US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Alcase]

You've got to be kidding me.

[Algonqua]

Anyone else remember when Reagan called the Taliban the "moral equivalents to the founding fathers"?

They were fighting the Soviets then, they weren't trouble

Exactly, and when we started loitering in the Middle East because BP threw a bitchfit over not being able to get their way, the Taliban got pissed off.

They wouldn't be a "problem" anymore, and we wouldn't have had to negotiate a prisoner exchange if we'd just leave.

[Alcase]

Sometimes it is worth trading 5 scums for 1 really good american. besides, Guantanamo should be closed anyway, and America should not be detaining anyone indefinitely.

It's legal under the PATRIOT Act

[Big Jim P]

They were fighting the Soviets then, they weren't trouble

Exactly, and when we started loitering in the Middle East because BP threw a bitchfit over not being able to get their way, the Taliban got pissed off.

They wouldn't be a "problem" anymore, and we wouldn't have had to negotiate a prisoner exchange if we'd just leave.

Or just got serious about bombing them.

[Algonqua]

Sometimes it is worth trading 5 scums for 1 really good american. besides, Guantanamo should be closed anyway, and America should not be detaining anyone indefinitely.

It's legal under the PATRIOT Act

That legislation had freedom written all over it.

[Ifreann]

Exactly, and when we started loitering in the Middle East because BP threw a bitchfit over not being able to get their way, the Taliban got pissed off.

They wouldn't be a "problem" anymore, and we wouldn't have had to negotiate a prisoner exchange if we'd just leave.

Or just got serious about bombing them.

You certainly don't need to negotiate for the release of American soldiers when you've bombed them.

[Big Jim P]

Or just got serious about bombing them.

You certainly don't need to negotiate for the release of American soldiers when you've bombed them.

Bomb them seriously and there would be no one left to take American prisoners.

[Ifreann]

You certainly don't need to negotiate for the release of American soldiers when you've bombed them.

Bomb them seriously and there would be no one left to take American prisoners.

And any prisoners they already have would be dead along with their captors and don't need to be freed.

[Seaxeland]

So...what happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

A valid question. We should be shooting these monsters, not having tea with them.

[Big Jim P]

Bomb them seriously and there would be no one left to take American prisoners.

And any prisoners they already have would be dead along with their captors and don't need to be freed.

Collateral damage.

[Ifreann]

So...what happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

A valid question. We should be shooting these monsters, not having tea with them.

Maybe if all you're interested in is killing people at any cost.

[Algonqua]

You certainly don't need to negotiate for the release of American soldiers when you've bombed them.

Bomb them seriously and there would be no one left to take American prisoners.

I can't tell whether Big Jim P is seriously endorsing slaughter or not

[Big Jim P]

Bomb them seriously and there would be no one left to take American prisoners.

I can't tell whether Big Jim P is seriously endorsing slaughter or not

Killing your enemies does not count as slaughter, but in answer to your question, Yes I am serious. You do not negotiate with terrorists. You bomb them.

[Algonqua]

So...what happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

A valid question. We should be shooting these monsters, not having tea with them.

Monsters is a harsh term to use given the Taliban's context. I can completely sympathize with why the Taliban and other groups in the Middle East hate the United States.

Besides, you can't wage war without negotiating at some point, meaning you can't have a war on "terror" and abide by a "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy.

[Siedliva]

I can't tell whether Big Jim P is seriously endorsing slaughter or not

Killing your enemies does not count as slaughter, but in answer to your question, Yes I am serious. You do not negotiate with terrorists. You bomb them.

It was wrong of the US to play world police in the first place.

Protecting democracy and liberty, worldwide.

[Big Jim P]

A valid question. We should be shooting these monsters, not having tea with them.

Monsters is a harsh term to use given the Taliban's context. I can completely sympathize with why the Taliban and other groups in the Middle East hate the United States.

Besides, you can't wage war without negotiating at some point, meaning you can't have a war on "terror" and abide by a "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy.

You negotiate after the enemy has capitulated. Actually, not even then. You accept their unconditional surrender.

[Algonqua]

I can't tell whether Big Jim P is seriously endorsing slaughter or not

Killing your enemies does not count as slaughter, but in answer to your question, Yes I am serious. You do not negotiate with terrorists. You bomb them.

I could empathize if we were dealing with terrorists who seek to cause terror for the sake of terrorism, but we aren't and we never were. There's no reason for bombing, unless you're an imperialist.

[Big Jim P]

Killing your enemies does not count as slaughter, but in answer to your question, Yes I am serious. You do not negotiate with terrorists. You bomb them.

It was wrong of the US to play world police in the first place.

Protecting democracy and liberty, worldwide.

Indeed it is. However fighting the Taliban is not playing world police. It is retaliating for an attack on American soil. See September 11th.

[Big Jim P]

Killing your enemies does not count as slaughter, but in answer to your question, Yes I am serious. You do not negotiate with terrorists. You bomb them.

I could empathize if we were dealing with terrorists who seek to cause terror for the sake of terrorism, but we aren't and we never were. There's no reason for bombing, unless you're an imperialist.

Retaliation for 9/11.

[Ifreann]

And any prisoners they already have would be dead along with their captors and don't need to be freed.

Collateral damage.

A useful euphemism.

---

I can't tell whether Big Jim P is seriously endorsing slaughter or not

Killing your enemies does not count as slaughter, but in answer to your question, Yes I am serious. You do not negotiate with terrorists. You bomb them.

And their prisoners. After all, it worked in Speed. Shoot the hostage.

[The Archregimancy]

Anyone else remember when Reagan called the Taliban the "moral equivalents to the founding fathers"?

I'm no fan of Reagan, but I'm 99% certain that he said that about the Nicaraguan Contras, not the Taliban - who didn't even exist during Reagan's presidency.

Yes, I'm correct - it was the Contras, c.1985.

The Taliban grew out of Reagan-era mujahideen, but weren't founded until 1994, nearly a decade after Reagan made that comment, and five years after Reagan's presidency ended.

So I would be slightly worried if anyone can indeed remember Reagan calling the Taliban "the moral equivalents to the founding fathers".

[Big Jim P]

Collateral damage.

A useful euphemism.

Indeed. My less than serious post here.

[Siedliva]

It was wrong of the US to play world police in the first place.

Protecting democracy and liberty, worldwide.

Indeed it is. However fighting the Taliban is not playing world police. It is retaliating for an attack on American soil. See September 11th.

"Oh noes a terrorist attack, let's go use it as a totally idiotic reason to invade a bunch of countries! It's not like we need their oil or anything, no."

[Allet Klar Chefs]

lol at BJP's ever so edgy views.

Who even is the Taliban at this point? We've killed probably hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, you'd assume the only people left are cowards and newcomers, surely.

[Ifreann]

Anyone else remember when Reagan called the Taliban the "moral equivalents to the founding fathers"?

I'm no fan of Reagan, but I'm 99% certain that he said that about the Nicaraguan Contras, not the Taliban - who didn't even exist during Reagan's presidency.

Yes, I'm correct - it was the Contras, c.1985.

The Taliban grew out of Reagan-era mujahideen, but weren't founded until 1994, nearly a decade after Reagan made that comment, and five years after Reagan's presidency ended.

So I would be slightly worried if anyone can indeed remember Reagan calling the Taliban "the moral equivalents to the founding fathers".

We can't rule out the possibility that Algonqua is a personal acquaintance of Reagan who happened to hear him re-using that phrase.