|
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=15538838-ce34-4bdc-9d89-7f630a19ed71
Afghan president wishes he could shoot down U.S. planes
Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
KABUL - Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Wednesday he would bring down U.S. planes bombing villages if he could, in a sign of growing tension between Afghanistan and its Western backers as the Taliban insurgency grows in strength.
As Western dissatisfaction with Karzai has grown over his failure to crack down on corruption and govern effectively, the Afghan president, facing elections next year, has hit back over the killing of dozens of civilians in foreign air strikes.
In recent weeks, Karzai has repeatedly blamed the West for the worsening security in Afghanistan, saying NATO failed to target Taliban and Al- Qaida sanctuaries in Pakistan and calling for the war to be taken out of Afghan villages.
"We have no other choice, we have no power to stop the planes, if we could, if I could ... we would stop them and bring them down," Karzai told a news conference.
He said that if he had something like the rock attached to a piece of string, known as a chelak in Dari, used to bring down kites in Afghanistan, he would use it.
"If we had a chelak, we would throw it and stop the American aircraft. We have no radar to stop them in the sky, we have no planes," he said. "I wish I could intercept the planes that are going to bomb Afghan villages, but that's not in my hands."
Afghanistan has suffered its worst violence this year since U.S.-led and Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001, with at least 4,000 people killed, around a third of them civilians.
Despite the presence of 65,000 foreign troops backing 130,000 Afghan security forces, Taliban insurgents have grown increasingly confident in their traditional heartland in the south and east and have also extended their influence close to the capital, Kabul.
(Reporting by Sayed Salahuddin; Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Giles Elgood)
Using air strikes to fight insurgents in occupied areas is retarded.
|
... if he could? Isn't he supposed to be the President of Afghanistan? Isn't it his country?
Obviously, it's not much of a sovereign nation at this point.
|
"Using air strikes to fight insurgents in occupied areas is retarded"
Its not retarded, its the American way.
Its because of this that the states aren't allowed to go into Pakistan.
|
i could have sworn it was the U.S. that put him in power in the first place
|
Shoot the fucking retard and replace him with someone a bit more sane. Ungrateful buffoon.
|
|
|
On December 22 2008 15:16 EmeraldSparks wrote:
Using air strikes to fight insurgents in occupied areas is retarded.
How else do you expect them to fight a bunch of guerillas? Send in troops and have them die? I think we should just pull out of Afghanistan at this point. The Taliban was actually being defeated and had no operating HQ until the USA invaded Iraq and made the insurgency grow.
|
How else do you expect them to fight a bunch of guerillas?
With less air strikes?
Send in troops
A better idea.
and have them die?
Yes, sometimes when war happens, people die.
|
On December 22 2008 16:05 EmeraldSparks wrote:With less air strikes? A better idea. Yes, sometimes when war happens, people die.
Yeah, but, I'm sure the Canadian Army is reluctant to send in troops and have them die needlessly to a bunch of terrorists. Even the Americans are. Hence the solution is to bomb the spots they are in.
|
It's a terrible solution that is ineffective towards achieving American goals in Afghanistan. If casualties are not acceptable, don't invade in the first place (or withdraw, as you say.) If the US and Co. want to get the job done, they're going to need to commit troops. The vast majority of counter-insurgency / anti-resistance / guerrilla warfare has not relied heavily on air strikes, and for good reason.
|
First of all I believe you can't defeat terrorists just with air strikes you usually have to rely on ground forces as well. But that doesn't mean bombing from the air isn't a good idea.
Emerald, I am shocked how lightly you treat the death of your soldiers as if it was some movie or Starcraft. If you don't think your war there is right than just go back and defend as best you can against future terrorist attacks on your civillians.
don't send your own troops needlessly to die because your enemy is hiding among civilians.
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way.
|
Hm... Was there no other way than going to Afghanistan for no real reason?
|
On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
First of all I believe you can't defeat terrorists just with air strikes you usually have to rely on ground forces as well. But that doesn't mean bombing from the air isn't a good idea.
Emerald, I am shocked how lightly you treat the death of your soldiers as if it was some movie or Starcraft. If you don't think your war there is right than just go back and defend as best you can against future terrorist attacks on your civillians.
don't send your own troops needlessly to die because your enemy is hiding among civilians.
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way.
...So are you trying to justify the bombing of civilians just because terrorists use them as shields?
Ugh, I really don't blame the president at all. His people are being killed all for the anti-terrorism cause. Killing civilians only causes more problems. It provides fuel for the terrorists to ensue more hate, and get more support.
|
On December 22 2008 15:51 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 15:16 EmeraldSparks wrote:
Using air strikes to fight insurgents in occupied areas is retarded. How else do you expect them to fight a bunch of guerillas? Send in troops and have them die? I think we should just pull out of Afghanistan at this point. The Taliban was actually being defeated and had no operating HQ until the USA invaded Iraq and made the insurgency grow.
pull out and let the taliban regain complete control?
|
On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you.
That is just plain wrong.
|
On December 22 2008 17:18 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
First of all I believe you can't defeat terrorists just with air strikes you usually have to rely on ground forces as well. But that doesn't mean bombing from the air isn't a good idea.
Emerald, I am shocked how lightly you treat the death of your soldiers as if it was some movie or Starcraft. If you don't think your war there is right than just go back and defend as best you can against future terrorist attacks on your civillians.
don't send your own troops needlessly to die because your enemy is hiding among civilians.
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. ...So are you trying to justify the bombing of civilians just because terrorists use them as shields? Ugh, I really don't blame the president at all. His people are being killed all for the anti-terrorism cause. Killing civilians only causes more problems. It provides fuel for the terrorists to ensue more hate, and get more support.
logically locke is correct, the civilians should be blaming the terrorists since they are using them as human shields, theyre the reason theyre being bombed.
unfortunately rationality doesnt always work so we're left with a lose lose situation.
|
On December 22 2008 17:20 kazokun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. That is just plain wrong.
how so
|
So if a bunch of terrorist live in america, does it justify the american government to bomb the shit out of their own country? of course not.. and hell they wont. Its just wrong in so many ways, I dont see how it is justified. The Afghan president dude just wants to save a few innocent lives, how is it so hard for people to understand that. Solving the terrorist problem is one thing, but doing so by killing innocent people in the process is just irony.
|
On December 22 2008 17:18 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
First of all I believe you can't defeat terrorists just with air strikes you usually have to rely on ground forces as well. But that doesn't mean bombing from the air isn't a good idea.
Emerald, I am shocked how lightly you treat the death of your soldiers as if it was some movie or Starcraft. If you don't think your war there is right than just go back and defend as best you can against future terrorist attacks on your civillians.
don't send your own troops needlessly to die because your enemy is hiding among civilians.
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. ...So are you trying to justify the bombing of civilians just because terrorists use them as shields? Ugh, I really don't blame the president at all. His people are being killed all for the anti-terrorism cause. Killing civilians only causes more problems. It provides fuel for the terrorists to ensue more hate, and get more support.
Yes I do. it is the only way to fight terrorist who are willing to act as inhumanely as that.
when the civilians understand that having terrorists next to them equals death to themselves and their children they will be hostile towards them. When they will see western armies fully attacking the terrorists and most of them either brought to justice or dead they will have the courage to stand up to them.
As long as the terrorists are ruling I don't blame the civilians for supporting them, you are executed if you oppose them.
|
On December 22 2008 15:39 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Shoot the fucking retard and replace him with someone a bit more sane. Ungrateful buffoon.
Ungrateful for what? For hundreds of deads on a daily basis? For a country routed in chaos after an idiotic war decided by an idiotic president? Nobody asked them to go to Afghanistan in the first place, it was a war routed in economical and geopolitical interests that destroyed the lives of thousands of people, it's unbelievable how naive some of the general public actually believe the war on "terror" had any higher moralic value, what it did was anger the majority of the arabic people, and increased the probability of a terroristic attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
