"...all they have to do is wait."


"I think we are on the timeline this year to have some real good news and make some significant progress," the Florida Republican said Monday in a conference call with reporters from Kabul. "But I think if you attach a date to it … you are really creating a difficult situation. The bad guys, the Taliban and even al-Qaida, must know all they have to do is wait."

I wonder whether these contra-timeline people ever think.

We want them to wait! Nothing could be more advantageous for the mission of ISAF than a Taliban force that's just waiting and thinking that waiting is all it needs to do to win!

So no, this is not at all about waiting or not. Maybe it's about confidence?

The Western-centric views of pundits, politicians and loudmouths blind them to an obvious fact: The Western troops are not the only enemies of the Taliban. They're probably not even their main enemy!

It's obvious that Western troops won't stay in substantial numbers in Afghanistan for decades; Afghanistan is simply too irrelevant and the 9/11 craze and thirst for revenge wears off even in the U.S..
The Afghans have no clue why Western troops in Afghanistan (almost none of them know about 9/11 according to polling) and North Americans/Europeans have no clue either (the majority seems to perceive the TB as the enemy when in fact the TB are merely the former hosts of the real enemy!).
The Western troops are going to leave eventually, and the Pashtu Taliban leadership surely understands that they will eventually need to prove their superiority over their Afghan opponents (Uzbeks, Tajiks) in order to regain official power.

The Western troops will most likely not win directly while they're in-country: The Taliban can tune their activity to a sustainable level, no matter how low or high. They can do it, we can at most force them to lower the level - an eradication or political victory is extremely unlikely.

The Western troops in AFG are primarily attempting to delay the almost inevitable showdown between indigenous factions till the supposedly pro-Western forces in the country are superior to the Taliban.
That looks like a stupid idea to me because both sides seem to become more powerful and the whole delay does primarily increase the odds that the showdown will be really, really brutal. The Afghan officials have furthermore no net incentive to work towards being officially "ready" to take on the Taliban on their own. Their insufficiency is the cause of a huge $$$ influx, after all!

In the end it's likely not about whether the Taliban are confident or not; it's about whether we get the conditions and timing of the showdown right.

The simplistic contra-timeline AND the simplistic pro-timeline people annoy the heck out of me with their primitive approaches to a conflict that's obviously well beyond their horizon.



  1. Its a fact that afghanistan runs 90% of the world's opium trade now in 2010, but in case you didn't know this, you should. In 2001 Afghanistan was responsible for 15% of the Opium trade. When the USA invaded, it skyrocketed to 90%! American troops are sitting on the worlds largest opium field. Thats easily a multi billion dollar a year operation. Why do you think we're in afghanistan?

    Robert B Asprey is an historian and fought in Vietnam as a marine captain. He wrote the genius book War In The Shadows The Guerrilla In History. In it he says "throughout history much of what politicians, generals, and the media call terrorism is actually counter terrorism, a reaction to military terrorism." The US does not win wars anymore, that is not the point. It draws the wars out as long as possible while moving exhausted troops from one war zone to the next so US corporations can make money. Lots of money, in fact.

  2. I do not subscribe to the view that therse wars are motivated by corporate profiteering, although that certainly happens.

  3. Okay, lets wave away all the incentives the government would have to wage a war in the middle east. Lets switch to the fact that they would have needed to stage a false flag terrorist attack to build support for such a war (AKA, 9/11). There is a mountain of physical evidence to suggest this was so.

    BOTH WTC's exhibited the following characteristics of destruction by Explosives:
    1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
    2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
    3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
    4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
    5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
    6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
    7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
    8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
    9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 40 stories below demolition front
    10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
    11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
    12. Evidence of activated and unactivated thermite incendiaries found in steel & dust samples: The Smoking Gun.
    13. FEMA steel analysis: sulfidation, oxidation & intergranular melting


  4. kesler, these points are all either questionable observations or easily explained without explosives.

    Collapsing skyscrapers are not part of our everyday experience, you need to really study the subject theoretically to understand it. Visit some myth debunking websites and you'll get answers.

  5. My list of why the world trade centers were not brought down by fires (as was stated in the official NIST report), but by controlled demolition is only itself part of a larger list of 'coincidental' and highly improbable occurances on september the 11th, which I won't mention for the sake of keeping the comments section brief.

    FYI, those websites you mentioned not only largely failed in debunking the inside job theory, but they were directed against a fringe group of truthers who claimed that it was conventional explosives used for demolition.

    The large majority of 9/11 truthers don't believe that. Conventional explosives would have taken weeks to wire up, in full view of WTC employees. No, it was liquid thermite that did the job. Liquid thermite can be lathered onto a target like a paint, and it ignites like a wick when exposed to flame, reaching thousands of degrees Centigrade (hot enough to melt the steel support columns, and cause the effects I described).

    Apparently though, most people still agree with the official stance that 9/11 was an outside job! I don't ask that you accept my version of the truth, only that you question every official 'fact' that comes from a hugely significant event like this. Because their story has holes you could drive a tank through.

  6. I know thermite, and a thin paint is not going to do much.

    The whole explosives (or thermite) story fails spectacularly in regard to Occam's razor (and thermite isn't that potent anyway, especially not if mixed with other material, such as for colour and liquid properties).

    Intelligence agencies are really that dumb that they would actually deposit huge quantities of explosives in a building, especially if you can do so easily in the subterranean parking spaces.
    See Moscow apartment bombings.

    It's of course hopeless to discuss against a conspiracy theory once somebody is convinced of it. See the cognitive dissonance post a few days ago...

  7. 'It's of course hopeless to discuss against a conspiracy theory once somebody is convinced of it.'
    I couldn't agree more! You seem to have it all figured out - uncritically accepting facts from the government, without doing independant research. The fact is, 9/11 was the biggest event of the 21st century so far, so neither me or you can trust anyone.

    But no, it doesn't require huge ammounts of explosives. You must be thinking of conventional detonating cord. And no, the thermite isn't mounted in big canisters like the military uses it. You just lather it onto whatever needs to be burned. Work teams would only have to cut through an inch or two of plaster to get at the columns. If not, then how do you explain away that the WTC were specifically designed to be able to withstand MULTIPLE plane impacts? Just go back and look at what the empire state building withstood an impact from a bomber with minimal damage.

    Fires alone couldn't have brought down the towers: A couple years after 9/11. a skyscraper in spain withstood a fire that was just as hot, and had a duration 8 times longer without collapsing.

    Also, please remember that the U.S had plans in the past to carry out similiar false flag terror attacks, like operation northwoods (to get support for a war in cuba going, but was abandoned), and operation gladio, which actually was carried out. Don't believe me, and don't believe the government, just look for yourself. The facts and the scientific method are on our side.