Afghanistan - What is the objective?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by StrawDog, Mar 11, 2009.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Ah I did not know you too, like the Buffalo, were a collaborator type. No one is searching for bin Laden. You can forget that fairy tale.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Huh? What are talking about? I thought you were the one that lumped all Americans into your hatred of the west. Are you saying now that you reserve some special hatred for some, and lesser hatred for other Americans? You're confusing, SAM.

    And you know this ....how?

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    I believe it does, but I am not sure. I think it was established in US v. Milligan, but I need to look it up.

    But they have to be part of a state, I believe. And being part of a foreign terrorist organization is also a problem, legally speaking. Look, the Arabs killed their wounded in WW1 precisely because they knew the Turks would treat them awfully, because they weren't protected by Geneva. I'm aware Geneva was updated in the late 1940s, but the US never signed that version, I think.

    You've played this tired song several times with me, and it holds no more water now, so why waste your breath?

    The US never recognized the Taliban as the govt. of Afghanistan, so it had no formal extradition with them. The US -- and everyone else -- had tried diplomacy for years, it didn't work. And as I told Straw, we had to move quickly, so we didn't have time for protracted talking. We needed to capture terrorists, because they were already running, and we were worried about additional plots. Serious or not, and you've no proof the US efforts weren't serious, just your bullshit opinion, I've no problem with the invasion. Neither does the UN, NATO or the Afghan. It's only Leftists, like you who have their panties in a twist.

    OBL killed Ahmed Shah Massod days before Sept. 11 for the Taliban; he was close to the leaderhsip, and if he had enemies, they weren't heard. The Taliban offered him to the Saudis at the last minute, and it was intepreted as a stalling tactic. Regardless whether that's true, we had thousands dead and we wanted him. Giving him to his Wahhabi patrons was not an option -- and I'm surprised you view that as something reasonable.

    They fled their camps before the attacks. Many went to the mountains, others to Pakistan. As for surveillance, prior to Sept. 11, the US didn't have many assets paying attention to Afghanistan. There certainly weren't round the clock satellites, and even if there were, al Qaeda knows how to avoid that well enough.

    And what the fuck does that have to do with the price of tea?

    He is Wahhabi and the Taliban is Wahhabi.

    Both are Jihadists and revere Sayyid Qutb and believe in the same radical brand of Islam.

    I admit the "change" associated with 9/11 is often overblown, but it did cause shorterm turmoil in the markets, and today I took my shoes off at an airport. And within foreign policy circles, both the Left and Right agree it was a seminal moment.

    I don't think the Taliban knew, and it doesn't matter. Look up and read the USC section that I have sighted about material support for terrorism. The Taliban, unlike your Floridians, knew exactly who they were dealing with and exactly what they had done (Embassy bombings and Cole attack). They got into bed with them anyway. What's more they took money and material from them, and provided both in return. This is all fact.

    Plus, you continually try to gloss over the fact that Afghanistan was al Qaeda's base, and as such, is where the plot was laid out, coordinated and approved. How do you wage war without attacking the other side's base?

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,557
    LOL. And you call us conspiracy theorists. I would like to see some prove for this. This is the MOST ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

    While you are at it, can you tell which other leaders this ghost man supposedly killed?
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Again, your argument is incompletely substantiated. Most of the top nations cited as recipients are not at war with anyone. You have not demonstrated how the US is a comparatively horrible nation based on arms sales, because you avoid discussing what other nations are selling.

    I pity you.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    bin Laden is a suspect charged in the destruction of the Twin Towers and the subsequent murder of over 3,000 Americans. If the Taliban would surrender that suspected murderer, we could put him on trial and prove or disprove the charges.

    Ah, but the Taliban, and most Muslims apparently, don't believe in the rule of law! Apparently they believe in personal revenge and personal retribuition. And as such, they're some 300 years behind the times. This is the 21st Century!

    Baron Max
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    No, he's never been charged. The FBI has no "hard" evidence.

    http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I'll say it again, SAM, try to read it this time, okay? .....bin Laden is a suspect charged in the destruction of the Twin Towers and the subsequent murder of over 3,000 Americans.

    Baron Max
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Feel free to show me when he was charged and by whom.
     
  13. Arsalan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,432
    What hilarious naivety in this thread! People actually thinking the US wants to capture Bin Laden!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There have been numerous reports of soldiers from various countries having the location of Bin Laden and getting ready to move in when orders came in from US forces to stop. Hell, there's even been a French documentary on this.

    The US goal in Afghanistan is pretty simple: pipeline, getting soldiers some real on the ground action and weapons manufacturing and distribution. Nothing else. No, they aren't there to attack the Taliban, the people they helped into power against the Soviets. Why not? Because apparently they are going to pay and support the "moderate Taliban" against the "evil Taliban". Kinda like they did before against the Soviets.

    Also, it's easier to attack a weak country and come off all powerful than it is to attack a powerful country, hence we've had the Iraq and Afghanistan war and the Iran war still seems a bit distant.
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Wow. This thread has been some impressive supposition. Thank goodness we don't ask for verification on this forum, or some wholly spurious arguments would already have been shot to pieces.
     
  15. Arsalan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,432
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    An excellent article on Afghanistan in TomDispatch:

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175047/pratap_chatterjee_unknown_afghanistan

    And another in the Times
     
  17. Arsalan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,432
    Tomdispatch = awesomeness

    The Times = stupid crap
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I think you have that backwards. You need a reading tutor.

    Article 1: Erroneous report or order delay

    Article 2: Nothing about oil or bin Laden. Nothing about a conspiracy.

    Nuff said. Funny though: fight the Taliban, Americans bad. Negotiate with the Taliban, Americans bad.
     
  19. Arsalan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,432
    Ah yes, the army would just go out in the open and admit to not giving the order to take out Bin Laden

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And article 2 was about supporting the Taliban against, well, the Taliban.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Rory Stewart makes some good points. I shall read his The Places In Between before rendering an opinion.
     
  21. Arsalan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,432
    While the Times does still have some good contributors, it's mostly turned into right-wing idiocy
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I can agree with Arsalan on one thing- the U.S should not have got involved in the Soviet war. And then the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam perhaps should have been viewed from the sidelines as well.

    Pipeline:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

     
  23. vhawk Registered Member

    Messages:
    101
    bit pointless to charge a man outwith the jurisdiction. I wouldn't bet your house on him ever being captured, you'd have to catch him to charge him
     

Share This Page