Well if you remember they were shooting at us daily and there was the WMD issue and they are in an area that is vital to our economy and therefore national security. Add to that 9/11 and the fact that the UN showed no sign of ever dealing with Iraq despite numerous unfulfilled resolution – no inspectors etc. So it is not entirely unreasonable to see Iraq as a threat After Gulf War I his hatred for the US is well established and the notion that he would never give AQ WMD is IMO ludicrous. He may not have loved AQ but he certainly would not be against using them to hurt the US if he could.





If you remember we did not just declare war on the Taliban. We demanded they give up AQ and Bin Laden and they refused. In fact they maintained they would defend him

“The millionaire Saudi-born dissident has been living in Afghanistan since 1996 as a "guest" of the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist militia that controls most of the country. The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an "insult to Islam."
The Taliban envoy added that his government was ready if necessary to defend the country against American attack. "If they want to show their might, we are ready and we will never surrender before might and force," he said. "According to Islam, the blood of anyone who spies for the enemy or sympathizes with it in time of war must be shed."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf...afghan.taliban/

entspeak

Imminent has a meaning. It means something which is about to happen. I'd like to know, what was about to happen that makes Afghanistan different from Iraq?
Simply holding onto Bin Laden does not constitute an 'imminent threat'.


Well now we're splitting hairs I think. Prior to 9/11, the Taliban were only considered the legitimate government of Afghanistan by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and of these only Pakistan continued to regard the Taliban as such after 9/11. By the reasoning put forth by the USA the Taliban was under no obligatin to hand over Osama Bin Laden simply because of an investigation conducted by the FBI, not least because prior to the invasion of Afghanistan there was no hard evidence (and there still isn't any) that Bin Laden and al qaeda were actually responsible for the attacks.

The word proxy fits in my estimation because the Taliban paid for what al qaeda did. Scapegoat would be another fitting description.

My point however is not to argue for leniency with regards to the Taliban. They are murdering scum who got what they deserved as far as I am concerned. My point is that the case for actually invading Afghanistan is not all that different from the case for invading Iraq. The only difference is Bin Laden, and as I just pointed out, there is still no hard evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Back in 2001 and 2002, there was not even consensus that Bin Laden was responsible.

And if were are to be brutally honest then we must also consider that the Taliban were actually willing to hand over Bin Laden to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal, but this offer was discarded by the USA in favour of military action... a course of action which to date has not produced Osama Bin Laden in a court room.

When all is said and considered, the case for invading Afghanistan was not based on anything other than a desire for American revenge and that revenge was turned on the Taliban who were found guilty only of association with a suspect. GW Bush later abused the sense of moral outrage to justify attacking Iraq, but that does n't change the fact that neither attack was based on any 'imminent' threat.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ted.

Yes, but 'you' offered no evidence of his guilt. You merely issued a demand. If the Taliban (who were not recognized as a legitimate government by the USA) had demanded the USA hand over some they considered guilty of a crime, do you suppose the USA would simply have done so?
No matter what the Taliban claimed that person had done, the USA would have refused and rightly so.


edited to clarify a point

The proof was there but do you really think the Taliban were about to turn over Bin Laden for any reason. Why on earth would they believe anything we said or showed them? And we do deport people guilty of crimes to other countries every day. Remember Bin laden was an ally and not a citizen.

IMO if we had the slightest belief we could have had him turned over we would have provided proof. But remember it was his “organization” and not Bin Laden personally who performed the attack – and if you remember proof was all over the news including a tape of BL gloating over the fall of the towers saying they had not expected them to drop – but were delighted they did. Remember?

http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/PolyCy/pswtc.html

Ted.

Proof, like beauty, is relative to the beholder. I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about evidence. The sort of evidence by which one is convicted, or by which one is extradited. The USA does not extradite people simply because some one asks them too and cannot expect any one else to do so either, no matter who they are or how outlandish their laws are.


Indeed I do but I am informed that Osama Bin Laden did not relese that video tape until after Afghanistan had been invaded, thus his admission cannot be used as justification for the decision to invade or 'proof' of anything beyond his willingness to accept responsibility. Also, Bin Ladens video admissions do not even qualify as evidence of anything at all for he could be lying in order to take advantage of his situation.

And none of this matters much at all any way because there is still no justification for invading Afghanistan on the principle of 'imminent threat' as Entspeak claimed and that is what is at contention here. Its not the validity of the invasion of Afghanistan I'm questioning, its whether or not Afghanistan is some how a more justifiable invasion than Iraq because of the connection between Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. It isn't. Just as there was no evidence of any 'imminent threat' to the USA from Iraq, so neither was there any 'imminent threat' from Afghanistan. The Taliban, like Saddam Hussein later on, got what they deserved, but it wasn't because they were about to attack the USA. It was because they were an enemy whose removal became desirable.


I'd also like to make the point that when speaking of the relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda then there is no difference between Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as an organization. The Taliban dealt primarily with Osama Bin Laden and not Al Qaeda and this relationship was sealed by the marriage of one of Osama Bin Laden's sons to a daughter of the Taliban leader Mullah Omar. As always with the people of the Middle East, the family and tribal element is uppermost in their internal political structures and cannot be dismissed.

Moif,

If a group of terrorists attacks the US, I would say that, immediately following that attack, the US is under imminent threat of further attack. As the government of Afghanistan - recognized or no - was giving tacit support for said group of terrorists by allowing them to operate freely in their country immediately following the attack, Afghanistan - through it's actions - posed an imminent threat to to the US.

And, for clarification, the Taliban did not offer to give up Osama bin Laden for trial in an international tribunal, they offered to try him in Afghanistan under Islamic Law.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same. The attack on Al Quad in Afghanistan and the Taliban that defended them was retaliation for the murder of 3,000 civilians. We need no “imminent threat” to do that.

As I have said I would have waited on Iraq until the UN clearly showed its hand as a do nothing organization. And as far as ‘imminent threat” Iraq had WMD (and had used same) that could be passed to AQ or others, and were situated amidst ½ the world oil supply. To say the region is strategically important to the US is an understatement.

Entspeak.

Very well, but I have to say that this seems to be a very subjective position because it allows any nation to determine when it has been attacked and by whom. By this argument any war can be justified by the most trivial of means. The war in Iraq could be equally justified by the attacks carried out by Saddam Hussein's AA batteries or the attempted assassination of GWH Bush.

There is also the question of scale. Does a terrorist attack that leaves a few thousand dead really justify the invasion of an entire nation that had no part in that attack? As a point of comparison consider this. When the first troops began to gather for the initial attack on Afghanistan there was a debate in Denmark because it was noted here that Afghanistan was being attacked for taking a position that Denmark would have been forced to also take. It was pointed out that if Bin Laden suddenly appeared in Denmark, our laws would protect him for it is not permitted for any one to be extradited from Denmark to a country where they face the possibility of execution. In other words, if Al Qaeda had been using Denmark as a platform from whence to launch 'operations' (and a few Palestinians groups have done this in the past against Israel) then by your argument regarding an 'imminent threat' the USA would have been justified in invading Denmark.

And it gets even more complicated. Do you know who Nizar al-Khazraji is? In the build up to the Iraq invasion, General al-Khazraji was about to go on trial here in Denmark for his participation in the Halabjah gassings. He was helped to escape from Denmark by the CIA who thought he might be useful in Iraq. In other words, here is a man, like Bin Laden, who murdered a few thousand people, but unlike Bin Laden was about to face a trial. In Denmark such a man would face a fair trial and be convicted on the evidence presented. Bin Laden would face the same.

There is a strange duplicity involved when Afghanistan is considered justified by the anti Iraq crowd because of the the World Trade Centre attack. It says clearly that an attack against 3,000 people is only grounds for American anger when it takes place in America. 3,000 Kurds don't amount to anything at all, but 3,000 New Yorkers is grounds for invasion... ...the only difference between Iraq and Afghanistan that I can see is the assumed presence and assumed guilt of Osama Bin Laden.

As it happens, I'm not at all bothered by what mechanism the USA chose to attack Afghanistan, but nor am I too concerned about the reasons used to attack Iraq either. Iraq was a mistake in my opinion, but it was a strategic mistake as far as I can make out. I didn't appreciate being lied to, but with hindsight I realised that it was more the inept execution that bothered me than the actual lie. The clumsy, heavy handed methods used have left us weaker.


Yes, they did that too. The Taliban actually made several offers to hand over Bin Laden, they just refused to hand him over to the USA and given the way their compliance was demanded and their compromises refused, who can blame them for refusing. As I said before, the USA would never, ever, simply hand over a suspected criminal to people who did not recognise the legitimacy of the US givernment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ted.

Thats exactly what I just said Ted...

Firing on the planes in the no-fly zone could be considered justification for retaliation against or engaging of those AA batteries or even an attack against Iraqi military installations, but it hardly constitutes an imminent threat to the US itself. Nor does the attempted assassination of GWH Bush constitute an imminent threat to the United States 8 years later. As you stated, imminent is a word that has meaning. The Taliban knew Osama bin Laden was in their country before the attacks - thereby allowing him to plan and execute the attacks, they knew he was in their country during and after the attacks. They chose to allow him to continue to operate in their country. It can't be said that they had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda posed an imminent threat to the United States. The Taliban regime refused to give up the leader of the group and did nothing to rid themselves of the group - this made the Taliban regime an imminent threat.

How?

What were the Taliban about to do to the USA that made them so 'imminent' a theat?

You know, maybe we're arguing semantics here but I can't see how association with Osama Bin Laden is any different from association with Nizar al-Khazraji or how association implies an 'imminent' threat. I understand your argument as an expression of your personal opinion with regards to the validity of the attack on Afghanistan, but I don't follow the logic at all. The measure you are employing as to what is justifiable as 'immiment' seems utterly subjective and quite arbitrary to me. You might just as well say I am an imminent threat if one of my friends punches your sister on the nose and yet I refuse to tell you where my friend is hiding for fear of what you'll do to him.

Lets run through what took place: Osama Bin Laden, who protested his innocence, is wanted on suspicion of carrying out a terrorist attack that killed some 3,000 people in America. The Taliban have a working deal with Osama Bin Laden the details of which are unknown. The USA demands the Taliban hand over Osama Bin Laden but does not present any case for his alleged guilt. The Taliban does what any government would do in this case and refuses to be told what to do, it does however offer compromises. The USA ignores these and with allies quickly invades Afghanistan in October of 2001 and ousts the Taliban.

Osama Bin Laden is not caught thus the 'imminent' threat he himself apparently poses remains 'imminent'. He later confesses the attack but as experts point out he had nothing left to lose from doing so and a lot to gain. In other words his 'confession' does not retroactiely justify the invasion.

I can't see anything in all of this that indicates the Taliban were the 'imminent' threat to the USA that warrants the distinction of a justifiable military action as opposed to Iraq, indeed the only 'imminent threat' seems to be the threat of invasion if the Taliban do not do as the USA demands.

There is no national security concerns involved in the murder of thousands of Kurds. Therefore, no imminent need to invade. If Canada or Mexico were to start murdering en masse, we might intervene.

And moif, I believe you have mis-stated the mechanism of extraditions. Evidence is not offered when a request for extradiction is made. Simply proof of an indictment or warrant in the requesting country. The mechanism does not include a request for evidence. In the case of Denmark, obviously their extradiction treaties have different terms than most. It is interesting to note that Denmark would extradict a car thief but not a mass murderer. :hmm:

And yet, we are told that the use of WMD's (gas at Hallabjah) was actually one of the reasons why the USA went into Iraq...

Understand me Amlord, I'm not saying its wrong or right, I'm pointing out that the argument used, where by Afghanistan is justified but Iraq is not, is bogus. 9/11 did not justify the invasion of Afganistan in any court but the court of public opinion.

Denmark would extradict a mass murderer to Great Britain, but not the United States. This is because Denmark is a signatory to some law or other that guarantee's people's human rights and amongst those human rights is the right to not be killed. No one will be extradicted from Denmark to face execution, no matter who asks for them or what they've done. Even Nizar al-Khazraji who is a monster on a par with his former master Saddam Hussein did not face a death penalty but a 'life' sentence.

If your friend had a history of punching or attempting to punch my sister in the nose, you knew this and you knowingly continue to allow your friend to use your house to plan his/her nose-punching excursions... then yes, I would consider you part of that imminent threat. I believe it is called aiding and abetting - it isn't merely association.

Yes, but you see thats where the analogy comes into sharp focus. If you were a police officer, that is to say a legitimate representative of the law, and not just some guy from some where half way round the world making demands of me, then I would of course cooperate... otherwise I would bar my door and do all I could to keep you out of my home.

As far as I can see, the USA had no legal right to invade Afghanistan at all. The UNSC did not issue any resolution authorizing the use of military force in Afghanstan and the only reason why most people do not labour this point seems to be because it is widely accpeted that the Taliban deserved to go for what happened on 9/11.

In other words, the justifications offered for the invasion of Afghanistan are based on emotions and not laws and those people who claim Iraq is unjustified, or that the focus has been lost from Afghanistan which they consider a justified action, are wrong. Afghanistan is actually less justified than Iraq for there is at least one UNSC resolution authorizing action against Iraq (though this too is under legal scrutiny).

edited to add a missing word

Yes but most countries including the US maintain the right to independently retaliate if attacked. This is certainly the case here.

And of course you know the UN is nearly useless and the main reason we eventually, after 11 years, attacked Iraq. How does a country evade and refuse to comply with numerous serious UN SC resolutions, shoot constantlyat UN member state aircraft (ours), boot inspectors, and never once would the UN vote to use force to achieve compliance? The UN is absolutely useless in this regard as we see in other instances around the world as hundreds of thousands die while the UN watches.

Was the US attack on Serbia wrong? Should we have waited for the UN?

Did Afghanistan attack the USA? Did Iraq? As far a I can see, neither country did.

The Taliban had no part in the 9/11 attacks. At least, I've never seen any one beyond right wing extremists claim they even knew about it in advance and the fact that the US attack was based on the Taliban refusal to simply hand over Osama Bin Laden reflects that. If the USA had considered 9/11 to be an attack carried out by Afghanistan then they would have no need of issuing any demands. By your argument they could simply invade and grab Bin Laden but they didn't. They spent a month or so wrangling over Bin ladens possible extradition.

The USA issued a demand for Bin Laden that no country could agree to and the American government would have understood this. The Taliban offered compromises and these were never even considered. The USA invaded Afghanistan on no evidence of complicity with the 9/11 attacks and with no UNSC resolution in place. By any legal understanding the invasion of Afghanistan was dubious in the extreme.

But on the other hand, the invasion of Afghanistan was actually no such thing. At no point have the American military gained control with Afghanistan and here is why I suspect Afghanistan succeeded where Iraq failed. What actually happened in Afghanistan was the Americans allied themselves with the numerically superior Northern Alliance, and lended these fire support to deal with the Taliban. This is why today Afghanistan is at relative peace, but also why most of the country is governed by the warlords who are today campaigning to have a blanket pardon for their past crimes.

Its widely agreed I think that the USA made a major mistake in disbanding the Iraq army, especially the officer corp because this left the US military essentially without any credible allies in Iraq. This may be the real difference between the two conflicts and why Afganistan can be kept stable with relatively few troops where as Iraq is a chaos despite a far larger deploment.


The UN is only as good as the sum total of its member states. For any one to claim the UN is useless they should have the level headedness to look at their own country, honestly, and ask whether or not their country has been fair in its dealings with the UN.

Most global citizens regard the UN, espcially the UNSC as a tool of the five permanent members and as a consequence do not grant the UN the respect it ought to have. For as long as the UN is subject to national policies by the five permanent members of the UNSC then the UN will remain 'nearly useless' because no one considers it impartial. For a better understanding of this, consider how often the USA has held a protective hand over Israel in the UN. A pro Israeli perspective might see this as a good thing, but the majority of the worlds population recognize it as favouritism.


In fact the UN had been in the Balkans for several years before NATO and the USA were called in.

The Taliban were and are an ally of AQ. When they refused to hand him over they tied themselves to AQ and their fate in Afghanistsn.



I agree. Bremmer made this major error and it should not have happened. We have paid dearly for it since.



That’s right and because the members of the SC often have competing and/ or economic interests (as France, Germany and Russia had in Iraq) we cannot expect them to deal effectively with issues revolving around Resolutions regarding that country. Thus they are “useless” in dealing with same. Thus Iraq invades a neighbor and is pushed out by forces led by the US and then defies UN Resolutions for over a decade with few consequences. Iraq goes on to corrupt the Oil for Food program and the UN itself – again no consequences. Inspectors booted in 1998 and not only are there no consequences but Francs pushes to have the sanctioned dropped in 1999 so they can get oil contracts!

Other disasters come to mind in thinking of the UN and its handling of conflict. Lebanon, Rwanda and Darfer. If you think the US was going to wait for UN approval after 3,000 citizens were murdered in the worst terrorist attack in history it was not going to happen.
We have not only been “fair” dealing with the UN we do much of the heavy lifting for the UN.



Yes and we all watched on TV as the genocide went on and on. Do you think the UN would have ever moved to stop it? When? The UN lead by the idiot Koffe had no problem watching 800,000 die in Rwanda.

Yes, but that doesn't make it legal.


Well worn arguments indeed, but can't you look outside your own national perspective?

Look at it from the main stream global point of view and you'll see the USA is regarded in the exact same way as you view Germany and France. What you describe as 'useless' is probably a very prudent policy of not getting involved in assisting American's self interests. After all, America does not get involved in those conflicts which do not impact on American interests either, and you American conservative's don't exactly apolgize for your lack of interest in such conflicts either. In other words, accusing Kofi Annan of suffering no problem in watching 800,000 die in Rwanda is not fair unless you did something yourself.

As far as I am aware, the USA had no problem in watching 800,000 die in Rwanda either.

With regards to Afghanistan, several countries have troops engaged there and some, like Britain and Denmark are now down scaling their commitments in Iraq so they can concentrate on Afghanistan. The reasons for this are mostly domestic havng to do with upcoming elections, but there is also a sense that the game in Iraq is up and Afghanistan must not be allowed to follow suit. The idea that the Taliban are resurgent has taken hold and the political climate demands action, even if it means the soldiers must face the returning Taliban alone.

The irony, as I see it, lies in the fact that the Northern Alliance Warlords who guaranteed the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place do not seem too concerned about the Taliban. They're busy ruling their own regions secure in the knowledge that Hamid Karzai's government is powerless to keep them in check though the poor man is doing his utter most. Whilst the western media talks of the new Taliban threat the real theat seems to me to reside in the ambitions of those warlords who are 'behind' NATO forces. If they're scheming is not soon reigned in, there will be a civil war in Afghanistan that has nothing at all to do with the Taliban.

Afghanistan must be made safe if the NATO dployment is too succeed. Its not enough to just kill a load of Taliban fighters. The government in Karbul must be made strong enough to survive on its own but the means to do this do not lie in military deployment. Afghanistan, like Iraq, must heal itself and there is nothing any western military power can do to initiate such a healing process. The only means to that end is in investment. So far the Karzai government has held together, probably due to western military muscle, but that muscle cannot remain flexed for ever. Sooner or later it must be relaxed and if western economic assistence has not been forth coming then Afghanistan will fall back into an Islamic tyranny just as surely as ever other Islamic nation is.

Forgive the harsh words.

There will be no peace until Islam is dead.

The taliban will never be dead. Not as long as there is Islam. Nor will AQ. Tamil Tigers or any of the other radical Islamic fascist groups. The ONLY way to deal with them is to make them FEAR to attack us. Only way to do that is to eradicate them everywhere they are found to the best of our ability. Burn them after bathing the bodies in Pig's blood, disrespect them, kill them, make damn sure they know there will be no 72 Virgins as their reward. Sorry all you softies out there. This is an enemy who will NOT be controlled or negotiated with. He will kill you with anything that comes to hand if he can. Thats reality. Time to face it.

With all we do in the world I am always a little surprised by this very common idea. I think, if anything we have gone beyond just our narrow self interest in the world. Obviously we cannot do everything but certainly we do more than France or Germany – unless you have examples. Certainly our “self-interest” comes first as with all nations. Did the world benefit from the suppression of aggression form the Soviet Union and its eventual fall? Did the US get land or treasure for doing this? How about Korea where we lost 38,000 dead? Bosnia – what was our burning “self interest” there?


And you can be sure that if asked we would have been willing to be part of task force to save civilians in Rwanda. The point is the UN so why do you keep trying to come back to just the US. Was Denmark loading up to save people in Rwanda? How about Russia, Sweden etc. It seems the rest of the world and the UN just sat back and waited for the US to do something.

The UN HAD Dutch troops THERE and the General in charge called the idiot Koffe and told him what was going on and said he could stop it and was told to DO NOTHING. And that nothing continued. And this is my point. If any country thinks the US will suffer a 9/11 and then wait for an OK from the UN to act they are dead wrong. And any country that depends on the UN to “save” them does so at their peril.





I agree that the NA has done little and I for one expected more but “unifying” a country run by “warlords” is similar to doing same in old Japan or Europe. – easier said than done.

That said the US will still do the heavy fighting in Afghanistan, not because we are better but because we have the weapons, and communications etc to get it done. I really hope we can get the country stable with the help of NATO, but this will be far from easy.

Danae.

You know, I'm not sure the Tamil Tigers are Muslims since they go out of their way to kick Muslims out of the territory they control. I'm fairly certain the TT have no religious motivations and are based on an ethnic perception of identity.

See here

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ted.

We're sort of drifting off topic now so if you don't mind, I'll skip the whole UN aspect of your reply and go to the bit that I think is relevent to the debate, for if I don't we're apt to go back and forth until Jaime has to step in.

Well, this is one of the reasons why the UN has so little authority. If its most powerful member state doesn't regard it as an obstacle to retaliation, then why should any one else invest time or money into it? I don't think the Taliban expected the UN to intervene either. I'm not even sure they recognized the authority of UN...


I don't think you can use either as an argument in the case of Aghanistan, Europe's nations and Japan as well, were all homogenous states that had been vital before they suffered damage. In other words, it was easy to rebuild Germany because the Germans were prepared to do all the work based on their previous knowledge and sense of self value. All America had to do was chip in with the Marshall Plan and everything went fine. The Germans, and the Japanese were formidable enemies, but once they recognised their defeat, then their aim was to rebuild. In other words, it was not the power of the USA that rebuilt Germany, it was the German work ethic.

Afghanistan has never had such an homogenous identity though, nor for that matter has Iraq. These are nations that belong to a whole other mentality and a very different perspective. They do not have any former state of technological or educational being to fall back on and their populations are largely uneducated peasants kept ignorant and superstitious through a culture based on a religious ideology. Ths isn't to say they are stupid, only that they think differently than we do. They do not share our ethics, morality or value systems. They have their own.


And I am afraid such fighting is not going to make any difference. As Danae says we can kill Taliban for ten years and it won't change the culture down there. The only thing that will change Afghanistan is a popular revelation (not revolution) as to the benefits of popular western culture. It's this that is the most potent weapon we have, not bullets or bombs, but bomb-tracks and break beats. Nearly every young Muslim I meet and speak too (not that many I'll admit) is an avid fan of hip hop music.

...and I'm not talking about 'pushing McDonalds' as some people are apt to. I do not think a broad importation of western capitalism is the key. Rather I think that generally with affluence comes curiousity and curiousity eventually broadens the mind. Opening fast food restaurants in down town Kabul will only provide a focus for anger and resentment.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to promote an Afghan heavy band or two. Get them record deals. Set them up as role models for their own people because if there is one thing lacking from Afghanistan (or the Muslim world as a whole) its secular role models.


edited to add link.

I


I should have been more clear here. I was speaking of Medieval Japan and Europe when “lords” and “warlords” were more common.




You may be right and this could happen over time. One thing you can be sure of is we will not allow an armed takeover of the country by the Taliban. Count on a spring offensive that will smash these folks down hard and fast.

I like the “heavy band idea moif! Could work.

Yes, that will CERTAINLY work. Burning the bodies of Muslims after washing them in pig's blood will be the perfect way to solve the current problems, they will most assuredly reacy favourably to that, laying down their weapons and realising the error of their ways. After all, that sort of tactic has always worked throughout history, right?




Can I ask you a question about methodology?

For the four-and-a-half muslims currently living in the United States, were you planning on shooting them en masse, or maybe setting up some kind of gas-van to kill them in bunches? Just curious...

Moif,





So, yes the analogy comes into very sharp focus. The United States, under Article 51, had every legal right to deal with the imminent threat posed by Al Qaeda inside Afghanistan and the regime that was, in essence, protecting them.

I would settle for converting them to christianity. Otherwise, until they start speaking out against their Radical leaders, they are part of the problem rather than the solution.

As for disrespecting Islam and Muslims, better disrespect, better to make them FEAR us than to allow them to KILL you and your family. These radical animals know NOTHING other than KILL. There is no negotiations, not suing for peace. Either you KILL them or make them fear to attack you again. That's it. Being NICE to them is NOT going to do ANYTHING other than make them think we are weak. Nothing other than that will be accomplished.

Its my reading of Article 51 that contradicts your argument because, you see, I do not believe the Taliban attacked the USA... its that simple. The Taliban did not attack the USA, Al Qaeda did and the only way you can argue that the Taliban bears any responsibility is by claiming (as you have done) that the Taliban were protecting Al Qaeda.

Given that Al Qaeda operates in numerous countries, the 9/11 attacks were prepared from Germany I believe, then the only thing that seperates Afghanistan from the rest of the countries on Earth, is the attitude of that country's government towards the USA. The Taliban regarded the USA with hostility and the the USA did not recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

Despite this, the Taliban did make offers to extradite Bin Laden and the USA did ignore them out of hand. Now it could be argued that the Taliban offers were not worth considering, but this is conjecture. It would also be conjecture to argue that no offer would have satisfied the USA which was set on an invasion of Afghanistan. I believe that with almost any other country there woud have been a longer more protracted diplomatic intercourse before invasion was contemplated. But, again, that is conjecture. What is not conjecture is that the USA made demands of the Taliban that no country on Earth could or would go along with.

Nor is it conjecture that the 9/11 attack was not an act of aggression by the Taliban. It was a criminal act by Al Qaeda, a suspected criminal organisation which was believed to be operating in Afghanistan. There is a difference. Article 51 has been invoked but in truth it does not legitimise the invasion. Terrorism is not war. Thats the difference.

Article 51 grants the USA full right to combat Al Qaeda but it does not grant the USA the right to invade third party country's simply on the basis of unproven suspicion, which is essentially what happened. The world community gave the USA free leave to invade because no one cares about the Taliban and many felt sympathy for 9/11 (Same with me, I'm just arguing semantics) but thats not law.

In point of fact Danae, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are largely Hindu, and are fighting for their autonomy from a predominantly Buddhist majority in that country. (Which confounds the argument sometimes used by hippy-ish Westerners that Hinduism and Buddhism are somehow more peaceful and holisitic than the Abrahamic religions.)

Which doesn't lend your argument much credence, instead merely indicating that you make little distinction between quite different groups of people that have brown skin and aren't Christian.

Moif, you're pretty much right; despite their religious differences, it's mostly ethnic tensions that are at the root of the terrorist problem in Sri Lanka.

And can anyone point to any terrorist or insurgency problem in the whole of recorded history that has been resolved through the use of overwhelming force alone.

Especially in the modern era, when just killing everyone you don't like has come to be seen as an unacceptable form of problem resolution?

A combination of police action (by which I mean investigation, infiltration, prosecution and imprisonment after fair and transparent trials) against perpetrators, and political concessions to and bipartisan talks with the moderate representatives to remove the underlying dissatisfactions that drive populations to support, condone, or at the very least not to actively condemn the extremist actors that seek shelter among them.

In other words, you beat terrorists by getting hearts and minds support, and by treating the "enemy" not as an army but as an criminal organisation.

As for the Taliban, they keep behaving like an army - unlike, in Iraq they've engaged coalition forces in pitched battles. So it is appropriate to engage them with regular military forces, as the Danish and British are gearing up to do.

Had the WoT focus remained on Afghanistan, would the Taliban have been able to gain a foothold in the country again, 6 years later?

I doubt it very much. With hindsight, I think it would have been better to concentrate there and not go down the blind alley of invading Iraq.

Why hasn’t Musharaff been “taken to task”? Is the US giving Pakistan the kid glove treatment? Why or why not?

Because he's in a potentially fragile position. Topple him, and there's a possibility a hostile Islamicist regime would take over in Pakistan. As it is, there are hostile Islamicist elements within his regime, and especially within his army, which are at best turning a blind eye to AQ-sympathietic activity. It's all very well saying "ah yes, but he's not got full control over his country", but that's less because he faces renegade factions in the border country with Afghanistan, than because he cannot trust his own armed forces enough to send them in to deal with the renegades without either joining them or turning on him, or both.

With US troops stretched thin, how will Bush deal with developments in Afghanistan?

I'm not sure he will have to, as it looks as though the rest of NATO, specifically the UK and Denmark, intend to redeploy out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. Which, it seems to me, is as solid a division of labour as could be devised under the circumstances.

moif,

It is you who are contradicting yourself. You said that the analogy didn't fit because the UN didn't pass resolutions allowing the US to go into Afghanistan after Al Qaeda. I showed you proof that no resolution was necessary. Now, you say that the analogy doesn't work because it wasn't the Taliban that attacked. But in your analogy, it isn't you that punched my sister in the nose, either. Yet you concede that if it is legal for me to deal with an imminent threat - and you concede that you become part of that imminent threat if you allow your friend to use your house to engage in his activities - that I can legally deal with you in order to deal with your friend. If Article 51 applied to your analogy, I would not need to be a legitmate representative of the law like the police in order to respond. Article 51 states that I need only inform the legitimate representatives of my response.

Let me adjust your analogy to better fit Article 51. You have a friend who stabs me in the stomach. Your friend has a history of stabbing people and has made repeated public threats that he would stab me to death. You knowingly allow your friend to use your house in order to plan his attempts to stab me to death. I have the legal right to defend myself from the imminent threat posed by your friend, you are aiding and abetting him by allowing him to operate freely in your house. You then are a part of that imminent threat and I have the right to deal with you in order to get to him.

And can you prove that it was the United States that declined the offer to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan to stand before an international tribunal - an international tribunal that would be using Islamic Sharia Law to make its determination? As I recall, Musharaff declined that offer.

Eh?

Now I'm getting confused... but lets stick with the analogy (because its rather amusing)

Ah but wait. I have not conceeded this (high lighted in red).

I have no evidence at all that my friend punched your sister. I see you sister with a bloody nose, yes. I see my friend acting strange. Yes. But I do not see anything to suggest that he hit her without due cause, like say for example, he was defending himself from her. Don't forget that in order for our analogy to be accurate my friend is a small stringy fellow with a sly nature and your sister is a super heavy weight collosus with a mean right hook.

Now, if you were an authority figure (armed with a UNSC resolution) or I had been in on the caper to hit your sisten then I would be forced to accept you barging into my house as a legitimate retaliation. But you are neither. Article 51 does not give you the right to attack me simply because I am not prepared to give in to your demand I hand over my friend for a beating. For what reason should I do this when his guilt is not established?

I would be prepared to hand him over to a neutral third party, provided that third party was willing to treat my friend within the confines of the law, but as things stand now, you have evicted me from my home without recourse to any legal proceedings what so ever.

Okay, analogy aside. I'm not arguing on behalf of the Taliban. What I'm trying to point out is that there is more legal ambiguity in Afghanistan than there is in Iraq since the UNSC passed a specific resolution with regards to Iraq and Iraq was given years to comply. Afghanistan on the other hand was given a few weeks at best an there is no specific UNSC resolution granting military action be taken against Afghanistan.

By itself I do not see how Article 51 gives authority for the invasion of Afghanistan.

I stand corrected, you claimed that you would cooperate if it came from a legitimate representative of the law... And what was the Taliban's history of cooperating with UN resolutions asking for the extradition of Osama bin Laden - who was calling Afghanistan home? What about the ones requiring that they dismantle Al Qaeda training camps in their country?

It's like having the police ask you to give up your friend because he had a history of stabbing people and publicly threatening to stab me directly and he was known to be plotting his stabbing attempts in your house and you don't cooperate. He successfully stabs me, and, according to the law, I have the right to retaliate against him... he is in your house. You - through you're actions - are complicit in the act. By allowing your friend to plot his stabbing attempts in your house, you are a part of the threat. As you have freely allowed him to operate from your house, you are a part of the threat. Under Article 51, I have every right to deal with that threat... and am only required to inform the police that I am doing so. I do not have to wait for them to deal with you and your friend.

There is nothing in Article 51 that claims that the regime in Afghanistan itself had to attack the United States in order for the Article to apply. It merely claims that a Member State that has been attacked may defend itself and that nothing in the Charter impairs that inherent right.

And, did the United States dismiss the alleged covert extradition offer that you refer to? Do you have proof of that? Or did Musharaff?

Entspeak

In my analogy the Police are the UNSC, not the USA.

The UNSC never even entered into the picture because, as you say, article 51 was invoked.

My understanding of article 51 lends me to believe that it does not allow a third party nation to be invaded simply on the basis of suspicion. There was no compeling evidence that Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda were responsible so there was no grounds for the US demanding their extradition. For the Taliban, there was no where to move because they were given no options. Revenge was at hand and the Taliban paid.

You mean like how every single Muslim group in the United states spoke out against 9/11? You mean how Ilsmic and Mulsim groups all over the place. all the time, are differentiating themselves and speaking out against the acts of the fanatic fundamentalist few? You are not the first person I have heard make such comments, about how awful it is that the Muslims are not speaking out. The problem is, they are, and you aren't listening. So caught up in judging, condeming and otherwise villifying them are you that you are making demands that have already been fulfilled. Now I ask you, whose fault is that, yours of the Muslims?


As for your end-of paragraph nausiating tyrade against all-things-Nuslim, well jamie said it better than I could That kind of open hatemongering doesn't go over too well here, or in most placed, thank God.

If those truly are your sentiments, then perhaps I might suggest another webpage, such as 'Stormfront' for you? Given your overwhelming desire to exterminate an entire religion comprising about 15% of the population of Planet earth cased on the actions of a tiny minority, I think you would be welcome there.

Yes the “groups” are speaking out and this is very nice and appreciated. What is not happening is the members of theses groups turning in suspected terrorists. You would think that the Muslim community would have more information on terrorists operating in this country – and would be willing to share that information with the police or intelligence services.

Can you give me some examples of this? When asked this exact question to a leader of a Muslim group on FOX – the answer was “Muslims don’t feel comfortable doing this (turning in fellow Muslims). Should we feel good about this? I think not.