Here's what the White House Occupant gave away (make sure everybody knows and shares)

 Make sure you and your friends share what Biden handed over to the Taliban.

Make this get a million views Here is a more complete list of US-supplied anfd left behind equipment list now controlled by Taliban: -2,000 Armored Vehicles Including Humvees and MRAP’s -75,989 Total Vehicles: FMTV, M35, Ford Rangers, Ford F350, Ford Vans, Toyota Pickups, Armored Security Vehicles etc -45 UH-60 Blachhawk Helicopters -50 MD530G Scout Attack Choppers -ScanEagle Military Drones -30 Military Version Cessnas -4 C-130’s -29 Brazilian made A-29 Super Tocano Ground Attack Aircraft =208+ Aircraft Total!! -At least 600,000+ Small arms M16, M249 SAWs, M24 Sniper Systems, 50 Calibers, 1,394 M203 Grenade Launchers, M134 Mini Gun, 20mm Gatling Guns and Ammunition -61,000 M203 Rounds -20,040 Grenades -Howitzers -Mortars +1,000’s of Rounds -162,000 pieces of Encrypted Military Comunications Gear -16,000+ Night Vision Goggles -Newest Technology Night Vision Scopes -Thermal Scopes and Thermal Mono Googles -10,000 2.75 inch Air to Ground Rockets -Recconaissance Equipment (ISR) -Laser Aiming Units -Explosives Ordnance C-4, Semtex, Detonators, Shaped Charges, Thermite, Incendiaries, AP/API/APIT -2,520 Bombs -Administration Encrypted Cell Phones and Laptops ALL operational -Pallets with Millions of Dollars in US Currency -Millions of Rounds of Ammunition including but not limited to 20,150,600 rounds of 7.62mm, 9,000,000 rounds of 50.caliber -Large Stockpile of Plate Carriers and Body Armor -US Military HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment Biometrics -Lots of Heavy Equipment Including Bull Dozers, Backhoes, Dump Trucks, Excavators @TruthGiver1776

Famous war correspondent lays out Chaz strategy compared to Taliban in Iraq

Michael Yon

 

USA and Europe: New Taliban Continue to Attack History:

Meanwhile in Seattle, etc., how long before IEDs appear in the Kill Box?

The Seattle Taliban will soon learn a lesson with their Chaz: Never seize terrain when you are not ready to keep it. Al Qaeda used to do this in Iraq. Often, at first, locals welcomed them or at least had little means to resist.

After some time, AQ would transition from smiles to rape and beheadings and the people would be for US forces to come kill AQ. Locals got especially pissed when AQ would steal cigarettes or force people to stop smoking.

AQ also had the habit of recruiting teenaged boys and arming them -- this led to many atrocities, and in the process, or later, to many dead boys.

Anyway, we would oblige and attack AQ strong points and if they resisted we happily killed them. Often captured, or they ran away. In any case, the illusion that they had seized land met the truth of broadsword.

Such as Operation Arrowhead Ripper: https://www.michaelyon-online.com/Table/Dispatches-by-Series/Operation-Arrowhead-Ripper/

Another big problem with seizing territory is that the relative monkey-brain required to seize a patch of treetops is a totally different ballgame from keeping people safe and happy. Civil governance takes real work, real brains, and real organization.

Important: Seizing terrain away from the Seattle Taliban is child's play. They are nothing. But this is not a battle for six or seven blocks of Seattle.

The battle is for the SUPPORT base.

In an insurgency, there are three main groups -- and a few others.

1) GF is the GUERRILLA FORCE: this is the hardcore that will fly from across the USA to join battle. GF tend to be full time. Usually GF is a small percentage of the effort. Fewer than even just a few percent.

In likelihood, GF are the core monkeys who led the "seizure" of the six trees in Seattle and named it Chaz.

2) AUXILIARY: Auxiliary are local fighters. Auxiliary comes out when the fight comes to their neighborhood or within easy distance. Auxiliary does not drive from Virginia to Seattle to fight, but they will walk out their doors in Seattle, or maybe even drive across the State. Bottomline is that Auxiliary will fight, but they are not full-timers. When GF come to town, "Aux" will join. Often, Aux will fight even if there is no GF present.

In Afghanistan, we called GF Taliban "Big T." Full-timers. They normally had great shoes, attended training in places like Pakistan, and would fight in many areas. "Little T" was Aux. Little T normally were farmers.

Most of our fighting in Afghanistan was against LITTLE T. Not Big T. Most of our fighting was against local people not far from their home villages.

But when you saw the big suicide attacks, such as that which attacked the Harriers at Camp Bastion, that was BIG T. That was GF Taliban.

I described that attack here:

https://www.michaelyon-online.com/afghanistan-when-the-moon-sets-watch-out.htm

Big T were supported in that attack by AUX and by SUPPORT.

***FORMATION OF Widespread Auxiliary is a sign of growing insurgency

3) SUPPORT: Generally, Support do not fight unless you kick down their door. They provide funding, logistics, funding, information war including art, political cover, safe houses, intelligence, and basically the other 90% of that it takes to fight.

====

This whole battle for the Six Trees of Chaz is about Support. They need to build a Support base. When GF and Aux rape, commit arson, murder, steal, they lose support and Support.

This is the tricky part. If President Trump is seen as being weak in the face of challenge, many people will automatically side with whom they think will win. If President Trump is seen as overreacting or underrating, he loses support.

My guess it that most Americans rightly intuit that they do not want a country without police. When Iraqis and Afghans fell into lawlessness, it was hell. They wanted ANYONE who would make them safe. This is largely why Taliban and associates will inherit Afghanistan, and why I started publishing in 2006 that they were winning. Taliban brought law and order even when most people hated them. They wanted something else, but Taliban was what they had to chose from on the menu.

Likewise in Iraq: often people invited in groups like AQ because locals wanted law and order, and suddenly realized they welcomed crocodiles to swim with their children.

These battles are not for physical terrain. They are for human terrain.

Remember: 99% of policing rests on voluntary compliance. If most of the local population refuses to cooperate with police, or attacks police, police will lose. Quickly. Likewise with National Guard. If locals -- AUX -- across wide swaths REALLY fight back, National Guard will be stretched out and decimated.

Our enemies are communists. There is only one good communist.

Be professional at all times. This is a battle for support from the Support. He who wins the support of the Support will win the war.

Stay within the law. Be polite. Be professional. Target only GF unless AUX joins. Any targeting of Support must be thought through such as top donors. Not the little old lady who leaves donuts for GF. Leave her alone.

BE PROFESSIONAL TO PRESS. Press will kick your ass.

Win.

#investinresilience

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/absurd-and-shameful-winston-churchill-statue-sealed-in-steel-ahead-of-protests-20200613-p55282.html

US Quietly Moves 12 Detainees Out Of Secretive Afghanistan Prison!

First it was the five top Taliban commanders traded for the traitor Bowe Bergdahl. Now this. The traitor in the White House seems determined to endanger Americans by releasing as many jihadis as he can. It’s no wonder that these releases were not publicly announced.

But no worries: the Pakistanis say they’ll monitor these jihadis to make sure they don’t have any “militant ties.” That’s right: the pro-jihad Pakistani government will make sure that everything is fine.

READ MORE

The Obama administration isn’t only giving the Taliban back its commanders — it’s giving them weapons!

ANOTHER SHOE DROPS IN THE BENGHAZI SCANDAL: Taliban Now Targeting U.S. Troops With Stinger Missiles

Ron Paul wrong again

Ron Paul: Wrong On The Taliban
By Andrew C. McCarthy

Ron Paul knows even less about the history of our enemies than he does about their proper treatment under the Constitution. He actually interrupted Monday night’s Republican candidates’ debate so he could interject the following:

I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. So Taliban are people who want — their main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It’s the al-Qaeda — you can’t mix the two. The al-Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says, “We don’t want foreigners.” We need to understand that, or we can’t resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come.

Everything in this statement is wrong. Everything. Let’s start with the most basic point. The Taliban most certainly were not “our allies when we were fighting the Russians.” How could they have been, considering that the Taliban did not exist at the time of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?

I won’t belabor the point that it was not the United States but the Afghan mujahadeen, with the help of non-Afghan Muslims (mostly Arab), who did the actual fighting against the Soviets. We did, after all, fuel the anti-Soviet jihad with billions of dollars in materiel and other assistance — through our intermediary, Pakistani intelligence, with the Saudis matching our aid dollar-for-dollar. Presumably, this is what Representative Paul was talking about. Nevertheless, while a number of the Taliban’s eventual founders were veterans of the anti-Soviet jihad, the fact is that the Taliban was not established as an organization until 1994. That is five years after the Soviet Union skulked out of Afghanistan and three years after it collapsed.

Paul’s claim that the Taliban is just opposed to foreign interference in Afghanistan is patently absurd. To begin with, the Taliban’s creation was a direct result not of foreign invasion but of Afghanistan’s internecine tribal warfare after the Soviets left and the Americans lost interest. Its unabashed goal was to crush Afghan factions that impeded its establishment of a retrograde sharia state.

Moreover, the Taliban craves foreign interference, without which it would never have come to power. A Pashtun movement driven by Islamic scholars and spearheaded by Mullah Mohammed Omar in Kandahar, the Taliban owes its existence to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These Muslim nations, two of the only three nations in the world to recognize the Taliban-led government in Kabul, nurtured, armed, and financed the Taliban in its origin. They did so precisely because the Taliban was an effective ally in their machinations against regional rivals — India for the Pakistanis and Iran for the Saudis. The alliance was also grounded in the Taliban’s espousal of Deobandism, an uncompromising construction of Islam propagated in Afghan madrassas built by the Saudis’ Muslim World League in conjunction with Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s supremacist Islamic movement.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the Taliban willingly gave al-Qaeda safe haven, knowing full well that bin Laden’s network was engaged in a global jihad that targeted the United States as its primary enemy. Al-Qaeda struck American interests several times while it had sanctuary from the Taliban, attacking American embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole in Yemen before orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. By quite consciously accommodating and protecting an international terrorist organization that was at war with the United States, the Taliban joined al-Qaeda and became an enemy of the United States. It was thus every bit as much a part of al-Qaeda’s attacks on the U.S. as was al-Qaeda itself. That is not only how war works, it is a straightforward application of the criminal-law principles that Representative Paul claims to like so much — a conspirator and an aider-and-abettor is responsible for the actions of his confederates.

Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain...

UK DAILY MAIL: 'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is targeting women and gays in bid to impose sharia law

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you...unless Americans wake up!

Who's gaining ground in this fight?

"They are."

Combat Outpost: exclusive film from the Afghan frontline

When self-righteous do-gooders betray those they claim to be protecting

WSJ:

WikiLeaks claims it aims to protect civilians in wartime. Instead it has endangered untold numbers of Afghans who are willing to help fight the Taliban. It says its actions can bring transparency to government, but these leaked reports may ultimately cause less information to be tracked and shared.

WikiLeaks and 'War Crimes'

Mercy for Taliban. Nothing for our own soldiers.

Why?

To the thousands of Michael Behenna supporters:

The New York Times recently reported that the US military has initiated a policy to "reintegrate" imprisoned Taliban fighters to their Afghan communities. These Taliban fighters were caught with evidence that they had killed our soldiers, but are released to their families in an active war zone with merely a 'pledge' that they will not return to the Taliban. This appears to be the latest attempt to win the hearts and minds of our enemies and taking the 'catch and release policy' to a whole new level.

This brings us to Michael's case. Michael has been incarcerated by the Army for over a year now. We have asked at every level that Michael's constitutional right to a fair trial be granted so that all the evidence is disclosed to the jury. Doesn't seem too much to ask for an American citizen who fought for his country does it? Yet Michael's request for a new trial has been stranded. The Army seems to be in no hurry to have Michael's case in front of the Army Court of Appeals as they have yet to file their response to Michael's brief which was filed back in December 2009.

There is a double standard in play here where enemy combatants are given mercy, but our soldiers/Marines are denied mercy. For example, Marine SGT Larry Hutchins whose conviction was overturned several weeks by the Navy Appellate Court is STILL IN CUSTODY while the Navy appeals the decision to the next appellate level.

During the past year we have come to know the families of the other soldiers/Marines who have been charged and convicted of 'murder' of Al-Qaeda or insurgents while in a combat zone. We have watched as these soldiers/Marines and their families prepare for clemency hearings before the military clemency boards. (The Armed Forces have a procedure, independent of the appellate process, where an incarcerated soldier/Marine can appear before a clemency board and ask for a reduction of his sentence, or if the individual has served at least 1/3 of his sentence they may request parole.) We have heard the hopelessness in the voices of the families when they learn that their son or husband will not receive ANY reduction in their sentence. It is difficult for these military families to know that based on a 'solemn' pledge Taliban fighters are released by the SAME US military leadership and allowed to return home to their families. What message does the US military send when we punish our own soldiers more harshly then we punish the combatants who have killed our brave men and women on the front lines of this war on terrorism?

Many of the soldiers/Marines I am speaking of, including our son, would never find themselves involved in the criminal justice system but for their combat experience. These soldiers/Marines do not have previous criminal histories, and their military records are replete with honorable service including purple hearts, bronze stars, and multiple deployments in defense of our country. Some of these soldiers fell victim to the military's 'catch and release' policy that returns enemy combatants to the battlefield where they return to fight our soldiers time and time again. Yet others were protecting themselves or their men in a combat zone. Even if they made mistakes in judgment during war, should they be sentenced to 10-40 years while the enemy is totally forgiven? Why shouldn't the SAME military leadership afford our combat soldiers/Marines a second chance!

If the US military will release Taliban fighters simply on a pledge by their families that they will not rejoin the Taliban then we ask the same for our troops. These soldiers/Marines are not a threat to our society and deserve to be home with their families. We ask that you the American public stand with us. Our request is that each of you vouch for these soldiers/Marines and demand that our military extend the same mercy to them as they did to the enemy combatants who are trying to kill our soldiers every day.

Please write a letter to your Senator, Congressman, and the Secretary of Defense and advise them that this double-standard will not be tolerated. Use this link to find you Congressional Delegates.

Bless you for your continued support,

Scott and Vicki Behenna

www.defendmichael.com

GRAPHIC evidence proves liberals are delusional about Islam and the rights of women

Pamela Geller over at Atlas Shrugs says angrily (and rightly so):

Right out of the Islamic playbook, leftists apologists make it safe for the worst perpetrators of misogyny, gender apartheid and sexual abuse/rape as a weapon...Rachel Maddow trivialized Taliban, Iranian misogyny and persecution of women, actually comparing the horrific crimes and conditions to Republicans who supposedly want American women to stay in the kitchen...As long as the deception continues and the silence on these atrocities goes unchallenged, I will continue to make these videos. Here's the first in a series: Women in Islam...Obama's Islamic fiction vs Islamic fact:

***GRAPHIC VIDEO GRAPHIC VIDEO ****

Pamela also posted this on her site saying

According the leftopaths and their "logic" Republican housewives in the US have it as bad as this 11 year old wife (Maddow, Maher Moral Equivalency: Making the case for gender apartheid, hatred of women)

but since the video graphic is currently unavailable there, I'm quoting from her source at Bare Naked Islam for this:

A 10-year old Muslim girl was married off to a Muslim man, aged 42. The child was so unhappy with the arranged marriage that she ran away on a number of occasions but was forced by her family to return to her “husband.” Finally her husband and family had enough of the child’s disobedience and decided for the sake of her husband and family’s honor that she should be killed. Which they did by mutilating, dismembering and finally beheading her. Her body was discovered by a Thai couple out walking in a public park close to where the child’s family lived.

HONOR KILLING OF 11-YEAR OLD MUSLIM 'WIFE' (Viewer Discretion Advised)

Pakistani Federal Minister Monday said that militants were using kidnapped children as suicide bombers across the country

When you think they can't get any lower: Taliban Buying Up Children For Suicide Bombings

Playboy goes Taliban

OK I will admit it, I never read Playboy for the articles, in fact in the good old days, when I could look at the magazine (before I realized the girls were my daughter's age) I never even knew that Playboy had page numbers.

That was until today, when I received a tweet from Allahpundit of Hot Air, alerting me to one of cruelest, most mean-spirited displays I have ever seen in the magazine, or on the net for that matter.

You must click here now

What they are NOT telling you about Pakistan

Read this

British author wonders: Why does president pantywaist (Obama) hate America so badly?

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is.

Read more

HAT TIP: Gateway Pundit

Obama fails in Pakistan and Turkey

Report: Pakistan rejects U.S. plan, wants drones
By Bridget Johnson
Posted: 04/08/09 11:56 AM [ET]

U.S. envoys met with Pakistani leaders on Tuesday to ensure that the $7.5 billion that President Obama plans to send their way over the next five years will be used to achieve common goals in the fight against extremism.

But according to a Pakistani newspaper, regional envoy Richard Holbrooke and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen came up empty-handed and received a "rude shock" when a proposal for joint operations against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the volatile tribal regions was rejected.

Dawn newspaper reported that Pakistan also asked the U.S. to turn over the unmanned drone missions over the territory to them, saying that the drone strikes were fueling extremism.

Read more

...I question the premise that Obama "means well" in "O'S AMATEUR HOUR":

The real climax of President Obama's Spring Apologies Tour wasn't his photo op with our troops in Baghdad or even his "American Guilt" concerts in Western Europe.

While fans in the press cheered wildly at every venue, the real performance came in Turkey. And it was a turkey.

Read more

And Drudge Report has the clincher: "SHOCK: Turkish TV Reports On Obama In Blackface? Turkish Flash T.V. MOCKS U.S President Obama

NO WE CAN'T: Barack Obama FAILS to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan!

Way to go, Mr. Charm. (Hey, maybe it's time for some BOTOX!!!)

Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to America’s allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent’s leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Read the whole disgusting thing.

The myth of Obama's so-called moderate Taliban

UPDATE (3/10/09):KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban on Tuesday turned down as illogical U.S. President Barack Obama's bid to reach out to moderate elements of the insurgents, saying the exit of foreign troops was the only solution for ending the war.Taliban say Obama's call on moderates "illogical"

Besides it being, very simply, an oxymoron, here are two real life examples...from someone who really knows what he is talking about.

The Talking Trap: Afghan Follies

Posted: 4:11 am
November 13, 2008

NEGOTIATIONS are the heroin of the chattering classes, blinding them to every reality except the next fix they can inject into our foreign policy. The pushers - our delighted enemies - pile up strategic profits.

Certainly, there are situations in which negotiations make sense, such as structuring trade terms or defining alliance contributions. But the notion that, if only we can sit down with our enemies, we'll inevitably persuade them to love us is a deadly self-delusion.

There's a looming danger that President-elect Obama's naive and profoundly anti-military cadres will misinterpret Gen. David Petraeus' tactic of opening communications with Taliban elements and seek to make talks the centerpiece of the new administration's Afghan policy. If so, we might as well pack up and leave now.

No American soldier should die just so diplomats can rack up frequent-flyer miles.

Read more

Sophie's choice

Afghans say that in the old days, there were no walls around the houses when the Americans were here en masse. But then the Soviets invaded and walls went up. I asked several Afghans who was worse, the Soviets or the Taliban. One man said the Soviets were far worse. The Soviet approach to counterinsurgency bordered on genocide, but that strategy backfired. The Soviets left under a hail of bullets, and their loss of the war in Afghanistan helped bring down the entire Soviet Union. British soldiers told me that they held joint patrols with some of the Eastern European troops, who still use Soviet-style vehicles. When the people saw the Soviet vehicles coming, they threw rocks at them, though they did not throw rocks at British vehicles.

Other Afghans told me the Taliban, and years of civil war, was even worse than the Soviet invasion.

Read the whole thing!

Unspeakable horror for women: Where are the feminists?

Samarra, Iraq -- Like their hardline Islamist brethren in other nations -- such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, among others -- the Islamic State of Iraq (or “ISI,” the name under which al Qaeda in Iraq has organized in Iraq) has built a brutal reputation not only for terrorism against its members’ own countrymen and against the coalition, but also for being a proponent of the most medieval, fundamentalist interpretation -- and enforcement – of what its leaders claim to be the laws of the Koran.

Enforcement of these laws -- which can perhaps be described as Shari’a taken to the greatest extreme -- has included taking measures to brutally punish people who commit the slightest offense, from smoking, to a woman failing to cover her head in public, to a man not growing a long enough beard. The strictest social mores are to be observed and any deviation from the standard can result in a punishment consisting of torture, mutilation, or death -- including, as the western world has seen on a few occasions (though not enough to grasp the extent of its use), beheading.

Unfortunately for those who might have chosen to join this hardline Islamist faction in hopes of keeping more virtuous company, the recent apprehension of a key ISI figure showed just how hypocritical – and, as if more evidence was necessary, unspeakably inhuman -- the leadership of that movement is capable of being.

Read more