The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,536 
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
June 2nd, 2008, 10:38 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/0...ghanistan.html
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/0...ghanistan.html
Quote:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai puts the blame for rising violence in his country on international forces, saying they have mismanaged the fight against the resurging Taliban.
Karzai said in an interview on Indian television that the West risks losing peoples' goodwill and that its forces should have done more to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaeda bases outside the country.
In the interview with CNBC TV 18 aired Monday, he didn't directly mention bases in Pakistan, but his government has singled out that country in the past.
Karzai's criticism — including his insistence that civilian casualties must stop — is important in light of his stated plan to stand for re-election next year. The president is often criticized in Afghanistan for being too close to the United States and Britain.
The president said Western forces did not focus on "sanctuaries of terrorists" despite his government's warnings over the past five years.
"It was a serious neglect of that, in spite of our warning," he said, adding that other former members of the Taliban who had given up arms were unfairly hunted down within Afghan borders.
"Some of the Taliban who have laid down their arms, who are living in the Afghan villages peacefully, who have accepted Afghanistan's new order, they were chased, they were hunted for no reason, and they were forced to flee the country," he said, according to Reuters.
An American-led coalition drove out the ultra-conservative Islamic Taliban government in late 2001. The United States accused the Taliban government of harbouring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which Washington blamed for a number of deadly attacks.
The Taliban is now fighting to bring down the Afghan government and drive out the foreign troops who back it.
Karzai said in an interview on Indian television that the West risks losing peoples' goodwill and that its forces should have done more to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaeda bases outside the country.
In the interview with CNBC TV 18 aired Monday, he didn't directly mention bases in Pakistan, but his government has singled out that country in the past.
Karzai's criticism — including his insistence that civilian casualties must stop — is important in light of his stated plan to stand for re-election next year. The president is often criticized in Afghanistan for being too close to the United States and Britain.
The president said Western forces did not focus on "sanctuaries of terrorists" despite his government's warnings over the past five years.
"It was a serious neglect of that, in spite of our warning," he said, adding that other former members of the Taliban who had given up arms were unfairly hunted down within Afghan borders.
"Some of the Taliban who have laid down their arms, who are living in the Afghan villages peacefully, who have accepted Afghanistan's new order, they were chased, they were hunted for no reason, and they were forced to flee the country," he said, according to Reuters.
An American-led coalition drove out the ultra-conservative Islamic Taliban government in late 2001. The United States accused the Taliban government of harbouring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which Washington blamed for a number of deadly attacks.
The Taliban is now fighting to bring down the Afghan government and drive out the foreign troops who back it.
House Member
Posts: 2,757
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
June 2nd, 2008, 01:10 PM
S Asia 'focus for al-Qaeda fight'
US-led forces patrol the Afghan side of the border with Pakistan
Washington has pinpointed the frontier areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan as the most pressing central point in which to win the war on terror.
Michael Chertoff, the US secretary for homeland security, told the BBC that successes against al-Qaeda should not lead to a weakening of resolve.
He warned that militants in Pakistan were training recruits who could mix inconspicuously in Western society.
He questioned whether Pakistan's rulers had the right strategy to respond.
Mr Chertoff said the US had succeeded in pushing back al-Qaeda in Iraq and argued that Muslims in Iraq were now reacting against indiscriminate militant violence.
But he warned that: "If we lose our resolution, we could find ourselves actually losing ground."
'Freely and inconspicuously'
While the threat from al-Qaeda remained global, he said, there was no specific intelligence now of an imminent attack.
Michael Chertoff has led the homeland security department since 2005
He did not want people to be over-anxious but he warned that al-Qaeda and associated groups were still intent on carrying out attacks on the US, Europe and elsewhere.
"[Al-Qaeda] are using their platform in the frontier areas of Pakistan to train operatives, including operatives who don't fit what perhaps the public believes is the normal profile of a terrorist," he said, during a visit to the UK.
"They are looking for people who can operate freely and inconspicuously in Western society."
He said the "jury was still out" on the strategy of Pakistan's new democratic government to combat the militants.
Addressing Oxford University students during his visit, Mr Chertoff said extremists had "hijacked the language of Islam to mask an ideology that in some respects has more in common with the fascist organisations of the 1930s".
S Asia 'focus for al-Qaeda fight'
US-led forces patrol the Afghan side of the border with PakistanWashington has pinpointed the frontier areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan as the most pressing central point in which to win the war on terror.
Michael Chertoff, the US secretary for homeland security, told the BBC that successes against al-Qaeda should not lead to a weakening of resolve.
He warned that militants in Pakistan were training recruits who could mix inconspicuously in Western society.
He questioned whether Pakistan's rulers had the right strategy to respond.
Mr Chertoff said the US had succeeded in pushing back al-Qaeda in Iraq and argued that Muslims in Iraq were now reacting against indiscriminate militant violence.
But he warned that: "If we lose our resolution, we could find ourselves actually losing ground."
'Freely and inconspicuously'
While the threat from al-Qaeda remained global, he said, there was no specific intelligence now of an imminent attack.
Michael Chertoff has led the homeland security department since 2005He did not want people to be over-anxious but he warned that al-Qaeda and associated groups were still intent on carrying out attacks on the US, Europe and elsewhere.
"[Al-Qaeda] are using their platform in the frontier areas of Pakistan to train operatives, including operatives who don't fit what perhaps the public believes is the normal profile of a terrorist," he said, during a visit to the UK.
"They are looking for people who can operate freely and inconspicuously in Western society."
He said the "jury was still out" on the strategy of Pakistan's new democratic government to combat the militants.
Addressing Oxford University students during his visit, Mr Chertoff said extremists had "hijacked the language of Islam to mask an ideology that in some respects has more in common with the fascist organisations of the 1930s".
House Member
Posts: 2,757
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
June 2nd, 2008, 01:11 PM
Homeland security chief: no al-Qaida negotiations
Sun Jun 1, 2:52 PM ET
LONDON - U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in an interview broadcast Sunday that negotiations with al-Qaida would be futile.
In a television interview with Britain's Sky News, Chertoff said al-Qaida's ideology was one of total antagonism toward democracy and toward other religions.
"Nobody wants to negotiate their own demise or their own surrender so it strikes me as a kind of academic exercise," he said.
Chertoff was responding to a question about Northern Ireland police chief Hugh Orde, who said in an interview with the Guardian newspaper published Friday that officials should consider negotiating with al-Qaida.
Chertoff said he did not believe such talks were possible.
"Their (al-Qaida's) interest is in the destruction of the West, and unless you are prepared to negotiate about how you want to be destroyed, it strikes me as a totally speculative and unrealistic exercise," he said.
He added that al-Qaida has grown stronger in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the past year but has weakened in Iraq.
Chertoff said he's not aware of any specific terror plots, but said people should be vigilant during the summer months, as terrorists tend to operate during periods of high travel.
Homeland security chief: no al-Qaida negotiations
Sun Jun 1, 2:52 PM ET
LONDON - U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in an interview broadcast Sunday that negotiations with al-Qaida would be futile.
In a television interview with Britain's Sky News, Chertoff said al-Qaida's ideology was one of total antagonism toward democracy and toward other religions.
"Nobody wants to negotiate their own demise or their own surrender so it strikes me as a kind of academic exercise," he said.
Chertoff was responding to a question about Northern Ireland police chief Hugh Orde, who said in an interview with the Guardian newspaper published Friday that officials should consider negotiating with al-Qaida.
Chertoff said he did not believe such talks were possible.
"Their (al-Qaida's) interest is in the destruction of the West, and unless you are prepared to negotiate about how you want to be destroyed, it strikes me as a totally speculative and unrealistic exercise," he said.
He added that al-Qaida has grown stronger in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the past year but has weakened in Iraq.
Chertoff said he's not aware of any specific terror plots, but said people should be vigilant during the summer months, as terrorists tend to operate during periods of high travel.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
June 2nd, 2008, 01:30 PM
Who gives a rat's behind whether "America" will negotiate with a terrorist group? It has been the position of the United States that it will not negotiate with terrorists and this is entirely justified in terms of domestic policies. Where the fly in the ointment occurs however is when the United States refuses to acknowledge the behavior (and lack of adequate policing) of its ally...Pakistan.
Like the American nabobs won't eradicate the poppy fields in Afghanistan, they won't act to bring tighter security to Pakistan's borders. One could imagine that the engine of military agression that feeds the military industrial complex of the United States doesn't really have an interest in prosecuting a "successful" campaign...while there's money to be made.
Like every dictator and evil-doer who's ever manipulated a nation to bring wealth and power to the select few...America uses this "war on terrorism" as justification for material like Quandry121 has (extensively) brought to our attention. But as I've said before, no Canadian or any British subject can bring pressure to bear on a government out of control and drunk on the power it's usurped from the people. The population must be willing to accept that their government isn't acting to bring about closure to the nonesense in Afghansitan and the greatest failure of "American" diplomacy and "freedom" in Iraq.
Americans it would appear don't want peace they want to continue funnelling money and maintaining the status quo.....to governments that don't listen to them any more and being held hostage by the petroleum and defense industries.
Either sufficient numbers of Americans support the current regime and the policies of the Bush administration or they're too busy watching American Idol to care....
There can be no peace until what measures need and should have already been taken to destroy the pipeline of drugs for money and the porous border with Afghansitan that feeds hostiles into the region through Pakistan. I sincerely hope that Americans enjoy the prospect of continuing to pour money into the pockets of defense industry contractors while nothing of any significance is produced by the billions upon billions already spent on a ridiculour and pointless war.
Who gives a rat's behind whether "America" will negotiate with a terrorist group? It has been the position of the United States that it will not negotiate with terrorists and this is entirely justified in terms of domestic policies. Where the fly in the ointment occurs however is when the United States refuses to acknowledge the behavior (and lack of adequate policing) of its ally...Pakistan.
Like the American nabobs won't eradicate the poppy fields in Afghanistan, they won't act to bring tighter security to Pakistan's borders. One could imagine that the engine of military agression that feeds the military industrial complex of the United States doesn't really have an interest in prosecuting a "successful" campaign...while there's money to be made.
Like every dictator and evil-doer who's ever manipulated a nation to bring wealth and power to the select few...America uses this "war on terrorism" as justification for material like Quandry121 has (extensively) brought to our attention. But as I've said before, no Canadian or any British subject can bring pressure to bear on a government out of control and drunk on the power it's usurped from the people. The population must be willing to accept that their government isn't acting to bring about closure to the nonesense in Afghansitan and the greatest failure of "American" diplomacy and "freedom" in Iraq.
Americans it would appear don't want peace they want to continue funnelling money and maintaining the status quo.....to governments that don't listen to them any more and being held hostage by the petroleum and defense industries.
Either sufficient numbers of Americans support the current regime and the policies of the Bush administration or they're too busy watching American Idol to care....
There can be no peace until what measures need and should have already been taken to destroy the pipeline of drugs for money and the porous border with Afghansitan that feeds hostiles into the region through Pakistan. I sincerely hope that Americans enjoy the prospect of continuing to pour money into the pockets of defense industry contractors while nothing of any significance is produced by the billions upon billions already spent on a ridiculour and pointless war.
House Member
Posts: 2,757
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
Videos: 3
Location: lincolnshire
June 2nd, 2008, 04:35 PM
Quoting MikeyDB
I agree with your point that more people are interested in american idol that the policies of the Bush administration + the fact that main stream media has its own addenda as to what were all told like you say until we start to feel the pinch or something drastic happens (god forbid) blind ignorance will continue and to the decrement of societies
Who gives a rat's behind whether "America" will negotiate with a terrorist group? It has been the position of the United States that it will not negotiate with terrorists and this is entirely justified in terms of domestic policies. Where the fly in the ointment occurs however is when the United States refuses to acknowledge the behavior (and lack of adequate policing) of its ally...Pakistan.
Like the American nabobs won't eradicate the poppy fields in Afghanistan, they won't act to bring tighter security to Pakistan's borders. One could imagine that the engine of military agression that feeds the military industrial complex of the United States doesn't really have an interest in prosecuting a "successful" campaign...while there's money to be made.
Like every dictator and evil-doer who's ever manipulated a nation to bring wealth and power to the select few...America uses this "war on terrorism" as justification for material like Quandry121 has (extensively) brought to our attention. But as I've said before, no Canadian or any British subject can bring pressure to bear on a government out of control and drunk on the power it's usurped from the people. The population must be willing to accept that their government isn't acting to bring about closure to the nonesense in Afghansitan and the greatest failure of "American" diplomacy and "freedom" in Iraq.
Americans it would appear don't want peace they want to continue funnelling money and maintaining the status quo.....to governments that don't listen to them any more and being held hostage by the petroleum and defense industries.
Either sufficient numbers of Americans support the current regime and the policies of the Bush administration or they're too busy watching American Idol to care....
There can be no peace until what measures need and should have already been taken to destroy the pipeline of drugs for money and the porous border with Afghansitan that feeds hostiles into the region through Pakistan. I sincerely hope that Americans enjoy the prospect of continuing to pour money into the pockets of defense industry contractors while nothing of any significance is produced by the billions upon billions already spent on a ridiculour and pointless war.
Like the American nabobs won't eradicate the poppy fields in Afghanistan, they won't act to bring tighter security to Pakistan's borders. One could imagine that the engine of military agression that feeds the military industrial complex of the United States doesn't really have an interest in prosecuting a "successful" campaign...while there's money to be made.
Like every dictator and evil-doer who's ever manipulated a nation to bring wealth and power to the select few...America uses this "war on terrorism" as justification for material like Quandry121 has (extensively) brought to our attention. But as I've said before, no Canadian or any British subject can bring pressure to bear on a government out of control and drunk on the power it's usurped from the people. The population must be willing to accept that their government isn't acting to bring about closure to the nonesense in Afghansitan and the greatest failure of "American" diplomacy and "freedom" in Iraq.
Americans it would appear don't want peace they want to continue funnelling money and maintaining the status quo.....to governments that don't listen to them any more and being held hostage by the petroleum and defense industries.
Either sufficient numbers of Americans support the current regime and the policies of the Bush administration or they're too busy watching American Idol to care....
There can be no peace until what measures need and should have already been taken to destroy the pipeline of drugs for money and the porous border with Afghansitan that feeds hostiles into the region through Pakistan. I sincerely hope that Americans enjoy the prospect of continuing to pour money into the pockets of defense industry contractors while nothing of any significance is produced by the billions upon billions already spent on a ridiculour and pointless war.
