Are you stating the Taliban was in full compliance? Then why didn't Biden comply with the original date? They failed to reach the political settlement with the Afghan government as the agreement required. After Biden announced we would not pull out on the date in the agreement because there was no agreement yet they started attacking principle cities again in violation of the agreement. "Trump administration officials emphasized the conditional nature of the U.S. commitment when the Doha agreement was signed. As Defense Secretary Mark Esper put it in March 2020, Doha “is a conditions-based agreement.” If “we assess that the Taliban is honoring the terms of the deal,” including “progress on the political front between the Taliban and the current Afghan government,” the U.S. will “reduce our presence toward a goal of zero in 2021.” But Mr. Esper made clear that the American withdrawal wouldn’t be automatic. “If progress stalls,” he warned, “then our drawdown likely will be suspended, as well.” The Taliban didn’t honor its political commitments and ultimately took Afghanistan by force. The Biden administration’s claim that the Doha agreement left no choice but to quit Afghanistan unconditionally is false. Given the Taliban’s behavior, the U.S. wasn’t obligated to withdraw by May 1, by Aug. 31, or any other date. Withdrawal was a choice. And the Biden administration’s announcement of this choice in April triggered the Taliban offensive to retake Afghanistan and set the disastrous U.S. departure in motion." https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...terrorist-jihadist-islamist-haven-11630435825 "Eighteen months later, President Joe Biden is pointing to the agreement signed in Doha, Qatar, as he tries to deflect blame for the Taliban overrunning Afghanistan in a blitz. He says it bound him to withdraw U.S. troops, setting the stage for the chaos engulfing the country. But Biden can go only so far in claiming the agreement boxed him in. It had an escape clause: The U.S. could have withdrawn from the accord if Afghan peace talks failed. They did, but Biden chose to stay in it, although he delayed the complete pullout from May to September. Chris Miller, acting defense secretary in the final months of the Trump administration, chafed at the idea that Biden was handcuffed by the agreement. “If he thought the deal was bad, he could have renegotiated. He had plenty of opportunity to do that if he so desired,” Miller, a top Pentagon counterterrorism official at the time the Doha deal was signed, said in an interview." https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...den-handcuffed-by-trumps-taliban-deal-in-doha
Your idea seems to be that the Taliban and the Afghan government had to talk and talk and talk until they reached a peace agreement or something. That's not the case. They agreed to talk. They talked. It even went as far as talking about pro western politicians in a Taliban controlled Afghanistan. A seize fire between the Taliban and the Afghan government wasn't required AT ALL, hence capturing all of Afghanistan was not a violation! And so the Doha agreement was upheld. I have yet to hear anybody that matters claim the Taliban violated the Doha agreement.
The talks were not ongoing in fact the Taliban withdrew from the talks to begin the discussions when Biden announced that we would unconditionally retreat in September and the Taliban had begun their attacks again, Biden had NO obligation to retreat due to the agreement. "The previous administration set the current attempt in motion, sending envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to Qatar to negotiate with Taliban leaders in 2019. In February 2020, the U.S. and the Taliban signed a deal that laid out a timetable for foreign forces to withdraw from Afghanistan. The Taliban agreed to stop attacking foreign forces, as well as to prevent al-Qaida and other militants from recruiting and staging such attacks. The deal also required the Taliban to enter negotiations with the Afghan government, with a mutual prisoner release before talks began. Afghanistan's government was angered it was left out of that agreement — especially with the demand it release 5,000 Taliban prisoners. So it delayed their release. Political gridlock in Kabul over contested election results, which returned incumbent President Ashraf Ghani to power, further pushed back the negotiations. Afghan government and Taliban negotiators finally met in Qatar's capital of Doha in September of last year. The delay between the U.S.-Taliban deal and the start of Afghan peace talks became a vexing issue for Afghan and U.S. officials, according to NPR interviews with officials and independent analysts watching the process closely. They said they hoped that by tying the troop withdrawal to peace talks there might be enough time to lock in meaty negotiations before foreign forces departed. That didn't happen. Then the hope was the Biden administration would delay the withdrawal until there appeared to be progress on peace talks. Instead, U.S. and NATO forces will leave within months — and peace talks appear stuck, while deadly violence continues in Afghanistan." https://www.npr.org/2021/04/28/9901...drawal-rattles-afghanistans-shaky-peace-talks Biden sabotage any hope for success by giving up his bargaining chips. Then he planned his secret retreat and caused the fiasco that ensued and is ongoing. I quoted you one key person and feel free to search Pompeo and his statements.
You're just being dishonest. The fact is that the US promised to leave Afghanistan in May. Biden altered that promise unilaterally and said they would stay longer. That is the US breaking their promise, and hence the talks ended because of that. It's according to your own link. Your claim the talks ended because Biden said he would unconditionally retreat is simply flat out false. Your previous claim that the Taliban was the party breaking the deal is not mentioned in that link of yours. But it clearly was the US. It even is worse, that according to the deal, they had to release 5.000 Taliban prisoners as well. They stalled that release beyond to what they agreed upon. That not following the agreement again halted the negotiations but not because of the Taliban.
The US promised to do what the agreement stated if the Taliban did what the agreement states..............that is how agreements WORK. The the terms of the agreement had not been met by the Taliban and they had worked to delay any talks as my links demonstrated. Biden announced he would not withdraw by the date CLEARLY showing he was not bound to it. So for him to later claim, and you now, that he was is disingenuous at best. And yes when Biden announced his unconditional retreat no matter what that meant he had NO leverage over the Taliban and they started their military actions to take over the country in violation of the Trump agreement. Biden was in control, HE decided to unilaterally surrender and retreat without conditions and did so without inform the Afghans or our allies and it was a total CF.
KR deserved to walk, and he did. It was JUSTICE, in its purest form. A clear case of self defense that only the intellectually dishonest dont recognize. Beautiful! And he is gonna be so RICH!
Yep, the agreement left it up to the Afghans to crack deals with Taliban, and they agreed to hand it over. Dumbest agreement ever.
It's also The Taliban promised to do what the agreement stated if the US did what the agreement states.... that is how agreements WORK. And your own article reads:: The Taliban backed out of the Istanbul conference a couple of days before Biden's April 14 announcement, but the president had been signaling for weeks the U.S. could stay longer than May. So the US stated that they were going to break the promise, and hence the Taliban ended what they agreed to do until US came back to the terms of their agreement. You claiming it was the other way around is not founded by your own article. He breached the conditions of pulling out in May. With the US breaking that agreement he lost control about the seize fire with the Taliban, making the US a legit target in Afghanistan again. With the US being a legit target again in Afghanistan it would have meant that the US had to retaliate if the Taliban legally attacked them.... and so starting all over again. You call that being in control?
Of course, it is, or at least it can be depending on the circumstances. And the circumstances I saw in that video show clearly that it was being used as a deadly weapon. What is your expectation, that he's supposed to just lay there and take his beating "like a man" or some other such bullshit. No, his life was in jeopardy from that skateboard, it was being used as a deadly weapon, and I have more bad news for you... Lots of things, like say hammers, or crow bars, or even fists (punches) and feet (kicks) can be legally considered as lethal weapons depending on the circumstances. It's not only guns. That's exactly what happened last night, only the cops weren't fired, just ordered to stand down. But for all practical purposes what you just wrote is what happened. It's called the Posse Comitatus Act, and considering it's been the law of the land since 1878, I would think you would familiarize yourself with it before asking such a stupid question. For Trump to have done so would have been a black letter of the Act, or to use really simple language so you'll understand it, it would have been illegal. "Most protesters" is not the issue here. Because only the four people dumb enough to attack or attempt to attack Rittenhouse got shot. Well, except for the fourth guy which most people don't even know about. Rittenhouse missed while trying to (justifiably) shoot him, and it seems nobody even knows his identity. But I'll tell you one thing, after he realized how close he came to dying, I'll bet money I don't even have that he's not going to attack another person who is legally carrying a firearm and prepared to use it if necessary, ever again. So, you think protesters who were not breaking the law (your words) should be shot deader than a doorknob. I bet when the protesters are BLM and Antifa you have a rather different attitude. I'll agree to that, IF you agree to treat those who illegally march on roads and highways screaming "No justice, no peace" the same way. Because if those words don't amount to inciting a riot, then nothing does. When translated that phrase means "If we don't get our way, we're going to burn down the city".
You must have seen a different video than I did. What I saw was about the most slam-dunk case of legal and legit self defense that I think I've ever seen actually recorded. Subject 1- Was attempting to kill Rittenhouse by bashing his skull in with a skateboard. Please do not attempt to insult my intelligence and say a skateboard isn't a deadly weapon. Lots of things are, if they are used to attack people. Subject 2- Was pointing a handgun at Rittenhouse, and addmitted to it under cross-examination. Subject 3- Was attempting to disarm him by force. Subject 4- While it seems you're unaware of him(?), if you had actually followed the trial, you would be. Attacked Rittenhouse with some sort of martial arts offensive moves, and was shot at, but not hit. The identity of this man (woman?) is unknown. These were not "random kills". They were, according to the evidence, the law, and the juries proper finding, legal self-defense shootings. Go back and rewatch the vids, and listen to the testimony and you'll clearly see that I am right about this.
not easy to have a discussion with a person that claims to be a god..even if it is just a god of tits and wine but I will anyway...and like your previous reply...any reply from you wont be reasonable .. the kid was so afraid of confrontation he felt he needed a military grade weapon to protect himself without that gun he would have never even been noticed... you can claim self defense on behalf of rittenhouse if you wish ..and obviously a jury agreed with you but a jury also found OJ was not guilty..I believe OJ is guilty and so is rittenhouse rittenhpouse is a punk through and through and should have been arrested at the same time as the looters and rioters the police also failed to do its job when they failed to arrest rittenhouse before he committed murder the people that stormed the capitol were breaking the law ..some were protesting legally, but not all these people are criminals NOT protesters ,over 400 have been charged with crimes of january 6th and thousands of the BLM and antifa were simply protesters...and yes many were criminals and were arrested and charged how many of those criminals were arrested?? here is a hint..over 10,000 let me repeat this because being the god of tits and wine seems to have clouded your thoughts OVER 10,000..I will type it out for you TEN THOUSAND BLM criminals have been arrested and face various criminal charges and if you believe the chant "No justice no peace" means burning down a city then hopefully you do not own a weapon and are not a law enforcement officer and yes the posse comitatus act of 1878 is exactly why trump was not allowed to unleash the military you made my point for me..trump said many times he should send it the military to stop the riots so now the governor of florida is starting his own military that has no federal oversight this will be fascinating to watch a governor with his own personal military... obviously the tits and wine have hindered your ability for a rational discussion so no reply is needed
well the far left is very violent, its a good thing that he had it otherwise he would probably be dead So is it normal for the far left to just attack anyone that is armed? Or is this victim blaming similar to blaming a women who was raped that was dressed sexy "if she wasnt dressed like that she would never of been noticed" And so does the law.. and every video of that night.. Completely irrelevant, so because OJ got away with Murder then all cases are the same? And anyone found not guilty means they really are? I dont want to sound insulting, and you're not the only one who has said this but this is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard. There is literally nothing the same with both cases, but your going to try and make an argument based on it? OJ said he did nothing. Kyle admitted to shooting them in self defense. Was there video of OJ trying to run away and forced to use self defense? lol seriously.. Come on man, do better.. The looters and Rioters where committing felonies, Kyle was not breaking any laws other then curfew so what should he of been arrested for? Not allowing the left to have a temper tantrum?
The Taliban was already not in compliance and was working to postpone and delay the talks. Biden choose to NOT pull out on the date, he had every right to do so because the conditions were not being met. Once he did he WAS NOT BOUND BY IT. What don't you understand here, he was NO LONGER BOUND BY IT TO WITHDRAW. He when he announced his unilateral unconditional surrender he also surrender any leverage he had to negotiate a new timetable and agreement setting conditions for it. He BLEW IT. And attempts to blame it on Trump are laughable.
it was rittenhouse that was violent and brandishing a weapon the people rittenhouse killed were attacking an active shooter usually the left are BIG pu$$ys..but in this case had bigger balls than rittenhouse..they did not need a weapon brandishing a weapon and wearing a short skirt have nothing to do with each other..is that all you got?? the video shows a scared punk kid shoot 3 people and the OJ case and rittenhouse cases are very similiar this is why the same techniques used for jury selection in OJ's trial were used in rittenhouse trial both OJ and rittenhouse found loopholes in the law to get away with murder ritttenhouse was also commiting a crime if only breaking curfew should the police decide who should be protected? rittenhouse should have been protected he should have been arrested to protect him from society and himself a punk with a gun is a dangerous combination the trial is over rittenhouse is a hero that will never work a day the rest of his life.. he had posted internet videos wanting to be famous before killing 2 people dreams do come true..rittenhouse is famous
He was only violent to the people attacking him.. you know what thats called? self defense And F.y.i. open carry is legal in WI, that is not brandishing a weapon There is lots of videos out there and not one person called him an active shooter... You know why? because active shooters do not run away.. active shooters do not have conversations with people as they are trying to run away.. active shooters do not tell them that he is going to get the police.. active shooters do not run to the police.. active shooters do not stop shooting.. The OJ comparison is dumb.. this "active shooter" one might be just a dumber.. do better except for the gun/s that got shot at him several times and the gun that GG pointed at his face right before he lost his bicep and him getting hit in the head with a skateboard? Is that all I have? lol no i have the law, video evidence, sworn testimony, forensic evidence on my side.. its you that has to resort to ridiculous arguments and flat out lies.. And the "short skirt" was just to help illustrate the absurdity of your argument.. guess your having a hard time connecting the dots? is this a legal argument your trying to make? lol Yeah i'm sure he was scared.. when a lunatic tells you he is going to kill you if he gets you alone.. and he gets you alone and tried to steal your gun.. What normal person wouldn't be scared in that situation? Then a mob chases after you calling for your death? yep most people would be scared in that situation as well.. Self defense is not a "loophole" its just the law.. and he broke no laws that night. Again there is no comparison between the OJ trial and Rittenhouse trial. Other then it was a trial.. Was OJ acting in self defense? Did OJ get attacked by a child rapist? Did OJ get attacked by a mob? Did Kyle kill his ex wife with a knife? The stupidity of this comparison is amazing.. A curfew violation is a citation not an arrest.. what arrestable crime did he commit? I know that you leftists love the socialists/communist ideology but right now in the US you cant just arrest people unless they are committing an arrestible offense agreed.. it takes a special kind of stupid person to go and attack someone armed with a gun.. If they left him alone that night then they would not be dead.. seriously dont attack people morons..
Someone doesn’t know the definitions of brandishing and active shooter and knows very little about the case and trial.
of course rittenhouse was an active shooter take any gun safety course and below is the first thing taught NEVER pull a gun unless you are going to shoot .. a gun is meant for killing, not for threatening people i know enough about the case to not make excuses for a punk kid with a gun he killed 2 people ,and maybe they needed killing but a 17 year old child should not be the judge and jury of the dead
KR is on podcasts taking it to liberals. Leftist heads are exploding lol. KR really knows how to put on his smug face lmao. Dems hate it. And I love it. KR is a hero, and will live very wealthy for the rest of his life.
Someone doesn’t know what an active shooter is. Active Shooter, Noun ‘ak-tiv ‘shu-ter The agreed-upon definition of active shooter by US government agencies (including the White House, US Department of Justice, FBI, US Department of Education, US Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency) is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.
