Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Taliban to U.S.A.: please don't attack us   (cnn.com) divider line 189
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

6741 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2001 at 12:00 AM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2001-09-13 12:04:13 AM  
"The Taliban appealed to the U.S. not to attack Afghanistan because the Afghan people are already in a great deal of misery."

Ummm... at least they're not DEAD, like our people.

I say we wreak havoc and destruction on the farkers.
 
2001-09-13 12:07:13 AM  
From the NYT: http://www.nyt.com/2001/09/13/international/asia/13AFGH.html
 
2001-09-13 12:09:24 AM  
What makes me sick is that they are allowing bin Laden to hide out in Afghanistan, claiming that we must produce evidence before they will consider extradition. I say we mobilize a couple of destroyers and aircraft carriers around their shiatty little country. We won't even have to attack. They'll be shiatting in their pants so quickly that they'll realize turning bin Laden over is the smart thing to do.
 
2001-09-13 12:10:26 AM  
Hmmm... if they turn over ben Laden and all the members of his organization I say we leave them be. But they are going to need to make the first move here and make sure that justice is done.
 
2001-09-13 12:11:03 AM  
Okay, let's please think about this before reacting. Do we really want to lower ourselves to their level?
 
2001-09-13 12:12:09 AM  
this is not good....they actually have a resonable and understanding point....

...then again they should understand this is a witch hunt. Hand him over, no questions asked.
 
2001-09-13 12:12:45 AM  
They don't have a 'level'. They are desperately poor peasants. They don't have the first clue what the hell is going on. Read the NYT article. The people of Afghanastan certainly don't deserve to die.
 
2001-09-13 12:12:50 AM  
You know, the thing is, regardless of whether or not Ben Laden is responsible for this particular act of terrorism, we still need to slap their biatch asses around for having harbored him in the first place. Because its not like we dont have evidense of the OTHER crap he's pulled.
 
2001-09-13 12:14:07 AM  
MysticJackal, lowering ourselves to their level would require us to fly an airplane full of fuel into a crowd of about 10,000 innocent civilians. I don't think we're considering doing that. Anything we do to the will be far more humane than they have done to us.
 
2001-09-13 12:19:00 AM  
I meant let's not just go over there and kill people for the sole purpose of revenge. That doesn't solve anything.
 
2001-09-13 12:19:49 AM  
Epsilon:

Dropping a number of cluster bombs on a city fired from an F-117 is just about equivalent to it.
 
2001-09-13 12:22:37 AM  
Ted Koppel just repeated the 'house arrest' report. Said it was unconfirmed.
 
|
2001-09-13 12:24:36 AM  
because some spokesman makes a plea in an NYT article some of you suddenly have feelings of sympathy?

hmmm, if they're so poor then maybe they shouldn't have been spending their money TRAINING PILOTS TO FLY PLANES INTO THE farkING WORLD TRADE CENTER!

I don't think that it's important who is responsible. What is important is that the United States and its allies strike ALL countries that are sympathetic to terrorists. We need to send a message that terrorism will NOT be tolerated. That if you are suspected of harboring terrorists, then you will be retaliated upon.

All of you who cry out that killing innocent Afghans is immoral are wrong. It will save lives.
 
2001-09-13 12:26:36 AM  
EPSILON:

Sending destroyers and Aircraft carriers to Afghanistan might not be so effective, seeing thats its a land-locked country. Not a slam to you, but just some info.
 
43%
2001-09-13 12:28:28 AM  
They should have thought about that the first 3 times bin asshole attacked and they just sat by and hid him. Fark them.
 
2001-09-13 12:28:28 AM  
As I said on another thread, we need to start by blowing up all of the religious sites they've been fighting over all this time. The temple mound is it? A rock Jebus sat on for a minute back in the day? Turn it into a smouldering crater.

That'll hurt these fanatics worse than killing their people.
 
2001-09-13 12:28:52 AM  
"The Taliban appealed to the U.S. not to attack Afghanistan because the Afghan people are already in a great deal of misery."

so.. the Taliban admits that they have messed up their country?

anyways.. we can't station warships around Afghanistan for one reason.. it's land-locked.

We can parter up with the Russians and talk to the rebels of the North Alliance. If the Rebels get bin Laden to us, they can get some support.
 
2001-09-13 12:30:11 AM  
If we went to war, our objective would not be to kill civilians (that is never our objective). It would be to capture bin Laden, and to punish Afghanistan until they turn him over. "Punish" does not mean intentionally killing people, although civilian casualties will occur in any large military offensive. I'm just saying that they won't be intentionally targeted, because we don't do that.
 
2001-09-13 12:31:14 AM  
What about an embargo?
 
2001-09-13 12:32:27 AM  
SmokinJoe: Thanks for noting that. I should have pointed out that our missles would need to fly over Pakistan - shouldn't be a problem.
 
2001-09-13 12:33:09 AM  
I do agree that some solid evidence would be nice before attack folks willy nilly. At least make any attack justified with fact. It's a lot more credible that way.
 
2001-09-13 12:33:19 AM  
This is a great line of reasoning:

"Osama bin Laden could not be responsible," he said. "This type of terrorism is too great for one man."

Please.

I'm not in favor of just bombing the crap outta the country, but at the same time, I can't see myself feeling too sympathetic were it to happen. At any rate, if the Taliban has any brains they will fully co-operate with the US.
 
2001-09-13 12:35:20 AM  
to clear some things up here:
first, yes, our destroyers could strike afghanistan, land-locked or not. take a look at a map. ships in the persian gulf easily rained missles on Baghdad, Iraq in the Gulf war.

Second, robbie, or CC, or whoever you are today- the Taliban didn't mess up their country, Russia did, and the US had a lot to do with it too. (as we trained bin laden in terrorist techniques)

dont get me wrong, though. i say we flatten the farkers.
 
2001-09-13 12:35:23 AM  
Damn straight!

You people need to wake up. The Taliban realized that they absolutely farked themselves in the ass with this one (harboring Bin Laden), and now are trying their hardest not get themselves wiped out.

Come on, it's a publicity stunt. Haven't you seen the government officials' reactions to this? I believe "lies, lies, lies" has been a common statement.

Take care to minimize civilian casualties? Fine. But extermination of the Taliban regime is a necessity. And civilians will end up dying, even if we attempt to minimize those casualties. That's what WAR is, too farking bad.

And to those people who feel so sorry for the Afghans because "violence begets violence" or whatever...how many terrorist attacks do we need before you do care? How many Americans need to die before retaliation is acceptable? Why don't we check back with you after someone in YOUR family is killed?
 
2001-09-13 12:41:02 AM  
Posted by Buckshot: You people need to wake up. The Taliban realized that they absolutely farked themselves in the ass with this one (harboring Bin Laden), and now are trying their hardest not get themselves wiped out.

I agree, but the way to avoid getting wiped out is to turn this farker over to us immediately - yet they continue to harbor him and claim he is innocent. Why? Are they stupid? Can they not see that they are setting themselves up for a huge kick in the ass that will take them decades to recover from? Somebody explain their logic, please!
 
2001-09-13 12:46:59 AM  
Epsilon: Exactly. It's insane. First thing, we need to restore some sanity. This may be war, but it's a different kind of war than we've ever seen. We have to move carefully.
 
2001-09-13 12:47:09 AM  
probably the worst thing we can do is buddy up with all the countries next to afghanistan and put peer pressure on them. pretty soon they will run out of supplies (food,gasoline), and their people will start fleeing into other countries. create a no-fly zone, and shoot everything down that crosses the line. be totally unmerciful. this will allow the US and allies to save face, without directly hurting anyone. the biggest reason these people are trying to pick fights with us is because their leader waged a "holy war" against the US. the only logical way to beat something like that without creating a fireball is to issue sanctions against them, and ostracize them from the rest of the world. they certainly are not a self-sufficient country, and most of their neighbors are tired of their biatching. it's something like this that can bring the world together against a common enemy. This will not be another world war, because 95% of the world is on the same side.



on another note, you can bet there are more attacks like this that will take place. just when and where are the problems. if you are on a plane and someone is starting to take it over, be militant, and beat them down before they become powerful. most of the problem in hijacking is the pilots were taught to follow the demands of the hijackers. this is old-world teachings, that made sense when the hijackers had guns. now they only have knives. with 3-5 hijackers on a plane with even 30 people, there should be no problem taking them down. small organized groups are best.

but that's just my opinion. from the outside, i wouldn't let them take over the plane, but if i was in it, i probably would have been a pussy and been crying in the back of the plane.
 
2001-09-13 12:48:08 AM  
map of Afghanistan... note all the lovely beaches. :)
 
2001-09-13 12:49:03 AM  
damnit..



i meant it was the best thing we can do (to buddy up with neighboring countries)
 
2001-09-13 12:49:26 AM  
If you could explain the logic of the terrorist attacks and fundamentalists in general, I'd be most impressed, Epsilon.

That's the problem, there is no logic. You cannot reason with these people. They understand nothing but violence. Until know, they did not think we'd ever really respond -- considering we really haven't before, other then a few cruise missles here and there.

And now they realize we're pissed enough to glass their entire damn country, and the bastards are scared. Let Bin Laden beg for his life, and then put the bullet right between his eyes.
 
2001-09-13 12:49:45 AM  
Guilty by association. Sorry.
 
2001-09-13 12:51:12 AM  
Cheeze: I know that starving the populace always seems like such a good idea, but it takes so gawddam long... and the international community tends to get tired of it and feel pity for the country (see what happens w/Iraq... we are holding back on them and people are blaming us for what they started now)
 
2001-09-13 12:51:20 AM  
Um... wasn't Bin Laden a freedom fighter when the CIA trained him and the Afghanis, armed them and sent them off to fight the Red Army for them? I believe Afghanistan is the only country that the USSR was repelled from (feel free to refute it, if you are better informed than I am) because of the sheer tenacity of these people - it was the Soviets' Vietnam, in many ways. Kind of hypocritical when he turns our own expertise against us and we label him a terrorist, but I suppose it's his fault for having crossed the United States.

More fuel for the anti-Muslim sentiment.. any excuse for the media to whip up another lynch mob.
 
2001-09-13 12:53:42 AM  
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1637987362

Check out this link to ebay. I am a newby here, and don't know how to post this to be considered as a comment news item. Perhaps one of you can.

Batcar01
 
2001-09-13 12:54:58 AM  
News Flash Afghanistan is moving their president into hiding (anticipating US strikes) and moving their military equipment about (no reasoning offered here) FoxNews
 
2001-09-13 12:55:14 AM  
Batcar: Click on "Submit a Link" at the top of the page.
 
2001-09-13 12:57:55 AM  
here is the relevant content of the link provided by Batcar01

(the content was the description part of the auction: content follows)


This is not for sale, as it is priceless. It is just to be shared. Published Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Miami Herald We'll go forward from this moment It's my job to have something to say. They pay me to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American soul. But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering. You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard. What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever it was, please know that you failed. Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause. Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve. Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together. Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, social, political and class division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae -- a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse. We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though -- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God. Some people -- you, perhaps -- think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by arsenals. IN PAIN Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy novel. Both in terms of the awful scope of their ambition and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the United States and, probably, the history of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before. But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice. I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the future. In the days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined. THE STEEL IN US You see, the steel in us is not always readily apparent. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people who don't know us well. On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish. So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what you just started. But you're about to learn.
 
2001-09-13 01:01:49 AM  
Those bastards really did look miserable when they were dancing in the streets and handing out candy on tuesday. Stop being so sympathetic everyone, bomb them until their crappy little country is no more. They are not going to stop, this was a major victory for them. I'm sure the feel like they just won the world cup or something. Fark em all.
 
2001-09-13 01:02:41 AM  
Stebain: yeah, starving the people isn't really a good option, but if the Taliban refuses to turn him and his crew over, that's probably the best option. from what i understand, we give nothing to afghanistan anyways. rallying the other countries to stop giving them guns/food/petrol should quickly bring them to their knees.

if you notice, pakistan was very quick to be on our side. this is really important seeing how they are inbetween afghanistan and our closest battleship. gaining allies with all of the neighboring countries is a high tactical move, and not allowing planes to fly in or out of afghanistan would trap bin laden. what happens when he's on the run? where will he go? no one knows, and that's a really big problem.
 
2001-09-13 01:03:14 AM  
I have been away from fark for the past few days, and I hope I am not beating a dead horse (or retarded kid for that matter) but the us Americans (and the rest of the world for that matter) need to snuggle up in bed with a loved one and turn off the TV and just forget for a few moments, just be, as you quietly notice how everything but the essential human connections is instantly drained of all relevance and weight, it just falls away, rent and work hassles and stress and your in-laws coming to visit, all light and easy, and you're glad for what you have and where you are and that you can grieve and feel and care.

Or maybe it's as simple as stepping outside into the daylight to look around and take it all in, really look at the trees and the houses and the people and reassure yourself it's all still there and still functional and the world is still spinning, more or less, though sadly hobbled, somehow that much more ethereal and strange, that much more fragile than before.

Courtesy of Mark Morford
 
2001-09-13 01:03:46 AM  
Posted by Stebain: map of Afghanistan... note all the lovely beaches. :)

The sarcasm is noted, but we've already discussed the fact that our war ships would have no problem striking any square inch of their country. Sure, we can't float right up next to them, but believe me, that's not an issue.
 
2001-09-13 01:03:54 AM  
In my opinoin, sanctions are worse than bombings. The people that suffer are not the people that you want to punish (more people were killed in Iraq due to the sanctions than during the conflict itself); sanctions are far more "violent" than any other option.

I think the answer is hitmen or mercenaries. Take out the decision-makers in the terrorist organizations and in the governments that support them --then you get the people responsible

Anyway, just my $0.02.
 
2001-09-13 01:04:37 AM  
Ah... Cheeze.. I agree that striking the country may not be the best immediate option.

I was, honestly, surprised to see pakistan, cuba, and the like coming to our side so quickly. I saw the interview w/Arafat and I thought he would cry.
 
2001-09-13 01:06:26 AM  
I more agree w/ The_Wise_One In Iraq, the only people starving are those who aren't in power. We keep waiting for them to tire of it and overthrow him, but it isn't working.
 
2001-09-13 01:07:22 AM  
stebain: did you see Arafat giving blood? not that blood from overseas will ever make it to blood banks over here, especially since we probably won't see any international flights anytime soon.
 
2001-09-13 01:08:14 AM  
Problem w./ land war in Afghanistan: Alexander the Great ran throug quick as he could, the British couldn't control them in the 19th century, and the Soviets couldn't do it. We might have trouble with a land war.
 
2001-09-13 01:09:16 AM  
yeah. there is a piccie w/a link posted yesterday(9/12)
He got a lot of ribbing over his high-pants. he loved it.
 
2001-09-13 01:09:53 AM  
we ally ourselves with the surrounding nations, blow anything in the sky to bits, trap him in. Cut off all trade and supplies, then let them know if they want $5 million, and to be able to eat, all they have to do is give ladin to us.

I like the idea of forcing them to give him to us, but i prefer the idea that they give us no choice but to bomb him out.
 
2001-09-13 01:11:26 AM  
Corporate Mofothey also have a serious advantage, very difficult terrain (wow, a board game term: Third Reich? Squad Leader?) and they have fought at least two wars and MANY training years on this area. We would be tested better than Iraq, imho.
 
43%
2001-09-13 01:12:40 AM  
CorpMofo:
I disagree with the US having trouble with afgan.

Those soviet troops, in retrospect being perhaps less powerful overall than the US army, had no emotional imperative to victory. The Afgan war was a land grab, not really motivational for a soldier. I think it may not be easy, but it is ultimately winnable in a time frame measured in months. Just my opinion though.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report