- Reaction score
- 1,638
- Points
- 1,140
Maybe we should as well. Our Ambassador can be Monsef.They want legitimacy. Having the US embassy there gives them that’s.
Maybe we should as well. Our Ambassador can be Monsef.They want legitimacy. Having the US embassy there gives them that’s.
So we left 5 days earlier than the 31st? If we are only flying 2 C-17's a day in/out of Kabul, then our presence on the ground was likely never bigger than 2 full plane loads of C-17's available seatbelts, 188X2. If it was that small, then why the rush to get out 5 days early? From where I'm sitting and based on the limited information available, this looks bad. I find it hard to believe that if we stay another 3 days that we couldn't have gotten more of our people out.
(Unless it is at the US’s request as they prepare to end operations & depart Tuesday, and need the runway & taxi ways for their own aircraft. That I can understand and makes sense, as there is only one runway. They do have 6000+ military on the ground after all.)
So about Monsef.Maybe we should as well. Our Ambassador can be Monsef.
Agreed, cause let's be honest do you really think the taliban care what a woman in Canada has to say? They do not care about what a woman in the same house of them says. Given the tweet was for the domestic audience, the choice of words was poor.So about Monsef.
I don't think for a second she wants to friends with the Taliban. LPC detractors will chew on that bone as predicted.
I have no reason to doubt that she was attempting to use cultural language. (there is debate about that though)
But, a few things strike me as tone deaf about it.
1. Context is everything and perception. In this context with what is going on, even if culturally it fits (again debatable but I'm not enough of an expert to agree or disagree) it was stupid. That tweet was more for a domestic audience than for the Taliban.
2. Why would anyone think that an Afgan ex pat woman who is in a position of power in a country that was at war with the Taliban, would be able to convene a message to the Taliban that would be well received? Seems to me that it would just add oil to the fire or at the very least be dismissed outright. As I said in point 1, I think this was for a domestic audience which again leads to the question of how this message was crafted and who actually vetted it.
Its the phase 'our brothers in the Taliban' vs 'my brothers in the Taliban' that is giving me the shudders. The use of 'our' denotes that all Canadians (since a current Cabinet Minister in the Federal Government represents ALL Canadians) are calling them 'brothers'. If she is using it in a 'cultural' aspect, again it should be the word 'my', not 'our' because though she is a Muslim she shouldn't be assuming that ALL Muslims would agree that its a cultural phase or would want to be associated with a bunch of 7th century living individuals.Agreed, cause let's be honest do you really think the taliban care what a woman in Canada has to say? They do not care about what a woman in the same house of them says. Given the tweet was for the domestic audience, the choice of words was poor.
nowhere in Canada have I ever heard
and a form of hostages that you don't have to feedThey want legitimacy. Having the US embassy there gives them that’s.
Hard to say, but the Dutch, Danes, Poles and Belgians have all had their last flights out, and the French will be done by tomorrow.I wonder if we were just getting in the way in Kabul. Why such a large discrepancy between Canadian flights and between what we were taking versus the US on the C17's. I thought I read that we were not capable of in flight refueling and that was a limiting factor but next thing you know we can handle 500?
Other than a 60% weight-loss, something else entered the calculus…hint: not aircraft performance, nor aircrew willingness to ‘load em up!’I wonder if we were just getting in the way in Kabul. Why such a large discrepancy between Canadian flights and between what we were taking versus the US on the C17's. I thought I read that we were not capable of in flight refueling and that was a limiting factor but next thing you know we can handle 500?
any thoughts of the US taking with them each and every airworthy helo still on the tarmac at Kabul and anything else of military value, or will they just blow them all up in place?Hard to say, but the Dutch, Danes, Poles and Belgians have all had their last flights out, and the French will be done by tomorrow.
Seems like everyone is clearing out to leave room for the Americans to get all their troops out.
Boom.any thoughts of the US taking with them each and every airworthy helo still on the tarmac at Kabul and anything else of military value, or will they just blow them all up in place?
I sure as hell hope it wasn't available seatbelts.Other than a 60% weight-loss, something else entered the calculus…hint: not aircraft performance, nor aircrew willingness to ‘load em up!’