Negotiation with the taliban is over, because, Stumpie said, they had
killed an American when they killed several other people during a
bombing in Afghanistan.

But in his same set of words, he said that the US had killed 100
Taliban** in the last 10 days. How did he expect to kill 100 of them
without their cancelling the talks, but he would do so for one death?

**or was it 1000?

On 09/09/2019 05:13 PM, micky wrote:
Negotiation with the taliban is over, because, Stumpie said, they had
killed an American when they killed several other people during a
bombing in Afghanistan.

But in his same set of words, he said that the US had killed 100
Taliban** in the last 10 days. How did he expect to kill 100 of them
without their cancelling the talks, but he would do so for one death?

**or was it 1000?


Micky, it's time you learned about asymmetrical warfare. The term
usually applies to a guerrilla force kicking the ass of a much larger
enemy but it can be flipped to mean when the Taliban kills one US
soldier the US kills everything including the goats within 100 square
miles. See the Old Testament for further instructions.

On 10/09/2019 03:18, rbowman wrote:
On 09/09/2019 05:13 PM, micky wrote:
Negotiation with the taliban is over, because, Stumpie said, they had
killed an American when they killed several other people during a
bombing in Afghanistan.

But in his same set of words, he said that the US had killed 100
Taliban*** in the last 10 days. How did he expect to kill 100 of them
without their cancelling the talks, but he would do so for one death?

**or was it 1000?


Micky, it's time you learned about asymmetrical warfare. The term
usually applies to a guerrilla force kicking the ass of a much larger
enemy but it can be flipped to mean when the Taliban kills one US
soldier the US kills everything including the goats within 100 square
miles. See the Old Testament for further instructions.

:-)

--
Bod

RB...nice.