Thank you Norway

[Lars-E]

You're welcome lord of the mark.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


I. Whose only guilt was that they demanded the US follow international law and provide them with evidence of bin Ladens de jure guilt.

Rather uninformed are you? That was just the last one on a long list. Masivve human rights violations. Warcrimes. Ethnic cleasing including massacres against most non Pashtun ethnic groups and non Mulism religions, many years of support and alliance with international terroists. Cultural cleansing against non musim art and artifacts. Its a WORLD SHAME they were not done in long before. Ask Harza, Tajiks, Kazacks, Persians, Hindus, Christians, etc what guilt the Taliban had acrued. If the Sept 11 attack had never occured, a war against them would have yet been great justice.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola


Rather uninformed are you? That was just the last one on a long list. Masivve human rights violations. Warcrimes. Ethnic cleasing including massacres against most non Pashtun ethnic groups and non Mulism religions, many years of support and alliance with international terroists. Cultural cleansing against non musim art and artifacts. Its a WORLD SHAME they were not done in long before. Ask Harza, Tajiks, Kazacks, Persians, Hindus, Christians, etc what guilt the Taliban had acrued. If the Sept 11 attack had never occured, a war against them would have yet been great justice.

My understanding of law is that if a person is accused and condemned of a particular crime the question of guilt is then to be based on that crime alone and not on possible other crimes that person might have committed in the past, although that might have some influence on the measuring out of the inflicted punishment, once the the actual crime the defendant is accused of has been established.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


My understanding of law is that if a person is accused and condemned of a particular crime the question of guilt is then to be based on that crime alone and not on possible other crimes that person might have committed in the past, although that might have some influence on the measuring out of the inflicted punishment, once the the actual crime the defendant is accused of has been established.

International relations is not a court of law. It was clear to the US and to virtually all the rest of the world that the Talibans long standing support for al qaeeda implicated them in 9/11 to the extent that they could be considered an aggressor and a supporter of terror. Most expected the US to strike much sooner than we did.

[Lefty Scaevola]

And what that that have to do with international policy and war, which is not based in criminal justice procedure, but in international law. In case you have not noticed, wars and trials are two different very things.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
And what that that have to do with international policy and war, which is not based in criminal justice procedure, but in international law. In case you have not noticed, wars and trials are two different very things.

Wars and trials are completely different. In fact war is the absence of law - except the Genava convention *cough*.

My point which hitherto have not been refuted here, was that the regime in Washington had no casus belli against the Taliban within the legal system of international law. The case for war was based on the issues of 'smoking them out of their caves' and 'get them on the run'.

This policy was a faulty one and it has not worked.

9-11 should have been solved as criminal case and not as an excuse for regime change in a distant country.

I'm not against the 'war on terror', what I am against is using this 'war' as an easy excuse of ridding oneself of unreliable former allies. It smells too much of corporate tactics for my taste.

[Chris 62]

Another "theory" I see.

Anyway, it's nice to see some of the Nato forces get their feet wet.

[lord of the mark]

an act of aggression and terrorism was commited against the United States by a group based on Afgan soil. Teh Taliban govt did not cooperate in investigating or apprehending them. The evidence (which was later confirmed by admission) was overwhelming. Given the threat of another attack, of similar or greater scope, the US idd not have to offer proof beyond a reasonabl doubt to justify extradition.

Oh and th Taliban was NEVER a US ally, though the Pakistani ISI which supported the Taliban had been allied to the US in supporting other Muslim fundies in the 80's

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


International relations is not a court of law. It was clear to the US and to virtually all the rest of the world that the Talibans long standing support for al qaeeda implicated them in 9/11 to the extent that they could be considered an aggressor and a supporter of terror. Most expected the US to strike much sooner than we did.

In fact it was Al-Qaida which provided bodyguards to the Taliban head honchos. So in what sense did the Taliban support Al-Qaida? They provided them with a country to establish training bases. Where the Taliban given compelling evidence that it was in fact bin laden who was behind 9-11?

Bin Laden admitted his guilt, after it was thrust upon him. Did he do so because he thaught it a matter of political expediency or otherwise?

What about the Pakistani intelligence service connection. Could they not have apprehended him had there really been an effort made by them. Why were the forces of Interpol and various intelligence services not employed in setting up a long term strategy of containing and trapping of bin Laden and various henchmen not implemented. Why the sudden rush to send in the marines? They to my knowledge don't have much experience in capturing criminals - killing is their game.

We elect politicians and train civil servants to keep a level head in times of crisis - and we are sure that they keep their eye on the ball.

Now we find that none of the initial objectives on the 'war on terror' have been reached. The focus has instead shifted to Baghdad. And when will there be compelling evidence, besides that both Saddam and bin Laden think the Americans to be conspirational, that there is in fact a connection between these former allies of the regime in Washington?

And what is the correct spelling of 'Al- you know what'

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
an act of aggression and terrorism was commited against the United States by a group based on Afgan soil. Teh Taliban govt did not cooperate in investigating or apprehending them. The evidence (which was later confirmed by admission) was overwhelming. Given the threat of another attack, of similar or greater scope, the US idd not have to offer proof beyond a reasonabl doubt to justify extradition.

Oh and th Taliban was NEVER a US ally, though the Pakistani ISI which supported the Taliban had been allied to the US in supporting other Muslim fundies in the 80's

The infamous 19 suicide bombers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They planned it in Germany. Trained in America. The foreegin nations coorporated. In fact in Europe there are daily arrests of possible terrorists. Name me one positive outcome of invading Afghanistan and I will be a truly enlightened person.

[Brizey]

Uh, let's see...

Women being educated?

Potential for more democratic government?

The erosion of a state religion?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Brizey
Uh, let's see...

Women being educated?

Potential for more democratic government?

The erosion of a state religion?

As the Canadian prime minister said: "It's going to be a long, long difficult war."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


The infamous 19 suicide bombers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They planned it in Germany. Trained in America. The foreegin nations coorporated. In fact in Europe there are daily arrests of possible terrorists. Name me one positive outcome of invading Afghanistan and I will be a truly enlightened person.

Flight training was in america - basic training, tradecraft, etc was all in afganistan. Strategic planning was in afganistan. Financing flowed through Afghanistan. Al qaeeda was based in afghanistan.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Flight training was in america - basic training, tradecraft, etc was all in afganistan. Strategic planning was in afganistan. Financing flowed through Afghanistan. Al qaeeda was based in afghanistan.

Have you never seen Star Wars. The rebels move their bases once the Empire get's close. It's the leaders Vader wants to capture.

Capturing the planet Hoth did not a benevolent Vader make.

My bet is that the President harbours extremely bad feelings towards some of his advisors right now.

On the other hand you have to say that Americans have guts. Hitler made the unfortunate mistake of thinking that the Americans did not have a 'stomach for a good fight'. Yet, this prediction has been systematically falsified. On the other hand the peace movement in the United States is very strong. A continuation of war for an unpredictable time is therefore a possibilty which might weaken either side on the debate, either because of televison coverage or because there is no consequence.

However war, or no war, and in my opinion before the War, the fundamental issue of rebuilding trust between the Arabs and the Americans has to be looked into. If there was an attempt to build trust between with the Arabs, Palestinians and Egyptians (all traditional allies, and yes the Palestinans are allies of the US, and Bush have granted them statehood) before a possible attack on Iraq, I would entertain some hope concerning a peaceful outcome. In fact I think much of this Anti-American/Anti-European hoopla debate of late is in fact a cover for not being willing to admit that there currently is no constructive debate with the Muslim nations.

On that thought I wonder if anyone know when the US began ambassadorial negotiations (by proxy), direct state (meaning secretary of state or president) negotiations with the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War?

This once again leads to
1. Ancient history
2. 1948 and the creation of Israel
3. The rise of Arab nationalism with Nasser the leading figure.
4. The rise in oil prices and the discovery of Arab power in 1973 .
5. The Gulf war and the discovery of American power.
6. 9-11 'a nihilistic triumph' that 'changed the world forever'. I think once the grief is over most historians will regard this as a socalled 'wildcard' in the progress of history. However the US is perhaps understandably put on a what resembles a war footing. Democracy+War=Fascism
7. The present where the truth is still hard to grasp and is being debated. But where until now no evidence has been shown which links Saddam to Al-Qauda. If an intelligence chief is capable of grasping the connection surely he must in confidence of his informers tell the people. Why else would the democratically minded informers tell the Administration if they knew the state would not pass on information to its citizens. simple, because in the end it is presumbaly not the citizenry that decides whether to go to war the state can withhold such evidence. Whether it is a good thing that it is the citizens that decide whether to go to war can of course be debated. Presumbaly the argument could be put forth that the socalled mob will rise and demand compenstation for lost income and demand recompensation in an altogether unwholesome way.
Speaking on behalf of my own country I would like to see that since the giving away of sovereignty requires a public mandate the taking of another country's sovereignty also requires a public mandate. And by mandate I mean a cast of a vote. Then the discussion in the media would be frank and on the level.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Whose only guilt was that they demanded the US follow international law and provide them with evidence of bin Ladens de jure guilt.

Why does this idiocy keep poping up? I saw this same statement before the US push into Afghanistan.