Some advice, Mr. R: Log on BEFORE you get smashed. When you pour that seventh drink, shut off the computer.

You’re so diplomatic Rob.

“…public death of the notion that we are at war with radical Islam.”

It is a war on terrorism. You used the term ‘war on radical Islam’ BB. But of course it a reasonable and logical substitution, since Islamists are in fact doing most of the terrorism. Are you saying an attack on or mainland did not warrant a war on terrorism? An attack that took more American lives than the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor?

You are also play th perpetrators game of trying to define the conflict as a religious war. How so? Who’s side are you own? Are you one of those Bush did it truthers, or one of those we deserved it truthers BB?

Or are you just a naive immature basement dweller trolling jihad sites. Stop it. It is dangerous stuff for impressionable and confuse young men trying to find themselves.

I dunno what Obama’s going to do either. Maybe remembering the international support that is available is a good place to start.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/nov/02/ban-ki-moon-afghanistan-elections

Well, that is right at the heart of the thing, isn’t it? Pakistan. President Obama has one hugh advantage over GWB — not having to deal with that motherfookin’ Musharraf. Musharraf played an 6 year or so game of double-dealing; fronting for the Islamist ISI, which funneled men & material to the Taliban in Afghanistan, while playing Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush — by extension the US & NATO — as fools. There’s a part of this whole theater we hardly see and understand even less. Right now, the Pakistan military is putting the screws to the Taliban bases in Pakistan. Some Pakistanis are finding our drones useful.
Begs some questions: namely, what’s going to be the endgame of the ISI? Who’s side are they really on? AND, how much Saudi $ is going into the Taliban? Wouldn’t we love to know the extent of that expenditure?

Also, what do you mean by the “Iran piece of the puzzle came into play”?

However, one thing you did say, in fact way-understated, is that while we sacked Iran’s number one enemy – Saddam – and woke up on Sept 12, 2001 with a mutual set of goals with the Iranians regarding Afghanistan, the Bush Administration completely and utterly failed to draw any influence over Tehran. Criminal incompetence.

My satirical point comparing the US dead in IRAQ (137) to US dead in Afghanistan (455) this year was obviously lost on Reg.

I assume everyone has read Matthew Hoh’s letter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf

Well, that is right at the heart of the thing, isn’t it? Pakistan. President Obama has one hugh advantage over GWB — not having to deal with that motherfookin’ Musharraf. Musharraf played an 6 year or so game of double-dealing; fronting for the Islamist ISI, which funneled men & material to the Taliban in Afghanistan, while playing Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush — by extension the US & NATO — as fools. There’s a part of this whole theater we hardly see and understand even less. Right now, the Pakistan military is putting the screws to the Taliban bases in Pakistan. Some Pakistanis are finding our drones useful.
Begs some questions: namely, what’s going to be the endgame of the ISI? Who’s side are they really on? AND, how much Saudi $ is going into the Taliban? Wouldn’t we love to know the extent of that expenditure?