Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

I'll invade Pakistan, warns Karzai



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 June 2008
AFGHANISTAN'S president, Hamid Karzai, threatened to invade nuclear-power Pakistan yesterday, in an astonishing escalation in the diplomatic feud between the two countries.
Speaking just days after American forces clashed with Pakistani soldiers on the border, Mr Karzai warned Afghan troops could cross the Durrand line, which divides their volatile nations.

He said Afghan soldiers would be acting in "self-defence" if they crossed into Pakistan to hunt down Taleban militants. And he vowed to "avenge" the violence Taleban leaders had inflicted on his country, in the clearest signal yet that Afghan and international forces have lost patience with Pakistan's faltering efforts to deal with the insurgents on their side of the border.

The Taleban use the tribal areas along the Afghan border as a safe haven, to rest, recuperate and reorganise beyond the reach of Nato operations, and Islamabad has faced mounting international criticism for not doing enough to stop them.

Mr Karzai said: "Afghanistan has the right of self-defence. When they cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same."

Afghans are angry that Pakistan is negotiating with the Taleban, despite the insurgents' threats to continue a holy war against foreign forces inside Afghanistan. Security sources inside Afghanistan fear a peace deal on the Pakistani side will let the insurgents concentrate on attacking the Nato-led troops next-door.

Mr Karzai, who was speaking for the first time since returning from an international donors' conference in Paris, warned his forces would target Taleban leaders hiding in Pakistan.

He singled out Baitullah Mehsud, the self-proclaimed leader of the Pakistani Taleban, suspected of organising the assassination of Benazir Bhutto; and Mullah Omar, the spiritual leader of the Afghan insurgents. He said: "Baitullah Mehsud should know that we will go after him now and hit him in his house. And the other fellow, Mullah Omar of Pakistan, should know the same.

"This is a two-way road in this case, and Afghans are good at the two-way road journey. We will complete the journey and we will get them and we will defeat them. We will avenge all that they have done to Afghanistan for the past so many years."

His comments came while his government was still reeling from a spectacular Taleban jailbreak that saw up to 400 insurgents and 750 criminals set free. Militants, believed to have come from Pakistan, attacked the main jail in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, in a daring commando-style raid. A suicide bomber in a water tanker packed with almost two tonnes of homemade explosives blew down the front wall of the prison, while a second suicide bomber, on foot, tore a hole in the back of the compound.

Armed men then stormed through the rubble, shooting guards as they raced to free their fellow insurgents, while fire-teams outside bombarded the buildings with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine-gun fire.

Nato spy-planes were scrambled to try and track the convicts as they fled through the night, on Friday, to sanctuaries along the border. American forces involved in a round-up operation killed 15 insurgents yesterday, but local police admitted less than two-dozen inmates had been arrested.

Bodies from Afghan conflict flown back to UK as wounded commander returns for treatment

THE body of a Scottish teenager was one of five British soldiers killed in Afghanistan being flown home last night, the Ministry of Defence said.

They are due to arrive at RAF Lyneham, in Wiltshire, at about 2pm today for a military repatriation ceremony. The men, all from 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, based at Colchester, in Essex, were killed in the past week.

Meanwhile, it was revealed yesterday that a Scottish battalion commander shot in Afghanistan has become one of the highest-ranking British soldiers injured in the conflict.

Lieutenant-Colonel David Richmond, commanding officer of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, suffered a gunshot wound to the leg during fighting in Helmand Province.

Private David Murray, 19, who was born in Dumfries but raised in Carlisle, Nathan Cuthbertson, 19, and Daniel Gamble, 22, were blown up by a suicide bomber on Sunday, 8 June. And on Thursday, Lance Corporal James Bateman, 29, and Private Jeff Doherty, 20, were killed by Taleban fire.

Their deaths take the number of British service personnel killed in Afghanistan since November 2001 to 102. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said dozens of servicemen and women had attended a "ramp ceremony" in Afghanistan before the coffins were loaded on to the plane.

"The padre said a few words, and it was a chance for the soldiers to pay their respects to their fallen comrades," said the spokesman.

Lt-Col Richmond, 41, was leading his troops on Thursday against the Taleban near the town of Musa Qala when he was hit.

The soldier, who had served in Northern Ireland and Iraq in 22 years with the army, has been flown to the UK for treatment at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham. It is not known how serious the injury is.

Speaking in February when he left on tour, the commanding officer said: "The deployment will test us all. The environment we will operate in is austere and demanding and we are ready for it.

"The battalion look forward to supporting the Afghan government in its efforts to rid the country of the Taleban and improve the quality of life of its people."

The full article contains 928 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 June 2008 12:50 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Afghanistan
 
1

Silence of the Yams,

16/06/2008 00:59:17
Maybe some good will come out of this outrageous Pakistan inspired Taleban prison break! It's time for the coalition to go over the border into these wild tribal areas and properly root out the enemy. A similar problem exists in Iraq where the much loved Iranian regime (by some loony posters on these forums) has training camps for Shia death squads out to kill American GI's. Find these bases and wipe them out!
2

right of center,

Chicago 16/06/2008 01:06:28
Good for Hamid Karzai, looks like the Bush doctrine is working and the terrorist appeasers that like filling up these threads will be hating life soon.
3

American,

16/06/2008 03:17:33
Well it's about friggin time, although I dont believe karzai will do a thing.
4

Guga II,

Rockall 16/06/2008 03:43:38
I see the rednecks are out in force this morning, with their usual kill and bomb everything and everyone (a.k.a. the Bush Doctrine).

That is all we need, a war between Afghanistan, supported by the septics, and Pakistan. I think that both Afghanistan and the septics would be in for a bit of a shock if they attacked Pakistan; they will actually fight back.

The only reason the septics are in Afghanistan is to protect the oil pipeline so that the war criminal Bush, and his business buddies, can make money. Just as the only reason they are in Iraq is to get control of the oil.

5

Qaisar,

USA 16/06/2008 04:06:24
Karzai is for all practical purposes, just a mayor of Kabul during daytime... will anyone take his threat seriously?
6

Dáithí,

San Jose 16/06/2008 04:52:19
>"I see the rednecks are out in force this morning, with their usual kill and bomb everything and everyone (a.k.a. the Bush Doctrine)."

So how come Scots who resisted English incursions are heroes but Afghani's who resist terrorist incursions from Pakistan aren't?

>"The only reason the septics are in Afghanistan is to protect the oil pipeline ..."

And the only reason that someone would claim 'Rockall' is for the oil and gas resources. If it weren't for the hopes of nationalizing these to become 'white Arabs', how many 'nationalists' would be left?

If it wasn't for hypocrisy, would the Left would have any personality at all?
7

Dáithí,

San Jose 16/06/2008 05:22:03
Now that I have your attention (see the above post)!

My previous post only makes sense if Guga's posts are accepted as creditable - in that oil and profit is the only motivation for the actions of people that you disagree with.

If it is possible to believe that the motivation of Scottish nationalists for their freedom is other than 'oil profits', then it is certainly possible to believe that the motivation of the US/UK/Nato in Afghanistan on behalf of the Afghan people is creditable also.

If you fail to recognize that, hypocrisy is a fair charge.
8

Pilrig.,

Livingston 16/06/2008 05:55:19
errr...Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Afghanistan disnae !
9

Dáithí,

San Jose 16/06/2008 06:23:12
Pilrig -

Very astute! ;)

I think that this is either a message to the Pakistani government to do more or an announcement that if they do not then they can expect Afghan 'pursuits' of Fundamentalist Islamic Religious Extremists into Pakistani territory.

I expect the Pakistani government to announce some sort of 'crackdown' that will be less-than-satisfactory to Afghanistan, but still not completely alienate the extremists to the point of undermining the Pakistani government - ie, a political game.

What do you think??
10

Number 6,

Germany 16/06/2008 07:20:17
Another imbecile. It is of course illegal for Afgahnistan to invade Pakistan. The American prosecuters at the Nurenberg trials, described wars of aggression, like this as the "Supreme international crime". Another factor is that Pakistan would not sit back and let this happen,
the repurcussions could be immense.

STOP THE WARS, STOP THE VIOLENCE, STOP THIS MADNESS.
11

Richardinho,

16/06/2008 07:56:14
still a mess then?
12

Covert Action,

16/06/2008 08:18:25
@10

It is about time that we realised that the Nuremberg trials (if only for the reason that they only focussed on German war crimes) were in their own way as restrictive and useless as the Versailles treaty. Collective punishment, for example, being a very useful tool since the moral responsibility remains with the initial culprit.
13

Vigorous,

London 16/06/2008 08:23:24
PAKISTAN IS NOT USSR !!!

If all the total strength of NATO forces, US forces and Afghan forces in addition to the paramilitary resources and accompanying hardware cannot take care of their side of the border against ragged militias and unruly gun toting Pathans why expect Pakistan to do their job for them while taking care of Pakistani side as well? It is always easy to put the blame on someone else for one's own failure.

Let us not forget the lessons of history. The mighty British Empire could not subdue these very people nor can one forget the Empire’s defeat in Afghanistan. Pakistan has already integrated and subdued a major portion of the tribal area and the population of that area. A few remaining trouble spots would be under control soon. Let us ponder why did British signed agreements with Pathans when they had a mighty British Empire or for that matter why was USA negotiating with (North) Vietnamese before their fall?

Pakistan literally did not have pins for papers in 1947 due to her non-existing economic resources; today it is a nuclear power. On the other hand, Afghanis could not build their country although they claim theirs is a historical one. Even today they are international beggars. Mr. Karzai should first of all seek and convince those millions of Afghan refugees still in Pakistan who refuse to return to their homeland precisely because there is no law or writ of law in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has already tried to invade Pakistan during the last half century, and all those attempts were futile. Hopefully, they will not try to commit this folly again.

Pakistan can also go in hot persuit across Afghanistan if the other party can do it. Also the theory of "pre-emptive strike" is applicable in reverse also.
14

Jay Kay,

16/06/2008 08:39:45
Personally being ex forces myself I can say hand on heart I wish it would all just stop. No more fighting we are supposed to be enlightened beings, educated above the animals but you dont see them wiping each other out for a percentage.

Bush must be laughing his ass of.
15

porters at 9,

16/06/2008 08:51:11
#3 - "see the rednecks are out in force this morning, with their usual kill and bomb everything and everyone"

and your point is caller? your bob geldof/bono views mean nothing.. grow up mate, your lovey dovey world ain't real..
16

Media 1,

cape town 16/06/2008 09:13:14
When Hamid Karzai say that HE will invade Pakistan, can we expect that to mean that HE will be on the front line leading the charge?
17

57Nomad,

california 16/06/2008 09:40:07
#10 #6

#6 said:

"Another imbecile. It is of course illegal for Afgahnistan to invade Pakistan."

Imbecile? You are the imbecile. Forces based and sheltered in Pakistan are invading Afghanistan on a continual basis. Pakistan is the refuge and staging area for men who then invade Afghanistan and kill, wound, and maim Afghan people.

Afghanistan has every right to cross the border and eliminate the bases and kill the terrorists encamped their. It is perfectly legal.
18

57Nomad,

california 16/06/2008 09:52:23
#13 vig

vig said:

"Let us not forget the lessons of history. The mighty British Empire could not subdue these very people nor can one forget the Empire’s defeat in Afghanistan"

The cases you cite argue against your thesis. What makes you think that the people who now fill the ranks of the Taleban are Afghanis? Some are, but the former Taleban cadre was mortally attrited during the thumping they took six years ago. Those that call themselves Taleban today are a hodgepodge of different groups from all over the Muslim world. A great many are foreign jihadis who have had enough of the Marines and soldiers in Iraq and ran to Pakistan because there was nowhere else to go.

According your own statement these foreigners will never be able to defeat the Afghanis. The Taleban should learn the lessons of history and throw in the towel in Afghanistan like they did in Iraq. Let's face it, your terrorist heroes are in their death throes. They will never defeat the Afghan people.
19

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 09:56:15
I thought the Americans made a good start bombing the border areas with daisy cutters. Why on earth did they stop?
20

Number 6,

16/06/2008 10:40:40
#17 More of your violence soaked views. When you consider the US's reaction to every conflict is overwhelming violence , followed by retreating humiliation, I can't understand why they now want to invade Pakistan. Make no mistake, this is the US's doing. We saw recently how effective US military is at hunting down Terrorists, who seem to be "Anything that moves",. How long before the first Pakistani school is hit and the slaughter begins?

War is the primitive, savage answer to those not capable of negotiation. Go ahead America, make the Taliban's day.
21

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 16/06/2008 10:50:59
From a military point of view it makes perfect sense to attack your enemy bases and supply dumps. All the leadership are over the border so that is where the fight must go.

Pakistan has never controlled this region and it is in no way able to protect it. This may even be a ploy to allow the pakistani military to assume bases and control within this area under the pretext of defending the borders.

As for all the people who think this will go away if we just withdraw and return home. They obviously have no idea what the Islamists are trying to acheive glabally.

Until the whole world worships Allah the Jihad must continue within the house of war. It is their obligation.
22

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 10:55:20
#20 The war we wage on the Taleban and Iraqi militants is self-defensive; they want to destroy our liberal way of life which so many of our bleeding heart liberals seem to enjoy.

I don't see the bleeding heart liberals queuing up to go and live in the Middle East.
23

Linus,

at arm's length 16/06/2008 10:58:18
The minute you cross borders with the intent to kill somebody, or with the intent of any other crime, you have just committed a crime yourself. If you cross borders as anybody else, a tourist, a businessman, or as an immigrant, than it's a different story. If Afghanistan is going to go through with this threat, Pakistan could easily unleash one or many WMD on them, and that's not anything any of us want or need to see. Wait for the insurgents to cross into Afghanistan, nab them, deal with them, and keep it legal, and that will prevent a lot of problems compared to an invasion. Let cooler heads prevail here, we have enough trouble already, we sure don't need this on top of everything else.
24

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 11:01:05
I would also add that I do not understand why Iaqi oil is not simply confiscated and sold to repay the debts that nation has accrued while we liberated it. In the history of warfare countries have always paid their war debts and goodness knows cheap oil from Iraq is the least thanks they could give us at the moment.
25

Number 6,

Germany 16/06/2008 11:07:52
#22 "Want to destroy our liberal way of life" ?.

What utter garbage. You were attacked on 9/11 because
the US has permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, mush to the fury of the entire population,. The only reason they are there is to ensure no muslim regime ever takes power and therefore control of what the US sees as THERE oil.

Can any of you tell me why you have not attacked Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 attackers came from, and where most of the money funding this campaign also comes from.

Why did your president rush to let the Bin-Laden family leave the US so soon after 9/11 , a day after in fact. The only flight allowed in US air-space. And this when they knew the FBI were rushing to round them up.It seems your barely human "Commander in chief" has
no qualms about continuing to do business with the family of your countrie's biggest enemy.

Then again , as we saw with Prescott bush and his collabiration with the Nazis. Bush doesn't care where his money comes from, or how much blood it's soaked in.

Of course you won't want to discuss that will you ?
26

Covert Action,

16/06/2008 11:10:20
@25

not because of the permanent bases per se but because there were women and Jews on those bases
27

AJ Fife,

16/06/2008 11:36:02
Does anyone know if the Lt Col's wound was self inflicted or obtained during a fire fight with insurgents?
28

Mcsnagpile,

16/06/2008 11:36:40
To get some gumbeating in place, Pakistan has a population on 168 million. The birth Rate is high enough to repopulate Scotland every 18 months. More than double the population of present day Vietnam, or nearly the joint equivalent population of Japan and Afghanistan.
Pakistan does not need Atomic bombs –just start a stampede.

The smaller populations of Iraq and Afghanistan have massive birth rates of nearly 3% but will take a long time to compete in number with Pakistan.
Possibly the birth rates are a lot more worrying than any war considerations. Every year means approx an extra 1 million Afghanistan’s without resources.
If India and China went to war they would end up fighting with sticks and stones, as there are not enough bullets in the world. It is all a house of cards. So hide your whisky.
29

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 11:48:21
#25 "It seems your barely human "Commander in chief".

Insults insults, that's really all the "anti-war" movement has ever been about. I was pleased to see that your ridiculous Tariq Ali and George "The Puddy Cat" Galloway led movement was down to its last rump of 200 or so protesters in Whitehall yesterday; tiny and showing how people have given up on you. The lot of you are a disgrace to the West but I guess I must support your right to protest. However I will laugh at you for not going to live in the Middle East under their lovely liberal regimes.
30

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 16/06/2008 11:52:14
#7 Daithi from San Jose

You certainly don't have my interest and must think a lot of yourself to proclaim that you "have our attention".

By the way, the word is "credible" and not "creditable".

But then, what is one to expect from .....?

And to ask a general question "What do you think?" just confirms your self-absorption.

I had not realised that San Jose was a world-centre of advanced political thought.
31

Number 6,

Germany 16/06/2008 11:58:48
#29 Anti war movement" ?. Does that make you pro-war.

Bush does not even deserve the title "Human". He is a disgrace to the entire species. He is presently slinking around Europe , visiting by the back door , as a public appearance would promote a full scale
riot. We can only hope that Obama gets into the Whitehouse, Mr Chips is simply an older version of
Bush, a man who speaks of the "Benefits of War".
32

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 12:05:52
There's talk here of the 'Liberal Regimes' in the Middle East in a very Sarcastic Manner.

Hmmm, are they as Liberal as the ones we have here and across the 'Pond'?

42 Days Detention without Charge!! Very Liberal.

Guantanamo Bay!!!! Such a Liberal place to be . . . .

And I notice none of you US Apologists have answered No25
33

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 12:10:57
#31 If Obama gets in nothing will change, just as nothing changed when the Democrats won the Congress and Senate.

And as for your socialist worker armchair "riots" because Bush is "slinking around Europe, visiting by te back door" as you put it - hah hah. You can't get much more front door than Air Force One and flown in Limos to each EU capital he visits, dinner at Buck Pal with the queen and two visits to Downing Street.

And all you bleeding heart liberals could manage was a rump of 200 foul mouthed alcohol sodden louts in Whitehall who probably should have been in school.
34

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 12:12:48
15

Porters - "and your point is caller? your bob geldof/bono views mean nothing.. grow up mate, your lovey dovey world ain't real.."

As long as there's people around like you and others, with that attitude, this world will NEVER be 'lovey-dovey'. It's people like you that need to grow up - mate.

35

Number 6,

Germany 16/06/2008 12:36:13
#33 Of course he is slinking about. No meetings with the public, no speaking in public. Goverments can fete him all they want , but the public reaction is universal to his presence. Outrage. I saw no "Welcome Mr President " banners, did you.

There were 2 1/2 thousand protesters in Whitehall alone. As usual you people live and speak in a parallel reality. Bush, and his war are universally
hated and despised, outside Israel of course.
36

Newman!,

16/06/2008 12:45:43
#35 Well said. Bush can only muster a 30% per cent approval rating at home from the few remaining knuckle draggers like Nomad above and Lynne (for other reasons).
He is hated throughout the rest of the World by people who can see through his phony rhetoric about freedom and democracy. The man has done more to help Al Quada and Iran than any other terrorist on the planet.
37

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 12:56:54
#35 and #36 I feel so sorry for the "anti-war" movement; just the wee rump left - be it 200 or 2000 it's still just a village boot sale's number of people. Pathetically sad.

#35, when I last saw any world leader visit the UK for talks with our leaders I didn't see them speakng to the public. So why should Bush be any different? He is a hero to the Western world and people like you that don't want to wear burkhas or get your throats cut or hands chopped off by the lovely Taliban & Co. should have a bit more respect and gratitude.
38

JoeMcT,

BlairsFantasyIsland 16/06/2008 13:21:22
Karzai might want to invade Afghanistan first and try and get his own country under control.

At the minute he doesn't even control Kabul.
39

Silence of the Yams,

16/06/2008 13:24:53
36. What you and the other idiots fail to grasp is Afghanistan has nothing to do with Bush! If Al Gore had been president the US and coalition would still have had to remove the al-Qaeda terror camps and fascist Taleban who incubated the terrorists. No doubt the tofu eating morons here think Bush masterminded 911 for some grotesque purpose. The same Bush who they lampoon as an imbecile! Go away leftists, and stop supporting regimes that execute children like Iran, or China that execute 8,000 every year for non existent crimes. Your froth is misplaced!!
40

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 13:44:35
37, 39

Mikko, Silence of the Yams,and any others that it applies to -

You still haven't answered No25!
41

Mikko,

Drumndrochit 16/06/2008 13:53:13
#40 I can't answer #25 because it is so rambling and nonsensical that I wouldn't know what I am supposed to be answering.
42

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 14:05:40
41

Mikko - excerpted from No25:

Can any of you tell me why you (America) have not attacked Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 attackers came from, and where most of the money funding this (Terrorism) campaign also comes from.

Answer = ?

Why did your president (Bush) rush to let the Bin-Laden family leave the US so soon after 9/11 , a day after in fact. The only flight allowed in US air-space. And this when they knew the FBI were rushing to round them up.

Answer = ?

There you go, does that make it easier for you to understand?


43

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 14:11:43
#42 Do you have any evidence that Bin Laden's family was involved in 9/111? If not then Bush did the right thing by preventing a lynch mob from murdering them - or is that what you liberal lefties would have preferred?
44

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 14:15:10
Did he have any evidence that Osama Bin Laden had any involvement in 9/11?

And you STILL haven't answered the original questions
45

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 14:17:08
Oh, and BTW, there is No Way on this Earth you could EVER call me a Liberal Leftie.

Seriously!

Heil Me!!
46

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 14:18:25
#44 I think Osama coming along and making a video saying "I did it gov and I'm proud of it" is fairly good evidence. Still doesn't make his family guilty though.
47

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 14:21:40
Oh My God. It couldn't be that he just saw an opportunity to jump on a band-wagon could it?

That wouldn't occur to any of you sheep though, would it?

48

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 14:23:20
Why would he do that?

To "Big Himself Up" mon,
49

Cerberus,

Hades 16/06/2008 14:25:36
Daithi

You say: "So how come Scots who resisted English incursions are heroes but Afghani's who resist terrorist incursions from Pakistan aren't?"

a/that was a long time ago.
b/the "Scots" also had "English" in the forces and the "English" also had "Scots".
c/Similarly you would have to define "Afghanis" and "Pakistanis". I doubt we can.
d/The "English" regarded the "Scots" as terrorists, French support ones. I don't know, but the media at the time, had it existed by today's standards, (maybe called "Roberto de Murdok- Be Faire & Balanced") would have written headlines such as "Frog eating, appeaser loving, Jock terrorists.". While the Media north of the border would have written "English imperialists seek to undermine non landowner, non rent, community culture, so to eliminate bad practice on their doorstep, by encouraging a parcel of rogues in Scotland to join them in profiting by the exploitation of the masses."

Or, if it was the Scotsman News, in current form; "Scottish radical terrorists upset the glorious Empire of England. Let's hang Alex de Salmonde immediately."

It all depends on what side you choose; if you feel like choosing.

Silence of Yams at comment39 asserts "What you and the other idiots fail to grasp is Afghanistan has nothing to do with Bush! " This is an interesting twist: of opinion and of history. SOTY appears to support the Bush doctrine (in other articles that I have seen here) but now distances himself from Bush's activities in Afghanistan, totally ignoring the fact that the so-called leader in Afghan is a US stooge, the US bombed the place senseless, invaded it and the US runs the NATO contingent in the area that support a US puppet government.

No, DAithe, it does depend on the side taken. With the pro-Bush (let's be honest here and say "USA" because every US president has bombed and killed other people)..with the pro-USA foreign policy crowd here: US foreign policy can do no wrong.

If the US attacks a country (as i
50

Cerberus,

Hades 16/06/2008 14:26:08
Daithi
Continued

If the US attacks a country (as it has 20 or so times since wwII), that's fine with them. If Saddam attacks Kuwait, that's illegal and demands reaction.

If the US takes people off the streets of a foreign country and arrest them, that's perfectly good anti terrorism policy. If the Palestinians take an Israeli soldier off their own streets and arrests him or her, it's an outrageous terrorist act.

If the US tortures people in jail, then the clarion call is "They deserve it! They would have done bad things!" If the Iranians did that to US soldiers, it would be "Nuke 'em now!"

If the US bombs places, killing thousands, that's regarded as decent foreign policy. When someone else attacks the US, it's a "devious terrorist attack that must be punished".

That, Daithe, is hypocrisy. It's beyond left and right.

Karzai will never have the support of the majority of the people who live in what we call Afghanistan because he is a USA puppet. The people you call Taliban ("students", btw) are more "Afghan" than he is.

The Taliban are the people of Afghanistan and had done nothing wrong in terms of international law that the US hasn't done. Military training camps exist in the US. People regarded as terrorists exist (and are looked after) in the US. Contrary to SOTY's comment that the Taliban incubated the terrorists, as you, Daithe, know, it was the US that incubated the group that were the real terrorists in that much maligned and abused country. What we call the Northern Alliance (always sounds like a failed building society!) were (and are again) truly hideous; so bad that the Islamic student movement were welcomed by the masses in Afghanistan. Yes, they were awful to their own (by our standards)but when they were interested in giving Unical the pipe contract they were the toast of Wall Street and Washington. When they didn't like the deal the US offered, they were simply toast.

It's Nelson Mandela's birthday soon. He's visiting London
51

Cerberus,

Hades 16/06/2008 14:26:37
Daithi

Continued

It's Nelson Mandela's birthday soon. He's visiting London for a party near the House of Commons where, in living memory, Maggie The Psychotic referred to him as a terrorist.

If you support the freedom of the individual, then the only terrorists are the oppressors of freedom. In terms of cultural and political sub sets fighting it out in various places on Earth: the west has a very bad record in interfering and tends to be highly selective in its reactions.
52

Cerberus,

Hades 16/06/2008 14:31:25
Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!

The Taleban did ask for evidence to be given to them regarding Osama and 911. They twice offered to hand him over (first to Islmic court and then to ICC) if the US would provide some evidence. None was given. Country bombed. Thousands died. US weapon companies' share holders became richer. US tax payers lost children and the country is in a mess and the US/NATO don't even know what the war is about or even what success would actually be. More will die.

God Bless America (foreign policy!)!

Not.

53

Number 6,

Germany 16/06/2008 14:32:33
As usual Mikko , nothing tangable to add to the debate. Your not even aware what I am refering to are you ?.

As for the Israelis , how they can deal with a thing like Bush, who's family got rich on doing business with the Nazis, and war profiteering in world war one.

Your assertion thatbush "Is a hero to the western world" shows you up for what you and people like you are. A laughing stock, who will be left in Obama's slipstream come November.

No wonder McCain is advocating behind closed doors debates, down at town hall level. You know the type , no cameras please. To hell with that, McCain is a war mongerer par excellence, who speaks of the "Benefits of going to war". A madman just like the current maniac.Luckily, the vast majority of Americans are not as unbalanced as the war lovers who appear here.

Even with "Clintons women" Mr Chips has no chance.
54

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 14:34:19
Cerberus

Exactly! If only the US Apologists would look beyond their noses and what they're told . . . .
55

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 16/06/2008 14:40:45
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist but he won. History is written by the victors. The SA regime was brutal but does the end justify the means, not sure? Mandela was directly involved in attacks on civilains but is seen as a hero. I think the fundamental difference is that Western nations attempt to minimise colatteral damage whilst our opponents attempt to kill as many women, children and innocents as possible.
56

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 14:54:17
I just can't believe the liberal leftist nonsense written above. As far as I am concerned I certainly want to be on America's side and I have no problems bombing countries into the ground when they are run by despots who cut people's heads off just for disagreeing with them.

If you want your mother or sister to be made to wear a burkha and denied education and stoned to death if she commits the crime of being raped then move yourself and your family to those awful countries. Otherwise be quiet and humbly respect the rest of us who say that it is better we control them militarily so that you can write your liberal rubbish. They must never ever be allowed to control us. Goodness, I really have had it up-to-here with liberal lefty good-for-nothing numbskulls spouting anti-war banal rubbish.

You can't even get more than 200 lager filled louts on an anti-Bush rally in Whitehall so away with you and just be quiet now.
57

Cerberus,

Hades 16/06/2008 14:58:06
SOTY

Imagine the following scene-

In one room at the White House you have all the most rabid, drink addled, propagandists from Fox, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, NY Times etc. La creme de la creme of the US media's neo-con writers. The most rabid collection of right wing creative minds in the US.

They are sat around a large table, drink flowing, and have Donald Rumsfeld serving them vintage wine, Bush senior massaging their feet, McCain doing aroma therapy for them, Rice helping in more beneficial ways and the entire PNAC team licking them all over and serving up lines of cocaine.

On huge screens all around the room, there's images of US weapons, Mickey Mouse, napalmed villages and men in white robes burning crosses.

Can you picture that scene in your head?

Not even they would come up with "Afghanistan has nothing to do with Bush".
58

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 15:04:36
#57 And your point is?
59

,

16/06/2008 15:05:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 15:08:29
Actually the Muslim Religion is vastly more tolerant of other Religions/ Beliefs than Christians are. A look at Middle-Eastern history would tell you that.

And you are condemning a whole race of people on the strength of a few extremists.

If you like war so much, enlist and go and fight them yourself or are you too much of a coward to do that. Will you stand and be counted?

And you STILL haven't answered 42(25) Why? Is it because you share the intellectual qualities of Bush et al. After all you've not added any dimension to this debate, you've just rolled out the same tired old epithets that all the US apologists do.
61

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 15:09:14
Good to see that far from pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan - as the numpties in the Observer and Guardian keep demanding along with the usual saddos like Tariq Ali and Gorgeous George "the puddy cat" Galloway - we are actrually sending in more troops to give the Taleban a good hiding.

For the life of me I can't figure why we didn't follow WWII bomber Harris' example and do a lot more B52 carpet bombing and daisy cutting. It would have saved many of our troops and killed a lot more of their terrorists.
62

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 15:09:43
oh sorry 60 is for Mikko to answer
63

Number 6,

Germany 16/06/2008 15:10:40
Mikko , your showing yourself up again. LIBERAL ????
why on earth do you think people who object to these savage , illegal wars being waged by the Bush administration are Liberal. I would rather die than be known as a liberal. As for these oppresive regimes you so despise,how do you square that with the US's relationship with Saudi Arabia ?. Easyly the most oppresive regime in the region. Can you not see that you sound like a buffon when you come out with that claptrap.
64

Cerberus,

Hades 16/06/2008 15:10:56
All Politicians are the same,

You say- I think the fundamental difference is that Western nations attempt to minimise colatteral damage whilst our opponents attempt to kill as many women, children and innocents as possible.

a/Hiroshima and Nagasaki (industrialised slaughter of humanity on a scale that would have made Hitler jealous)
b/Tokyo - unbelievable levels of civilian slaughter
c/ Napalming villages in Viet Nam (and elsewhere)
d/ Sanctions against Iraq (knowingly) causing 100s of 1000s of children's deaths.
e/ USS Vinceinnes taking down an Iranian civilian plane. Hundreds dead, many women and children.
f/ Fallujah - napalm
g/ Various bombing campaigns on Afghanistan, directed at water, electricity and residential areas.
h/Same for Iraq
i/ need I go on? The list of OUR atrocities against civilians and children is way beyond anything the Arabs have done. WE do it from control centres and from bombers flying safely in the sky. Remote killing is not more moral from the viewpoint of the dead and wounded. I hope you see my point.

YOUR only opponents are the people who lie to you in order to gain your acceptance of the above carnage.
65

mike - across the pond,

guga... 16/06/2008 15:16:12
do you know ANY geography?

a pipeline thru afghanistan...

TO WHERE??

if the Afghanis go after pakistan, there will not be anywhere for the pipeline to go...

and the pipeline... it is PROPOSED... wont be completed until... 2014.... if they can keep the project online...

and it is financed by..... Asian Development Bank... not american...

where does the pipeline start... and stop

Turkmenstan... thru Afghanistan... Pakistan... to India... so "keeping it online" may be a challenge... seeing that the final 2 have a "restless peace" of late...

so what was all that blather about american interests?
66

Cerberus,

Hades 16/06/2008 15:17:17
Mikko

Point? Just trying to lend some humour to a discussion. Humour is a great way to communicate. Do you not agree? How's Drumnadrochit these days?

Guga

Yeah. It wasn't a fully thought out list.That said, give me any paper/news show from the US and I will find propaganda/historical error/issue framing and basic mamma's pumpkin pie lies within five minutes.

67

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 15:17:50
#63 & #42 Saudi Arabia is a useful ally but I'll be happy to see it go when its oil runs out. Personally I think it's been given too good a deal and we should have given a lot less for its oil.

#60 if you think that Islam is a tolerant faith then speak to the Danish cartoonists in fear of their life and Salman Rushdie. They aren't exactly bad people but because of some stupid belief system they have to live in fear of their lives.

#64 I don't care who we bomb and how hard as long as we keep our freedom and way of life. If the countries we hit want to give up and join western democratic values at anytime, they'll be welcome.
68

Newman!,

16/06/2008 15:19:15
Miko "I really have had it up-to-here with liberal lefty good-for-nothing numbskulls spouting anti-war banal rubbish."

What a truly mind numbingly dumb man. Examine yourself.
So that makes you pro-war then.
So that makes you anti-liberty.

I don't know anyone who calls themselves liberal who wants to live under taliban type government. The difference between you and us is how we deal with such threats. You advocate dropping bombs on babies and women and men who have nothing to do with this as a way to defeat terrorism. You are so simple-minded it beggars belief.
69

,

16/06/2008 15:24:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
70

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 16/06/2008 15:27:59
#64

a. lives lost in bombing of Horoshima and Nagasaki were far less tha projected casualties for an Invasion of the Japanese main island.
b. Tokyo was bombed as was London and Berlin and Dresden and Liverpool, we were all fighting a war in which unrestricted bombing was practiced by all sides.
c. The UD had the power to level Hanoi and vaporise any village but they restricted it to Napalm in an effort to target the viet cong.
d. UN supported sanctions which allowed oil to be sold for food and did not stop Iraq importing food or indeed growing their own.
e. A tragic mistake.
f. Fallujah is a myth. First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003. Napalm was not used phoshorous was used for illumination purposes.
g. I would like some examples please, all bombings runs have been targetted at insurgents. if they attempt to hide behind villages then that is a problem but minimum force is used.

Bear in mind that NATO forces have the ability to wipe out every village in Afghanisan and Iraq and you see the restraint in use. The opposition attempt to kill and maim as many as possible every time.

71

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 15:30:34
#69 Oh please.

Take a look at an atlas. The arabic countries make up 95% of that region but none of them can spare a square metre for their beloved Palestinian comrades. Disgrace.

Israel is tiny by comparison so why should they give up land? It's appalling that so-called civilised people can still criticise Israel. You want land for Palestine? Then go ask the other arabs for it but they'll tell you where to go.
72

Dáithí,

San Jose 16/06/2008 15:34:41
#30 - Tim

>"You certainly don't have my interest and must think a lot of yourself to proclaim that you "have our attention".

It's not that I think so highly of myself Tim, it's that I think so little of you - it's a matter of perspective. Surely you're not such a wee man as to be all hung up about simple grammar?

>"By the way, the word is "credible" and not "creditable".

Well, apparently you ARE.

>"I had not realised that San Jose was a world-centre of advanced political thought."

So much you don't realize, Tim.
73

mike - across the pond,

cerebrus 16/06/2008 15:36:28
are you an idiot...

know your stuff before you start waving your stupid around
falujah "white phosphorous"... not nepalm..

sanctions against iraq... wait... sanctions are the DIPLOMATIC solution... arent they?? and the "100s of thousands..." thats breathless BS... hate Saddam not the US....

Tokyo... Nagasaki, and Hiroshima... do you know ANYTHING about WW2??? or are you just going on about stuff you know NOTHING about... look up "vivisection japan china" if thats too vague... you might want to try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Research_Units

then you go ahead and tell me about how wonderful Tojo and the Japanese military structure was...

ever talk to a japanese POW camp survivor?

so you wanted to see allied beachhead landings on Japan??? as if IwoJima, Burma, and Okinawa werent bad enough...

or maybe you wanted the USSR involved???

just how STUPID are you?
74

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 16/06/2008 15:41:52


The difference between what the Nazis said about the Jews and what people today are saying about radical Muslims is...

What we're saying about radical Muslims is true.

To pretend otherwise is to perform the intellectual equivalent of hiding Nazis in your attic during World War II.

I wish I had the time to get stuck into this today as their is alot of the usual nonsense coming from appeasers and leftist appologist who feel guilty.

All I can suggest is that people on all sides of the debate read as much islamic information as possible as they do not hide the barbaric nature of their idealism.

www.jihadwatch.org www.thereligionofpeace.com
75

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 15:45:24
71

Why should they?

The Palestinians had been happily living in PALESTINE for 1000's of years before the Jews came and f**ked them off.

Why not move the Scot's over to Ireland with the rest of the Gaelic people, there's only a few of you so you can all fit there!

See the parallel?
76

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 15:46:45
Before any of you have a go, No I'm not a Unionist nor was I being serious in the previous post.

Just facetious!
77

Jock MacTamson 2,

highlands 16/06/2008 15:46:59
#69 - What would you suggest the Israeli people/governemtn do to stop the constant bombing and attacks.

do you really think if the bombing stopped the Jews would continue to fight.

Do you think that any other nation in the world has any reason to be a little overly touchy about defensive matters.

They could wipe the arabs of the face of the earch but elect not too. If the other way about the arabs would have already destroyed Israel.

Look how the UK dealt with Northern Ireland. Can you imagine us having to deal with the Arabs.
78

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 16/06/2008 15:50:43
#75 Neal!

Totally incorrect assessment of history. Here's a clue.

the Jews have lived their since the time of Moses. The arabs forcibily took over during the expansion fo Islam less than 800 years ago.

So following your logic the Jews are the original and rightfull owners of that area and the arabs are the conquerers who have been send home to think again except all their mates do not want them.
79

mike - across the pond,

ah number 6.... 16/06/2008 15:52:14
saudis are the most repressive regime in the region?

really?

hmmm explain this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdullah_University

can you explain to me why this university will embrace "western" norms (allowing women to drive, not wear berkas, etc) if the regime is SO oppressive? why the university presidnet is NOT SAUDI?

it has the 3rd largest university endowment IN THE WORLD...

guess that doesnt fit into your propaganda laden view of the world... now does it...
80

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 15:52:20
#74 Well said Jock.

A few years ago - when Salman Rushdie's book "The Satanic Verses" had just been published, I was in a second class rail sleeper compartment to London. I shared with a Muslim fellow who seemed reasonable enough. We went to the restaurant car and I had a beer, he had a soft drink and we had a chat like fellow travellers do.

But then the subject of Salman's book came up and he changed from a pleasant enough business man into a ranting lout swearing that it was his duty and that of every other Muslim to kill (yes "KILL") Salman Rushdie for the terrible things he had written.

I only returned to my sleeper compartment to collect my things and demanded the guard move me to another compartment. There is nothing peaceful or fair in Islam that I can see.
81

Newman!,

16/06/2008 15:55:06
I suggest all you neo-cons try reading Robert Fisk on the middle east. Even have a look at his documentary, made a few years ago now but still incredibly relevant.
http://www.freedocumentaries.org/index.php?ct=36

82

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

16/06/2008 15:58:42
80

Hmmm, like the Christians KILLED 1000's of Arabs in the Crusades and 1000's of Europeans in the Inquisition because they wouldn't bow to Christian Doctrine?
83

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/06/2008 16:01:54
#82 what has that got to do with Salman Rushdie's quiet writings?