reality. Banana republics keep political prisoners stewing in jails.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  104. Holding people without bail for acts such as trespassing seems an affront to the 8th Amendment. The only person who might be accused of a capital crime for 1/6 is at home in Florida.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  105. Mr 123 argued:

    It was an attempted insurrection. They were doomed to fail. But if I try to kill a couple fo fully kitted out Navy Seal when I’m armed only with a hunting knife it’s still attempted murder even if I don’t kill them. Which is what would happen.

    But keep trying to pretend the terrorists that attacked our country were something other then that.

    Thing is, the Capitol kerfufflers can only be prosecuted for what they actually did, and the vast majority of them just milled around.

    What we are seeing is a few of the purported leaders of the kerfuffle — and that’s exactly what I think it is — being denied bail, being kept locked up, so that the government can punish them pre-emptively, punish them before they have been convicted of anything, just in case they can’t be convicted.

    We have allowed accused murderers and rapists out on bail, but we’re keeping some rowdy demonstrators locked up?

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  106. It’s the American Way®…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  107. @106 you’re free to go here and see how many have been released on bail and see the details of those that have not.

    Your, and CH’s assertions that these prosecutions are politically motivated people are being held without bail as punishment doesn’t seem supported by facts. They were terrorists that attacked a fundamental part of our democracy based on on a lie.

    https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  108. Well, you know, Time123, a personal recognizance bond is, strictly speaking, “not being out on bail”. It’s only a promise by the defendant to indemnify the government in a set amount if he fails to appear in court on the scheduled date.

    nk (1d9030)

  109. NK, you are correct and I wasn’t precise in my wording. Does my error impact the point I was trying to make?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  110. And the worse thing is that the 1/6 defendants are the merest tip of the iceberg. There are literally tens of thousands of people on recognizance bonds, WITHOUT BAIL, for … you won’t believe this … TRAFFIC CITATIONS! It’s like the Eighth Amendment was repealed when we weren’t looking, I’m telling you.

    nk (1d9030)

  111. Time @110. I got your point and I believe so did everybody else. I was trying to emphasize it with sarcasm.

    nk (1d9030)

  112. Revealed: majority of people charged in Capitol attack aren’t in jail

    At least 70% of people charged in the Capitol riot have been released as they wait for trial, according to a Guardian analysis.

    That high pre-trial release rate stands in stark contrast with the usual detention rates in the federal system, where only 25% of defendants nationwide are typically released before their trial.
    …….
    Multiple alleged members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two groups facing the most serious conspiracy charges related to their alleged plans for violence, have been released before trial, though some prominent leaders in these groups remain in custody.

    The disparity in pre-trial detention rates highlights what legal experts said was a broader development in the 6 January cases: the likelihood that a substantial swath of the alleged rioters may not serve any prison time at all, even if they are convicted or plead guilty.
    ……..
    Of 398 defendants listed on the justice department’s Capitol breach case site as of 10 May, at least 330 were listed on the site, or in federal court records, as released from custody. At least 56 of those defendants remained in detention.

    The precise number and percentage of Capitol defendants who are released versus in detention changes often, as new alleged rioters are arrested, others secure release, and a few risk re-arrest for violating the conditions of their release. The number and status of cases on the justice department’s Capitol breach website also lags behind court filings.

    But the broader trend in the cases is clear: the overwhelming majority of Capitol defendants are not being detained ahead of trial.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  113. Mr 123 wrote:

    Your, and CH’s assertions that these prosecutions are politically motivated people are being held without bail as punishment doesn’t seem supported by facts. They were terrorists that attacked a fundamental part of our democracy based on on a lie.

    Terrorists? Heaven forfend! Terrorists who smashed a few windows, stole at least one lap top, and generally ran rowdy through the Capitol. They did far less damage than the many, many nights of the Antifa and Black Lives Matter protests last summer.

    If this was a rebellion, it was more poorly planned than the Beer Hall Putsch.

    I would note here that all of the soldiers of the Confederacy were pardoned, and the Confederacy was a real rebellion.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  114. The problem with the world these days is that people have no respect for alternative facts. They just have to go and get the actual ones. Where’s the fun in that?

    nk (1d9030)

  115. Any use of violence should be condemned and appropriately prosecuted. Just as it should’ve been last year, in numerous blue cities around the US. Not ignored – or encouraged – as it was by Democrat “leaders”.

    All this ginned up outrage would be so precious… if it weren’t so much excrement.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  116. Until our leaders give us a clear goal in Afghanistan, we shouldn’t be there.

    The way I see it, there’s only ONE good option. Which would also need massive domestic support.

    That is, to push a Marshall-like plan in the same way we did in Japan after WW2.

    whembly (446c04)

  117. 117… help relocate those Afghanis that provided assistance to our military and leave the rest to their goats and their backward, 11th century ways.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  118. I think maybe the reason Joe Biden sent Kamala Harris out of town is that she wouldn’t be present during his conversations with the government of Afghanistan on Friday. Yesterday she was in the Senate while the House election law bill was up for a vote (although she could possibly affect the vote)

    She was with Joe Biden in a meeting this morning with Senators on the (first) infrastructure bill.

    But now she’s going out of town.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  119. Court Suspends Giuliani’s Law License, Citing Trump Election Lies
    ……
    ……[A] New York court ruled on Thursday that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the results of the 2020 election on behalf of Donald J. Trump.

    The New York State appellate court temporarily suspended Mr. Giuliani’s law license on the recommendation of a disciplinary committee after finding he had sought to mislead judges, lawmakers and the public as he helped shepherd Mr. Trump’s legal challenge to the election results. For months, Mr. Giuliani had argued without merit that the vote had been rife with fraud and that voting machines had been rigged.

    In its decision, the court said Mr. Giuliani’s actions represented an “immediate threat” to the public and that he had “directly inflamed” the tensions that led to the Capitol riot in January.
    …….
    Mr. Giuliani now faces disciplinary proceedings and can fight the suspension. But the court said in its decision that he would likely face “permanent sanctions” after the proceedings conclude. A final outcome could be months away but could include disbarment.
    ……..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  120. @114, they used force and the threat of force in an effort overturn the election. That’s the definition of terrorism. We’re all fortunate that these Trump supporters were no more competent then their mascot.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  121. Mr 123 wrote:

    they used force and the threat of force in an effort overturn the election. That’s the definition of terrorism.

    Uhhh, where do you find that in any definition of terrorism? If you were to define it as an attempted coup d’état, you might have gotten it right.

    The kerfufflers carried apparently zero firearms, or at least not a single one arrested was carrying a gun. That doesn’t really sound like much of a coup attempt. They struggled with the police, but killed no one, and never got close to any of their (purported) targets. They had no real plans of any sort.

    The whole idea was insane. President Trump’s term ended at noon on January 20th. If the kerfufflers were able to prevent the certification of the electoral vote, denying Joe Biden the election, Nancy Pelosi would have become President on January 20th.

    The kerfufflers should be treated just about the same as the antifa/BLM protesters. That was where the precedent was set.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  122. Mr 123 wrote:

    they used force and the threat of force in an effort overturn the election. That’s the definition of terrorism.

    You know, we had a real rebellion in 1861. All of the Confederate soldiers were pardoned. Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was jailed for two years, without any trial being conducted, before his huge bail amount was raised. Once released, he left the US, until President Andrew Johnson’s pardon on Christmas Day of 1868.

    Robert E Lee? He was indicted, but never arrested or brought to trial, yet General Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia actually invaded the United States, crossing into Maryland and Pennsylvania, and 360,000 Union soldiers were killed in the war, though 2/3 of them died of disease rather than Confederate musket balls.

    Yet you believe that some half-drunk rowdiers ought to be punished more seriously than Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee?

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  123. Common definition of Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

    You seem pretty sympathetic to them. I guess that makes you a terrorist sympathizer.

    As for you efforts dismiss their crimes because they’re losers: the. Shoe bomber was a lower and we still prosecuted him.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  124. @123, so far there’s been 1 person sentenced. They got probation with no jail time. Seems fair for what that person did.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  125. Uhhh, where do you find that in any definition of terrorism?

    There is the definition under 18 USC 2331

    (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

    T123 mentioned “use of force”, which is similar to “acts dangerous to human life”, and he mentioned “effort overturn the election”, which is similar to “intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Sounds like a domestic terrorist attack to me, by definition, which means that the 500-plus criminally indicted MAGAs are fairly identified as domestic terrorists.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  126. I wonder what they’ll do with all those handguns and damned AR-15s they confiscated from those evil insurrectionistas?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  127. Rip Murdock @120. Thanks for explaining that.

    Saying that Giuliani “sought to mislead judges, lawmakers and the public [and] argued without merit that the vote had been rife with fraud and that voting machines had been rigged.” “mislead” means that he knew it was wrong. Misleading judges has to be something more specific than this. It has to be claiming he has afffidavits or other evidence that he does not. (he was relying on Sidney Powell, and actually broke with her after a point)

    In its decision, the court said Mr. Giuliani’s actions represented an “immediate threat” to the public and that he had “directly inflamed” the tensions that led to the Capitol riot in January

    Really, was he going to expect that?

    His speech at the rally at the Ellipse, saying that there should be trial by combat has been taken to mean something it didn’t. He meant just leave it up to two people or sides.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  128. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/24/2021 @ 2:15 pm

    Now apply this to BLM. Take your time.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/24/2021 @ 1:34 pm

    Rinse and repeat.

    BLM/Antifa’s “mostly peaceful protests” fit 18 USC 2331 (5)(A) or (5)(B)(i) and (ii), and ( C) is a matter of public record. I’d also say sending money to BLM qualifies as financing terrorism.

    frosty (f27e97)

  129. frosty (f27e97) — 6/24/2021 @ 2:40 pm

    One standard, no?

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  130. The FBI did go crazy with regard to one person according to a New York Times column. (this was a person who did not actually participate in the riot. His home was raided in February for NBC cameras. They still haven’t cleared him.)

    https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/fbi-tears-new-yorkers-life-into-shreds-devine

    The story is this: He caught a train to Washington on Jan. 6 to watch Trump’s speech, along with two other people he knew from California. At about 12:40, thinking the speech was boring, and because it wasc cold, they left and went back to the Marriott Hotel. That;s where they were where when the whole riot took place. He took lots of pictures, some prove it of the time stamp is right. At about 2 om, they decided to head to the Capitol. They were still about a mile away at 2:12 p.m, when it was breached. They arrived at the Capitol at about 2:45 p.m. They started taking pictures from a position about 400 feet from the wall of the Capitol. There was nothing to see except for a pile of overturned bike racks. Also, in the distance he could see people climbing a wall of the Capitol. But he didn’t know what that was.

    Later, at home he talked about being present at the Capitol. This was reported to the FBI. On Feb. 4, four FBI agents arrived unannounced and interviewed him for 25 minutes and he explained all this and that he wasn’t a member of BLM, Antifa or the Proud Boys. He showed pictures and he said he had video – of peaceful crowds. They said they would call Monday, but instead the next Thursday at 6 a.m.

    , he was awakened in his mother’s apartment by loud banging. “I opened the door and there’s about 10 tactical police soldiers and one is pointing a rifle at my head. [They had] a battering ram and a crowbar.”

    They also had a search warrant, issued by District Judge Gabriel Gorenstein, which named Bolanos as the “target subject.” The front door of his empty apartment was being broken down in a simultaneous raid.

    The warrant authorized the federal agents to seize his property as evidence relating to crimes including “obstruction of Congress,” “civil disorders,” “conspiracy to impede/assault federal agents,” “interstate travel to participate in riot,” and “unlawful entry on restricted buildings or grounds.”

    The FBI ransacked both apartments, upending drawers, trashing his mother’s bedroom.

    He was handcuffed and taken outside to an FBI car to be interrogated for four hours.

    An NBC camera crew had been tipped off and was there to film his shame. NBC quoted “sources” saying charges against him were imminent. The story would be repeated in two local publications.

    His blood pressure went way up and he suffered a stroke. He’s 69.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  131. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/24/2021 @ 2:45 pm

    I’d say give both due process and let’s see where it goes. I seem to be standing with a small group. But after 2020 it’s hard for me to get worked up about charges of domestic terrorism.

    I noticed you didn’t apply it to BLM though. One standard?

    frosty (f27e97)

  132. @129, I’m fine with that, but you should draw the distinction between the people who committed violence and the movement as a whole. I’ve been clear that I’m taking about the people who actually assaulted the capital and not the much larger group of supporters there who committed no crimes.

    Time123 (e589c0)

  133. I said “one standard” for a reason, frosty, so you can take that to mean other groups who act in ways that fit the definition of 18 USC 2331.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  134. 117. whembly (446c04) — 6/24/2021 @ 9:54 am

    to push a Marshall-like plan in the same way we did in Japan after WW2.

    That happened after there was peace. The Marshall Plan I think was for Europe only.

    The United States did things like that in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan it produced a whole report as tp how much could be made from mining.

    But that can’t happen until there is peace.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  135. Don’t be too proud of these technological terrors you’ve constructed. An F-14 or a nuclear weapon is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

    nk (1d9030)

  136. nk (1d9030) — 6/24/2021 @ 3:16 pm

    I’ve heard the high ground is also a plus.

    frosty (f27e97)

  137. The United States is going to leave about 650 troops in Afghanistan. But they won’t count, since they’ll be guarding the embassy.

    Will that (and air support) be enough of a deter the Taliban from trying to totally take over Afghanistan?

    All but these 650 or so will be out in two weeks.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  138. 119 I wrote:

    I think maybe the reason Joe Biden sent Kamala Harris out of town is that she wouldn’t be present during his conversations with the government of Afghanistan on Friday. Yesterday she was in the Senate while the House election law bill was up for a vote…

    That was Tuesday, not Wednesday.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  139. “The Taliban is going to completely retake the country. ..”

    The Taliban can’t completely retake the country because they never completely controlled it. They will probably quickly retake the parts where they are popular and then things will get harder for them.

    As for us, we never had a sensible plan.

    James B. Shearer (e42470)

  140. James B. Shearer (e42470) — 6/24/2021 @ 7:51 pm

    As for us, we never had a sensible plan.

    1. We still don’t.

    2. Too many didn’t know we needed one.

    The Taliban came back because of the Pakistani military.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  141. 141. James B. Shearer (e42470) — 6/24/2021 @ 7:51 pm

    The Taliban can’t completely retake the country because they never completely controlled it.

    What was giving them the courage to resist was the possibility of American intervention.

    In an attempt to disabuse the Northern alliance of this idea, they attacked the Pentagon.

    When the Northern Alliance would see the U.S. did nothing, they would give up hope.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  142. Hillary has experience with ambassador hostage scenarios and to be frank, she can’t do worse than last time

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  143. Boosh had the chance to level the shiffhole country, but instead had our best and brightest marched off to die. Scum.

    mg (8cbc69)

  144. The second to last time was “Blackhawk Down” in Somalia. It seems to run in the family, but that’s not the lesson. The lesson is not to leave behind a token American force which is not strong enough to defend itself.

    nk (1d9030)

  145. Don’t be too proud of these technological terrors you’ve constructed. An F-14 or a nuclear weapon is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

    Wookie Groan. And since somebody’s talking about hostage situations, an iron clad rule should be never hijack Han Solo’s ship.

    urbanleftbehind (23868b)

  146. Boosh had the chance to level the shiffhole country

    Because bombing people into the stone age is the noble mission of the Unite States?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  147. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/25/2021 @ 7:11 am

    I lost track of the conversation. Which country are we talking about that wasn’t already in the stone age?

    frosty (f27e97)

  148. They had agriculture and actual buildings, so not stone age.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  149. Mr M wrote:

    Boosh had the chance to level the shiffhole country

    Because bombing people into the stone age is the noble mission of the Unite States?

    If you are going to go to war, yes, killing people, killing lots of people is a part of the mission. If you are not willing to kill lots of people and destroy the country, don’t go to war!

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (78a597)

  150. The Pentagon is hedging its withdrawal, perhaps because they’re sensing the Taliban disaster about to unfold.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  151. More: The U.S. government is planning to evacuate from Afghanistan all people who worked for the U.S. government who have already applied, and their families. The Pentagon made plans for 100,000 although it is not expected to reach that number. It consists of 18,000 people and 53,000 family members. It is impossible to process the applications quickly so they will be taken to a third country (maybe Gulf states) or, if not, to Guam. If anybody is eventually turned down they are not saying what will happen to them. Probably they would be internationally recognized refugees.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/us/politics/afghan-interpreters-visas.html

    A senior administration official said that under the plan, family members of applicants would also be moved out of Afghanistan to await visa processing. Transportation out of Afghanistan will not come with any assurance that a visa to the United States will be granted. It was unclear whether people who somehow do not qualify would be sent back to Afghanistan.
    The officials spoke on grounds of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the decision.

    The move comes as Mr. Biden prepares to meet on Friday with President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan amid a worsening security situation in the country.

    For these meetings, President Biden sent Vice president Kamala Harris down to El Paso. She’s normally at his side for important events – she was at a press briefing yesterday which Joe Biden had wrapped up until she (probably) reminded him he hadn’t said anything yet about the Florida condo collapse

    Meanwhile there is an Op-ed piece in the NYT asking for something to be done for the 700 or so Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan and their art. India is offering asylum, but t probably can’t protect the art and also won;t give citizenship under a new law.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  152. Turkey will also help provide security at the airport in Kabul. (so long as there is some U.S. help)

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2010 secs.