|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
On Jun 26, 8:41*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
And BTW...when exactly did the war on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan mutate into the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan? I don't seem to remember any Taliban being involved in 9/11. Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan. The Taliban were governing Afghanistan. The government of Afghanistan denied the request from the United States to extradite Osama bin Laden. They did offer, however, to subject Osama bin Laden to an "Islamic trial". Some might say that in the absence of an extradition treaty, strict and absolute respect for the sovereignity of other nations meant that G. W. Bush should have accepted this offer. Instead, he took that offer to be a farce, and treated Afghanistan's noncompliance with his request as complicity, at least complicity after the fact. I do not think he was mistaken in this. This also answers the claim of George Soros that G. W. Bush made the mistaken choice of treating September 11, 2001 as a military matter rather than a police matter. The government of Afghanistan really made that choice when it placed itself between Osama bin Laden and his apprehension. John Savard |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:41 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: And BTW...when exactly did the war on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan mutate into the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan? I don't seem to remember any Taliban being involved in 9/11. Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan. The Taliban were governing Afghanistan. The government of Afghanistan denied the request from the United States to extradite Osama bin Laden. They did no such thing. When the US asked for Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban asked for proof of his involvement. The US replied that such proof was classified and that they would not give it to the Taliban. By the time that proof of the guilt of OBL was easily available, the Taliban were no longer ruling Afghanistan. They did offer, however, to subject Osama bin Laden to an "Islamic trial". Some might say that in the absence of an extradition treaty, strict and absolute respect for the sovereignity of other nations meant that G. W. Bush should have accepted this offer. Instead, he took that offer to be a farce, and treated Afghanistan's noncompliance with his request as complicity, at least complicity after the fact. I do not think he was mistaken in this. This also answers the claim of George Soros that G. W. Bush made the mistaken choice of treating September 11, 2001 as a military matter rather than a police matter. The government of Afghanistan really made that choice when it placed itself between Osama bin Laden and his apprehension. I think that it would have been better if the US had followed normal rules of natural justice and given evidence of the guilt of OBL to the Taliban before invading. That would have made it a little harder for Al Qaeda to recruit followers. But much worse in that respect was to invade Iraq, that made it easy for Al Qaeda to say that the US was in a war against Islam. The fact that this is not so is not what matters here, it is the fact the Al Qaeda recruiters can play that card with success. Alain Fournier |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
On Jun 27, 3:31*pm, Alain Fournier wrote:
They did no such thing. When the US asked for Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban asked for proof of his involvement. Yes. The Taliban did not do *precisely as they were told*. If Afghanistan at the time were a nation with strong democratic institutions similar to those of the United States, or Canada, or France, one could indeed regard the U.S. actions as highly questionable. Also, the main proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the events of September 11, 2001 that I recall as subsequently becoming available was *his own admission* thereof. Something that doesn't involve any sources and methods stuff from U.S. intelligence agencies, but something unlikely to be forthcoming under _those_ circumstances. John Savard |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 27, 3:31 pm, Alain Fournier wrote: They did no such thing. When the US asked for Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban asked for proof of his involvement. Yes. The Taliban did not do *precisely as they were told*. Nothing in international law says that they had to do what the US tells them to do. The Taliban had many faults, you should blame them for their faults not for "not doing precisely as they were told". Canada doesn't do precisely what the US tells them to do. I hope we will not be invaded for that. If Afghanistan at the time were a nation with strong democratic institutions similar to those of the United States, or Canada, or France, one could indeed regard the U.S. actions as highly questionable. They weren't highly questionable. They just didn't follow the appropriate procedures therefore giving Al Qaeda munitions for their recruitment. Also, the main proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the events of September 11, 2001 that I recall as subsequently becoming available was *his own admission* thereof. Something that doesn't involve any sources and methods stuff from U.S. intelligence agencies, but something unlikely to be forthcoming under _those_ circumstances. Yes. But by then the US had already invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban, when they held power in Afghanistan could not use that future admission as a justification to arrest OBL. And this is not just playing with words here. OBL had an army about as powerful as that of the Taliban, the Taliban would probably had lost its hold on the country had they tried to capture OBL, you couldn't expect them to do so without evidence of guilt. Of course the Taliban was nothing like a good regime, but the problem with the Taliban was not that they refused to arrest people without evidence of guilt, au contraire. So if you go to war against them do not use that as a reason to go to war against them, it doesn't help. Alain Fournier |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
On 6/27/2010 7:28 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
Nothing in international law says that they had to do what the US tells them to do. The Taliban had many faults, you should blame them for their faults not for "not doing precisely as they were told". Canada doesn't do precisely what the US tells them to do. I hope we will not be invaded for that. I still like the concept that the Taliban could figure out where bin-Laden was and deliver him up to justice, considering our lack of success in doing that during the last decade... Pat |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
On Jun 28, 3:27*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
I still like the concept that the Taliban could figure out where bin-Laden was and deliver him up to justice, considering our lack of success in doing that during the last decade... They could have looked him up in the *phone book*. Or perhaps detained him on the way out of a cabinet meeting. He went into hiding *because* Afghanistan was invaded; al-Qaeda and the Taliban had a working relationship, or at least that is what the U.S. government believed and the way the news media presented the matter at the time. John Savard |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
On Jun 27, 9:28*pm, Alain Fournier wrote:
Nothing in international law says that they had to do what the US tells them to do. I am concerned about the fact that the laws of the State of New York and of the United States of America prohibit hijacking airplanes and flying them into occupied buildings, killing thousands of people. Because murder is wrong. It's a violation of eternal moral law. International law is merely a pact of convenience between human governments for the practical purpose of avoiding friction that might lead to war. No country was going to go to war against the United States because it invaded Afghanistan, so I really see no reason to care enough about this "international law" to set it above the real eternal law that murder is wrong. John Savard |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
On 6/28/2010 3:10 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
He went into hiding *because* Afghanistan was invaded; al-Qaeda and the Taliban had a working relationship, or at least that is what the U.S. government believed and the way the news media presented the matter at the time. Yeah, well after the uranium from Niger, we all know just how reliable what the US government knew and the news media reported was. Besides, it would have been hard for the Taliban to assault his Secret Mountain Fortress to capture him: http://edwardjayepstein.com/2002image/netherpopup.gif Despite the lack of handrails on the stairs, this was some piece of work, ranking up there with SPECTRE's rocket launching base inside of that Japanese volcano. ....and you just know that wherever bin Laden is today, he has a white cat sitting on his lap. A cat that hates America and all that America stands for. Pat |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
On 6/28/2010 3:15 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
No country was going to go to war against the United States because it invaded Afghanistan, so I really see no reason to care enough about this "international law" to set it above the real eternal law that murder is wrong. Well, Al-Qaeda killed 3,000 of our people; I wonder how many people we've killed in total in revenge? Opinions vary widely, but whatever the real number is, it dwarfs the casualty figures on 9/11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War Pat |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:28 pm, Alain Fournier wrote: Nothing in international law says that they had to do what the US tells them to do. I am concerned about the fact that the laws of the State of New York and of the United States of America prohibit hijacking airplanes and flying them into occupied buildings, killing thousands of people. I have news for you. If you follow the laws of the State of New York and the United States of America, the Taliban didn't have a reason to hand over OBL to the US at the time they were governing Afghanistan. Remember, the US told them to hand over OBL because they had evidence of the implication of OBL in the events of September 11th, 2001 but the US refused to show that evidence to the Taliban, it was top secret stuff. Do you think that a judge in New York would issue an arrest warrant on someone without seeing any evidence because the evidence is secret? So again, yes OBL and his cronies deserves punishment but the Taliban could not rightfully do it without having facts. Again, the Taliban had many serious faults, but asking for evidence before administering punishment is not one of their faults, it more the other way around, their fault (at leat one of them) was to punish without evidence of guilt. So why complain about the one time that they decided to ask for evidence before giving punishment? It is the right thing to do. Because murder is wrong. It's a violation of eternal moral law. But you still need to have evidence to punish those accused of murder or any violation of eternal moral law. International law is merely a pact of convenience between human governments for the practical purpose of avoiding friction that might lead to war. So you propose ditching that and going directly to war? No country was going to go to war against the United States because it invaded Afghanistan, so I really see no reason to care enough about this "international law" to set it above the real eternal law that murder is wrong. This war is the longest war in the history of the US. There might be a reason for this. If the process would seem fair to the people of Afghanistan, if it was only we punish OBL for what he did to us, there would be less resistance. But you said a little higher up in the thread "Yes. The Taliban did not do *precisely as they were told*." That seems to be widely viewed as a sufficient justification for going to war with Muslim countries, and that does not seem fair to Afghanis. Afghanistan doesn't do what they are told, bomb them, Iraq doesn't do what they are told, bomb them. People tend to fight back in that kind of situation. That is how you get the longest war in US history, it is not because the Afghanis are more formidable fighters than past US foes. Alain Fournier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Will Replace The Shuttle? | John Slade | Space Shuttle | 79 | September 6th 07 02:02 AM |
HOW TO REPLACE OIL? This is the question. | Saul Levy | Misc | 19 | September 28th 05 06:04 PM |
What would we need to largely replace the Shuttle? | Dholmes | Policy | 38 | October 6th 03 08:02 PM |