Is this war just?

DadaKopf

Without at all leading the direction of the conversation at all, I'm simply going to ask: Is the war on Afghanistan just?

I'll only refer readers to two links on Just War Theory:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm.

So, what do you think?

bugler

Not having the time to read those two links, I will give a quick answer now, and that is no, it is not just.The reason I say this, is that the principle on which it is being fought is not being universally applied. As Fisk said : "It is not a war against terrorism it is a fight against America's enemies", which sums it up pretty well if you ask me, whatever else you think about him. When and if the US and their allies prove they will act on all forms of terrorism and desist from using their own terror then I will call it a just war.This war is far too messy and complicated to be summed up in a word such as "just" anyway...

tools

If Bush and phony Tony ever bother to give us a precise definition of what terrorism is then I'll be able to decide whether I think it's just or not.

Magwitch

Despite the BS and endless definitions the short answer is YES

No nation would suffer those casualties (Sept 11) and then lie down to take it up the a*s. Bin Laden does not enjoy universal support in the Arab world (far from it) so why should people here justify his actions? So again YES

I would ask why Americas policies are always shouted about but other nations are not? People who do this usually justify their stance by insisting that America should treat others as equel. Why not insist other nations do the same? Anti-war protestors always turn out to condemn America at the drop of a hat, the ones on our streets were (for the most part) absent at protests against IRA atrocities, the the main trust of these protests is to acuse America of hypocracy - huh?

America has every right to respond. Thus far its actions have been measured and careful in a military sence, taking great care not to stir up xenophobia and racism or religious bigotry on the home front. What more can they do? Anti-war protestors should maybe spell out their own alternatives and/or policies before claiming to represent soley human rights (which the patently do not) and accusing America of dishonesyty and hypocracy (which they themselves are practicing).

Our own anti-war movement (a la SW) had no qualms about holding a rally out side the GPO against American bombing of Serbia, and inviting extremist Serb nationalists to speak (in "Solidarity) to a crowd dotted with, not Serbian falgs, but the "cccc" flag which is akin to the Nazi swastika in its idealoligical symbolism within Serbia. Are own "anti-war" protestors saw no reason to demonstrate in "solidarity" with Muslims in Bosnia as they were slaughtered in droves. Hardly a word was siad by them.


Given a choice between the "Evil" America and the alternatives on offer on our streets, I will take the former any day.
YES

Hobbes

No nation would suffer those casualties

Let's not get into an argument about who started it.

Anti-war protestors always turn out to condemn America at the drop of a hat, the ones on our streets were (for the most part) absent at protests against IRA atrocities

Erm do you have linkage proof of this? Ireland does tend to have a number of Anti-terrorist demonstrations (as well as the reverse, although they are called marches).


the the main trust of these protests is to acuse America of hypocracy - huh?

?

America has every right to respond.

I don't think anyone questions that. It's how the response is happening. Is the war on Afganistan justified?

taking great care not to stir up xenophobia and racism or religious bigotry on the home front.

Just a couple of things CNN neglected to mention.

http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=11365

Anti-war protestors should maybe spell out their own alternatives

Indeed but they have already and they are already considered "For the Terrorists" so what makes you think people will listen now?

and accusing America of dishonesyty and hypocracy (which they themselves are practicing).

http://slate.msn.com/pol/01-10-19/pol.asp

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/12/1710251&mode=thread


Given a choice between the "Evil" America and the alternatives on offer on our streets, I will take the former any day.

Well to be honest I don't know. The 9-11 was pretty scary, but some of the laws being passed in the US because of it just scare the hell out of me and are no better then living in communist Russia in the cold war days.

Then you have all the sanctions lifted from Pakistan (which were in place because they were nuclear weapons testing) or with China (which went in place because of Tinimen Square). Sanctions still in place for Cuba though, guess they aren't that important.

Here is something I recommend you read.
http://www.thismodernworld.com/pages/jour/jour_9_27.html

Lost, however, amid the hype around our newfound allies, which ruled
Afghanistan from 1992 until 1996, is their own troubling history --
including shocking human rights records, thievery and a sheer governing
incompetence that in large part led to the rise of the Taliban.

"Many of their leaders should be indicted for war crimes," says Patricia
Gossman, a consultant on human rights in South Asia who has traveled widely
in the region. "Some top [alliance] commanders have records almost as bad as
that of the Taliban."

Summing up the group's four years in power, a Human Rights Watch report
issued in July reports that there "was virtually no rule of law" in any of
the areas it controlled and that its constituent members, constantly warring
with each other, were guilty of summary executions, arbitrary arrest,
torture and "disappearances." One terrible outburst took place in 1995, when
one faction of the group captured a neighborhood in Kabul that had been an
opposition's stronghold. The "troops went on a rampage, systematically
looting whole streets and raping women," according to a State Department
account of the events.

The level of ignorance about the anti-Taliban rebels is so great that the
government and press don't even call it by its proper name. The Northern
Alliance was the name of a coalition of forces, including some in the
current anti-Taliban movement, that existed in the early-1990s. The
organization that the government and press now speak of so fondly is
actually called the United National Islamic Front for the Salvation of
Afghanistan, or the United Front. The United Front supports the Islamic
State of Afghanistan (ISA), the regime ousted by the Taliban five years ago.

But it was disgust with the United Front that paved the way for the Taliban,
which arose in 1994 and effectively gained power two years later. Since
then, the various United Front factions have been mostly on the run, though
they have all continued to be responsible for terror attacks on their
enemies. In 1997, in the strategic town of Mazar-i Sharif, Junbish troops
systematically slaughtered at least 3,000 captured Taliban troops, some of
whom were stuffed down wells and blown up with hand grenades, according to
accounts cited by Human Rights Watch. The United Nations all but ignored the
Taliban's demand that it investigate the massacre. Of course, the Taliban
was less interested in promoting human rights when it took back the city and
slaughtered between 2,000 and 8,000 people in the streets.

In September of 1998, troops believed to be under the command of recently
slain military leader Ahmed Shah Massoud fired rockets into Kabul. One hit a
busy market, where as many as 180 people were killed. In late 1999 and early
2000, people fleeing from villages near Sangcharak reported to humanitarian
workers that United Front troops, who had held the town for four months, had
carried out summary executions, burned down houses and conducted wide-scale
looting. Some of those executed were reportedly killed in front of family
members.

Even today, the United Front is less of a front than a very loose coalition
united by its hatred of the Taliban. It is torn by factional clashes and
personal rivalries, with the various partners so mistrustful of each other
that they have never merged their military structures and have no united
strategy to confront the Taliban.

But the United Front's ugly side can't be a surprise to the press. Since
Sept. 11, several thousand people, presumably many of them journalists, have
requested the July report from Human Rights Watch, which details much of
what is reported here. Instead, most reporters and pundits seem to be
patriotically turning a blind eye to our new partner's shortcomings.

* * *

Our new best friends indeed.

Yes, think about what started this mess and look how it's going to repeat itself again.

"We have woken a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve."

It woke the giant again, but it is amazing me that everyone is so focused on Afganistan and ignoring what the hell is going on around them. At least in Britain the Goverment had the decency to slap one of thier own for suggesting exactly what the US Goverment is doing.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

First of all, I don't see how a war with a hazy or possibly unacheivable objective can ever be called just. I don't think there's anything like a just war...merely a justifiable one. The war against Nazi Germany was a different kettle of fish to this one for example...it had a clearly defined objective- the unconditional surrender of the Axis governments.

Seeing how we set up Bin Laden and the Taleban (even armed them), and then pursued policies of extreme injustice in the Middle East, should we be suprised if he turned on us? And then try and wage war against the entire nation where he's secreted himself? From this perspective the war is certainly not justified. Furthermore, I loathe the fact that this action is being classified as a "war" by everyone. By terming it as such, we lend credence and justification to the actions of September 11, and, taking the other side's viewpoint, can legitimately describe those 5000 people as casualties of war. No doubt, terming an action "war" does sanitize the killing that accompanies it. If we simplified the issue, called Al-Quaeda a criminal organization, and pursued them through legal and diplomatic means, then a larger base of popular support would be maintained. Certainly, it would take longer- but look at how long the Lockerbie case took. Years and years- but the end result will be judged far more kindly by history I feel.

These people, whether you term them terrorists, freedom fighters, or "soldiers", are criminals. End of story. Hunt them down and pursue them using covert means...not by bombing the population of Afghanistan into submission. That merely serves to turn Arab public opinion against the US (if it hasn't already been there for some time). By attacking the root causes of the terror, and by that strategy alone, can we defeat terrorism. A punitive response will only lend credibility to the next act of terror.

Bombing an organization that you helped create, killing unknown numbers of civilians, aiding and abetting bloodthirsty regimes with a proven track record of oppression (Pakistan and the Northern Alliance)- are these the acts associated with a just war? Double standards and hypocrisy are what got our nation into this mess...and it looks like we're going to try and get out of it that way as well. One thing is clear- no long-term solution will be affected by this course of action- only a cycle of violence. The Arab world applauded us when we declared "war" on terror, and is now turning away from us as it realizes the truth. That we're using the dictatorial regime of Pakistan to our advantage, that we are supplying the Northern Alliance as we once supplied th Taleban, and that our stance on a Palestinian homeland has hardened.

A response to terror is indeed just- but not broad-scale military action. Another thing troubles me- we have 7 carrier groups currently in the region- yet only the USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz have launched strikes. Our government hinted at the possibility of extending the strikes to other "terrorist" states, and it looks like that is increasingly likely day by day. I don't see the sense in having 7 carrier groups in the region to bomb a single country that is already in the stone age. How quickly will this coalition disintegrate once the horrible truth of broadscale military action against various nations in the region becomes clear? I dread to think.

Occy

Terran

This war is most definitely Just.

In fact, I think the US should take it one step further...

bugler

To be blunt Terran, you should probably stay quiet if you havent't anything interesting,let alone intelligent, to say.


To the main question again, no it is not just.On the subject of the IRA, it's a very poor and lazy comparison.Comparing an illegal, and lets face it small, organisation with the most powerful government in the world, plus allies, yes thats very good Magwitch.The common people of the UK and Ireland will openly express revulsion at the tactics of the IRA, and whatever acts it commits, the hardline republican areas aside.Wouldn't you agree, Magwitch? Or are you suggesting that we are all secretly terrorist loving left wing freaks, who don't mind the IRA blowing people up?
It's one of the more absurd comparisons I have heard in this time of plenty.People will not regularly protest at IRA killings because they fully reject the IRA as representatives.The IRA is outlawed, but governments are not.That is why people will protest against governments when they feel they are being mis-representated, and this can apply to foreign governments too.I resent someone such as Bush telling me he's fighting on behalf of all civilised and peace loving societies.I think if someone has a problem with what Bush is doing the they have a right to protest.The police are not interested in Bush, he won't be arrested for bombing civilians.The IRA are.


I think people look at the cause of terrible tragedies, it's the best means of understanding why it happened and to stop it happening again.Unfortunately, like most americans and certainly the Wests governments are still set on the revenge they need, and couldn't be bothered looking at why things happen, it's so much easier just to bomb the (current)boogey men, just like Terran and Magwitch.Of course it isn't cheerleaders like these who will suffer, it's innocent Afghans, plus American soldiers, and their families.Oh also some "terrorists"(whoever the phrase is being applied to at the time), so I suppose that makes it ok.

Clintons Cat

I dont think it can be justified.
Consider this fact.Eygpt and Jordan have both asked for members of groups linked to al quidida living in britain to be handed over.The two members of Islamic Jihad and eygptian islamic jihad have both been accused of plotting and planting bombs in their countries and recruiting others to carry out terrorist tasks.
Britain has refused to extradite them claiming their human rights would be violated if they were handed over to the authorities.(see footnote #0)
(Though this has not stopped a siekh nationalist being extradited to india in the past to face explosive charges dispite arguing along the same HR lines.)
Meanwhile Britain has gone to war with another country on the grounds that they refuse to hand over a member of the Al Quaida organisation.
If someone can explain the logic of that i would be most greatful
Meanwhile the two countries most responsible for the creation nurturing and funding of Al quidia (pakistan and Saudi Arabia) are being presented as the wests closest allies in the current conflict despite Saudi Arabias total refusal to co operate closing its airspace to American raids on Afganistan and publically refusing to allow Tony Blair to make a state visit.Meanwhile Pakistan Interservices Intelligence has been cited by Indian critics as continuing terrorist activities in kashmir with members of al quidia and orchestrating the anti american demonstrations in peshware in order to strengthen pakistans post taliban negotiating influence in afganistan(see footnote#1)
The United islamic front of Afganistan is being painted as heroic freedom fighters by the US and UK Governments,repeating a mistake made during the soviet occupation the governments of the west have been too forgiving of their 'allies' record on the treatment of Women,Civillians and POWs.<see footnote #2+3>
Meanwhile people have fled the cities,displacing countless numbers to face the harshness of the afgan winter under polethen sheets.aid stockpiles have been looted by the taliban and aid lorry drivers fearing being mistaken for milatery convoys have refused to deliver food supplies to outlying districts urgently needed before winter closes the passes. (footnote#4)
But would a pause in the bombing to allow aid deliveries or more airdrops of aid really help ease the suffering?Unfortunately any pause would allow the taliban to regroup and move its forces around the country,lengthening the conflict and may even perversely be seen as a sign of weakness by the Taliban, "these Americans have no stomach for a fight"(#4a)As for Aid drops the less said the better,the luftwaft could not even supply 300,000 men at stalingrad,how the hell does america expect to feed 2million plus hungry mouths scattered across a country the size of france.Not to mention Air crews notorious aversion to risking their lives for PR bull like this.
It takes a leap of faith to assume even the most niave Afgan is going to be won over by this approch "gee sorry you had to flee your house,heres a food parcel and a leaflet "
US action is being criticised by even the talibans most bitter rivals,
Iran and any disposition of the status quo will antagonise either Pakistan or Iran.(footnote#5) whilst China and Russia have made clear their co operation is not without limit expressing their desire for a quick end to military opperations.(footnote#6)
In short no it is not justified.But having engaged on this Great Military Adventure i hope the Taliban quickly fold before winter and some kind of sensible post war government can start rebuilding Afganistan into a moderate islamic state that respects the rights of women.
Rather than just another Mujahadeen 2 or Taliban Lite.
Wishful thinking.

.......................
#0 http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/011020/2001102036.html

#1
http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=314014066&art_id=1860484026&sType=1
http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=314014066&art_id=1585133388&sType=1
http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=-2128816011&art_id=561593009&sType=1
http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=606538241
http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=1803578002&art_id=821175546&sType=1
a breif explanation of Saudi Wahhabism here
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT37H537DQC&live=true&tagid=ZZZINS5VA0C&subheading=middle%20east%20and%20africa


#2 http://www.afghanradio.com/news/2001/october/oct19gg2001.html
Details from HumanRightsWatch as cited before by many on the board.http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/


#3 (As it was with Sadamm Hussain during the Iraq Iran War Human Rights Violations are glossed over.In 1985 the year Sadamm launched nerve gas attacks on the kurds the US were selling Ames strain Anthrax to Iraq for Agricultural Research whilst britain was busy selling tank parts as farm machinery and matrix churchill was encouraged by civil servants obtaining the necessary export permits to circumnavigate arms embargoes to manufacture parts of the supergun).


#4 here was the situation last winter,http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/kill505.htm#1
since then american airstrikes have displaced countless more people than the ongoing civil war.http://www.afghanradio.com/news/2001/october/oct20x2001.html

#4a http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33669 (thanks victor)

#5
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3D39RGXSC&live=true&tagid=ZZZINS5VA0C&subheading=middle%20east%20and%20africa
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=10/20/01&Cat=4&Num=016
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=10/20/01&Cat=2&Num=003

#6http://www.afghanradio.com/news/2001/october/oct20h2001.html

Nagilum

Can any war ever be justified?

If so, then this qualifies. The US was directly attacked by powers being sheltered by Afghanistan. If Afghanistan has neither the will nor means to aprehend those responsible, we have a right to defend ourselves by destroying those who would attack us again.

If you believe no war is ever justified, the answer is obviously no.

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have a fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

joev

Originally posted by Nagilum
Can any war ever be justified?

In self defence, yes... but is this self defence?

If so, then this qualifies. The US was directly attacked by powers being sheltered by Afghanistan. If Afghanistan has neither the will nor means to aprehend those responsible, we have a right to defend ourselves by destroying those who would attack us again.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. You are the weakest link.. Goodbye.

The US was subjected to a terrorist attack. That attack may, or may not, have been carried out by people loyal to Osama Bin Laden. Even if they were, they may, or may not have been acting under his instructions.

There has been no firm evidence provided by the US to date on this. What's there would be thrown out of court in a flash as circumstantial.

But, wait, the US doesn't want a court case... this is not about justice.... Bush has repeatedly rejected Taliban offers to hand over Bin Laden, upon the provision of evidence of his involvement to a Neutral observer country.

This is actually a normal state of affairs... countries do not just arbitrarily hand over asylum seekers without proper extradition... I don't see any reason why the US should get special treatment in this case.

I'd like to hope that if Dubya accused me of the crime that the Irish Govt would not just roll over and hand me over without any due process.

Of course, the US does not accept this because:

a) US sez jump, Taliban should say how high... how dare they oppose our bully boy tactics?

b) The US has, to date, NO tangible evidence to link Bin Laden to the 11.9 attacks. This means, that if he's tried in the US, he'll get the chair... anywhere else in the world he'd get off.

c) George Dubya Bush needed to kick someone to show that he was a good leader. ( isn't that the worst way to display leadership? brute force?)

d) George Dubya Bush needed the popularity. nuff said.

e) The military-industrial complex that put Bush in the White House badly needs a war to get a fresh injection of cash, use up those old missiles etc. so that they can go design and build more efficient (see Expensive) war-monger specials.

If you believe no war is ever justified, the answer is obviously no.

I think you're incredibly naive if you think this 'war' is being fought to defend your country or for any of the reasons that the white house propaganda machine (via it's outlets, CNN, NBC et al) feed you.

This 'war' is not about defence.... The truth is, the schoolyard bully got his nose bloodied by a flying stone. He doesn't know who threw it... but he's enlisted his other bully friends to go kick the **** out of one of the little kids on the block who may, or may not, have had something to do with it. (but he's arabic and hence shifty anyway so f&&k him...)

joev

Nagilum

Originally posted by joev


Bzzzzt. Wrong. You are the weakest link.. Goodbye.

joev

Honestly, how can you expect me to take seriously anything you've just said when you've given such a childish response?

Just because you don't know the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. Besides, even if there wasn't, Bin Laden's organization has already killed hundreds in the embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing. After that, we told the Taliban that if bin Laden's organization were to ever attack the US, we would consider it an act of war by them. Enough said.

joev

Originally posted by Nagilum


Honestly, how can you expect me to take seriously anything you've just said when you've given such a childish response?

It was a JEST.

Moreover, it's your response to it that matters, and that was clearly childish.

Just because you don't know the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any.

Hang him I say! There is evidence .... somewhere, but we're not telling you where! Lynch, Lynch, Lynch.

Arsebiscuits. In the absence of evidence, then there either is:

a) No such evidence.

b) There is some, but it's not strong enough to secure a conviction.

c) Irrelevant. We want to kick some. Full Stop. We're here to fight terror with more terror, mass destruction and setting off a humanitarian crisis. Oh, and by the way, Have a nice day!

Your nation is out for retribution, not justice. And the Afghans have presented you with a nice easy target.

Besides, even if there wasn't, Bin Laden's organization has already killed hundreds in the embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing. After that, we told the Taliban that if bin Laden's organization were to ever attack the US, we would consider it an act of war by them. Enough said.

And of course, you prove my point.

One scentence you contend that there 'may be' evidence, but then in the next one you state that whether there is or not, you don't care.

Al Quaeda was 'accused' of the Embassy bombings and suspected of the Cole. (After which your country tried to get justice at the end of a tomahawk cruise missile... hmmm.. nice Judicial process that)

As for the "we told the Taliban..." where did you get that one? CNN?

Nice retrofitting the facts by the Bush administration - We need the Taliban to be the bad guys... even tho we *put them there* (ssshhhh.. don't mention *that* for chrissakes!) so let's just make that declaration apply to the Taliban as well as Al Quaeda...

Lets face it... You're not going to convince me that this is a just war... You've just displayed the jingoistic nationalism that belies the word 'just'.

If your government were at least honest and admitted that it's retribution that would be fine.. but it gets up my nose to hear you espose it as justice.

Thanks alot USA, protector of the justice and freedom... but no thanks.. I prefer my freedom a little less Orwellian.

joev.

tools

It's not even about retribution. It's about cleaning out Afghanistan so oil companies and whoever else is in on the take, can go about their business in a strategic part of the world. The Taliban are Eeeevil for the way they treat women etc. What about Saudi Arabia? The most fundamentalist Islamic state there is. No fun for the ladies in that kip. Most of the hijackers came from there. Why not go in and sort them out?

nesf

A just war is an interesting concept. Some St. whose name I've forgotten wrote down 5?? conditions under-which war is justified. Self-Defense, Reclaimation of Land which orignally belonged to that country, etc.


The point is, have we a large boby of proof that wasn't circumstantial linking Bin Laden and the terrorist attacks. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it wasn't him, but where is the long list of proof promised us by the US, that was going to be delivered before a shot was fired?


The lack of information is also quite disturbing, the US's insistance that there are no civilian casualties is ludicrious! For those who can remember the bunker in Baghdad hit in the gulf war, which turned out to be an air-raid shelter? Or the Red-Cross(?) Warehouse destroyed in this one?

If you want to capture 1 man, how can you justify killing 1000's of others not linked with his crimes? Should the US be allowed to force an extridition like this? Aren't they breaching international law?


What I'm saying is that no war should be started, unless all other avenues of approach were tried. In all honesty, a bombing campaign will do little against unknown mountain bunkers and caves. Is this stand-off violence, which is basically a slaughter since the Afghan's have no real way defending themselves against high altitude bombers, immoral in the highest degree?


How come the US can get away with this so easily?

Nagilum

Originally posted by joev


It was a JEST.

If your government were at least honest and admitted that it's retribution that would be fine.. but it gets up my nose to hear you espose it as justice.

No, it most certainly wouldn't be fine to you. You'd criticize the US no matter what.

Thanks alot USA, protector of the justice and freedom... but no thanks.. I prefer my freedom a little less Orwellian.

joev.

Perhaps the Taliban would be glad to take you...

Sharkey

Originally posted by nesf
....If you want to capture 1 man, how can you justify killing 1000's of others not linked with his crimes?

Are you talking about those 1000s of people that protect and enable bin Laden? If so, they are "linked" to the crime.

Should the US be allowed to force an extridition like this? Aren't they breaching international law?

Is it? Which international laws?

What I'm saying is that no war should be started, unless all other avenues of approach were tried.

What a perfectly lovely, but useless sentiment.

In all honesty, a bombing campaign will do little against unknown mountain bunkers and caves.

Hence, the reason to send in ground troops after bombing has effectively evicerated Taliban defenses.

Is this stand-off violence, which is basically a slaughter since the Afghan's have no real way defending themselves against high altitude bombers...

Well, I'm not going to cry if the Taliban fails to kill enogh Americans. Regardless, all these poor people need do is send out Osama and his playmates and the US will take its bombers and go home!

How come the US can get away with this so easily?

One -- Because the US is responding to a terrorist attack.

Two -- The US is still a military giant

Three -- Most of the civilised world agrees with the US position.

Four -- Most of the civilised world has no love of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Five -- The Taliban isn't exactly popular, except with muslim extremist, anti-American zealots and muppets in general.

Six -- The Taliban are a bunch of thugs who divert their scant resources to international terrorism rather than feed their own

Hobbes

Originally posted by Nagilum
Perhaps the Taliban would be glad to take you...

In the US (as of now)
- Forgien Nationals can be jailed for 7 days without being charged or access to legal counsel (may be indefinate, might of changed).

- New Search Warrents have been allowed which doesn't require to inform the owner that the place is being searched.

- Police now have the right to search all your private records without justifying it to a Judge.

- Speaking out about the president is considered "UnAmerican" and in some cases can get you fired from your job.

- refusing to fly an American flag is considered "UnAmerican" and in some cases can get you fired from your job.

- American citizens are not allowed have offshore banking or internet gambling anymore.

- Goverment bodies now are allowed tap all internet usage in the US without needs for a warrent.

- Laws in the US force international developers not to release important security information to US citizens for fear of being arrested (even if they did it in a different country).

- A number of Educational places and corporations have now started Bag Searches and racial profiling.

- The New "Content Control" laws the US goverment is trying to pass will force people to submit thier work (interactive digital devices) to the US for approval. Failiure to do so can lead to arrest and jail time.

- Carrying the wrong book onto a plane can get you arrested.

- New roving wiretap laws allow the police to tap a phone even after a terrorist has no longer used it and with no timelimit on the tap.

- A large number of Middle Eastern decent Americans live in fear for thier lives despite the fact most don't even come from Afganistan or are Muslim.

Try paying attention to what the fuk is going on in your country.

[sometime later]

Just back from the movies. Big sign on the doors saying "No backpacks or bags allowed!", watched as some kid was refused admittance for having a school bag. They wouldn't even take the bag and look after it (which is what happens in Ireland).

Moriarty

Originally posted by joev

Hang him I say! There is evidence .... somewhere, but we're not telling you where! Lynch, Lynch, Lynch.

Arsebiscuits. In the absence of evidence, then there either is:

a) No such evidence.

b) There is some, but it's not strong enough to secure a conviction.

c) Irrelevant. We want to kick some. Full Stop. We're here to fight terror with more terror, mass destruction and setting off a humanitarian crisis. Oh, and by the way, Have a nice day!

d) The evidence cant be released for the moment, because it would reveal 'sources and methods' (read: informants, 'spys' etc), or 'national technical means' (read: satellites, sigint etc etc).

Its unlikely that everyone that has 'apparently' seen this evidence is in on some big conspiracy. Its far more likely that the evidence is there, its just not going to be released to Joe Public such as you and I.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Hobbes


In the US (as of now)
- Forgien Nationals can be jailed for 7 days without being charged or access to legal counsel (may be indefinate, might of changed).

- New Search Warrents have been allowed which doesn't require to inform the owner that the place is being searched.

- Police now have the right to search all your private records without justifying it to a Judge.

- Speaking out about the president is considered "UnAmerican" and in some cases can get you fired from your job.

- refusing to fly an American flag is considered "UnAmerican" and in some cases can get you fired from your job.

- American citizens are not allowed have offshore banking or internet gambling anymore.

- Goverment bodies now are allowed tap all internet usage in the US without needs for a warrent.

- Laws in the US force international developers not to release important security information to US citizens for fear of being arrested (even if they did it in a different country).

- A number of Educational places and corporations have now started Bag Searches and racial profiling.

- The New "Content Control" laws the US goverment is trying to pass will force people to submit thier work (interactive digital devices) to the US for approval. Failiure to do so can lead to arrest and jail time.

- Carrying the wrong book onto a plane can get you arrested.

- New roving wiretap laws allow the police to tap a phone even after a terrorist has no longer used it and with no timelimit on the tap.

- A large number of Middle Eastern decent Americans live in fear for thier lives despite the fact most don't even come from Afganistan or are Muslim.

Try paying attention to what the fuk is going on in your country.

Neglecting the aforementioned bullets that were gross exaggerations, it sounds like the US still has more civil liberties than most of the "progressive" western European countries (although, admittedly, not Ireland). Why don't you try paying attention to what has been going on in your neck of the woods.

Hobbes

Erm Gargoyle, what gross exaggerations? I'm fuking living in the US at the moment.

I can easily cite all those bullet points with proof, but then I thought some people were actually paying attention to begin with.

What exactly "lack of" civil liberties does Ireland have? I would be intrested to know seeing as you know something I don't.

How about some examples?

bonkey

Originally posted by Nagilum

No, it most certainly wouldn't be fine to you. You'd criticize the US no matter what.

You really dont get it, do you?

Every time someone criticises the US for its current actions, which are *not* universally popular, someone pops up with the old implications of "anti-American".

Did it ever occur to you that JoeV has a right to disagree with the US policy at present, and that it doesnt imply that he is anti-American (or if you prefer, someone who just wants to pick on the US).

The guy has 12 posts (count em, a while 12), and hasnt been around that long. So, from this masive proliferation of information, you can figure out that this guy is anti-American. I'm sure you can provide proof for that? No? Didnt think so.

Gee - that would be remarkably parallel to the US failure to supply proof about the terrorist attacks. Oh - hang on - you support the US not supplying proof, or at least have vigorously defended it.

No wonder you defend it. Its obviously a perfectly reasonable stance for you...damn those who you disagree with, and just say that youre right loud enough that it must be true. You dont need proof - people will assume you have it without needing to see it.

For those in the world who believe that truth and justice are actually about truth and justice, the US attack on Afghanistan cannot be justified under any pretext of "getting bin Laden", no more than you can justify your incredibly perceptive insights into the mindset of JoeV based on an entire 12 posts.

jc

joev

Originally posted by Nagilum


No, it most certainly wouldn't be fine to you. You'd criticize the US no matter what.

No. I would support a just cause. In this case, the US has attacked a foe that has been 'manufactured' by the pentagon and the popular media.

In all honesty, I can't see the point in arguing with you. It's clear that you're just soaking down all the garbage 'facts' that the White House and the media are 'managing' without ever applying a critical assessment to it.

I'm sure you feel good in your patriotism, and that's fine, I just think your misguided in never questioning it.

Perhaps the Taliban would be glad to take you...

So, there are only two alternatives? I think not. Western European *democracy* (tho flawed I know) is a much better alternative for me. For the most part we have a good balance between rule-of-law and personal freedom (though I'd like to see governments stop trying to be too 'mothering' and even more personal freedom)

I have a natural abhorrence for totalitarian states and fanticism (n.b. ironic use of the term abhorrence). I just contend that fundamentally I see no difference between the fundamentalist regime of the Taliban and the totalitarian nation that the US is becoming.
joev.

joev

Originally posted by Moriarty


d) The evidence cant be released for the moment, because it would reveal 'sources and methods' (read: informants, 'spys' etc), or 'national technical means' (read: satellites, sigint etc etc).

Rubbish... How can the data reveal the source? Photos of Bin-Laden personally blessing the 11.9 terrorist perhaps? Who would know who took it?

In fact revealing that there were inside sources would in my mind be a good thing... Engender suspicion and let the Al Quaeda organisation pull itself apart from the inside.

And *satellite*? Oh... revealing that the US has spy satellites everywhere... talk about letting the cat out of the bag!

Its unlikely that everyone that has 'apparently' seen this evidence is in on some big conspiracy. Its far more likely that the evidence is there, its just not going to be released to Joe Public such as you and I.

Who exactly is supposed to have seen the evidence? and if it does exist... why not show it to the Taliban who have said they will hand over Bin-Laden upon it's provision?

And the fact that the Governments don't release it to us public who are, after all, the people who *THEY SERVE* makes it even worse.

joev.

joev

Originally posted by Gargoyle


Neglecting the aforementioned bullets that were gross exaggerations, it sounds like the US still has more civil liberties than most of the "progressive" western European countries (although, admittedly, not Ireland). Why don't you try paying attention to what has been going on in your neck of the woods.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

US social, economic, statutory and judicial legislation are far more restrictive than most of Western Europe.

With the exception of the UK which has fairly far reaching powers for police under anti-terrorist legislation, the European Union and Western Europe in general has a far more progressive libertarian and equalitarian society.

joev.

P.S. I read Hobbes list and related each to specific items in the news over the last few months.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
The evidence cant be released for the moment, because it would reveal 'sources and methods' (read: informants, 'spys' etc), or 'national technical means' (read: satellites, sigint etc etc).

Its unlikely that everyone that has 'apparently' seen this evidence is in on some big conspiracy. Its far more likely that the evidence is there, its just not going to be released to Joe Public such as you and I.

The real issue is not whether evidence has been released to Joe Q Public. The issue is whether or not evidence has been handed to the Taliban, or if the US want to be complete smart-arses, they release it to whoever they see as the recognised authority in Afghanistan.

If this had been done, there would be no reason to hide this fact from the press, as it has remained one major area for which the US has been criticised. The evidence itself does not have to be leaked....just announce that evidence has been supplied.

Of course, you can argue that they cant hand the evidence to the Taliban no more than anyone else because it would give away intelligence secrets. If that is the case, the evidence can also not be used in a court of law, as it would have to be made available to the defendant.

Oh - hang on - they dont want a court-of-law trial for bin Laden, do they....because then the evidence would have to be produced!
Funny that.

So, we should just believe the US government..."yes, we have evidence, no you cant see it, trust us, he's guilty". Sorry, but thats not acceptable.

On the other hand, had the evidence been supplied, it still does not give the US the right to invade a foreign nation in order to find the person they are looking for. You can bet your bottom dollar that if it was a Chinese terrorist they were looking for and the Chinese refused to hand him over, there would be no missile strikes and invasions on China.

So, whether or not they have evidence, there is no reason to suggest that they have shared it with anyone, and if htey have not, then they are not justified in their actions.

But this whole area is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Basically put, this was supposed to be about getting bin Laden. It was supposed to be about beating down Al Qaeda. It was stated at the start that it was not an attack on the Taliban or Afghanistan.

Now....it increasingly looks like an attack on the Taliban, especially with all the news reports about "whatever government replaces the Taliban", and that the Allied forces are aiding the Northern Alliance to help them overthrow the Taliban. The Afghani people who do not support the Taliban have been reported as being concerned that the international forces are talking about the successors to the Taliban, but not who it will be or how it will be structured.

So it increasingly looks like the US is no longer out for justice, but is once again deciding who has the right to rule a foreign nation.

Which, I believe, is unjustified.

jc

Hobbes

Erm can we clear something up.

There will be no "court of law" for bin laden if the US get to him first. Bush has already sanctioned a "kill on sight" policy when it comes to him.

It has nothing to do with about bringing Bin Laden to Justice.

Gargoyle

I've always said that I think "bringing them to justice" is the wrong idea for this action. It should be about anhilliating those that would do it again, or something far worse.

I also think we're taking the wrong approach on building an alliance. We shouldn't give a **** about Arab states that will stab us in the back anyway. We should only care that we have the UK, Russia and China on our side, because, as long as those countries are on our side, we can do whatever we want regardlsss of what any other country thinks. Not to mention that the proximity to Islamic fundamentalism is much closer for Russia and China than for US.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by joev


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

<snip>
the European Union and Western Europe in general has a far more progressive libertarian and equalitarian society.

joev.

P.S. I read Hobbes list and related each to specific items in the news over the last few months.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you know what the libertarian philosophy encompasses before aspousing the EU has it, because with a 50% + tax rate and socialized medicine, it most certainly doesn't.

Hobbes

*MIND BOGGLE*

Erm, the Arab states is what keeps those American 12 Miles per the Gallon SUV's in oil. You are so totally thier byatches. A destabilized Middle East is what is keeping the oil prices low.

Islamic fundamentalism is not closer to Russia or China, China is probably closer to America then it ever was in all it's history.

I'm still waiting for that list of lack of civil liberties in Ireland that you claim exist.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Gargoyle
because with a 50% + tax rate and socialized medicine, it most certainly doesn't.

50% tax rate? Where in the EU? I certainly don't pay 50% tax and I'm in the high tax band.

Also we don't tax by country/EU.

For example in the US I have to pay a State Tax, Federal Tax and then depending on where I live I would also have to pay a city tax.

The Irish tax method is also easier to file then the US version.

Socialized medicine? You mean that people are entitled to free medical care? Trust me, it is 100 times better the US where a doctor won't even look at you unless you can prove you can pay for the consultation.

Heck my experience of the US hospital when I busted up my arm revolved around the first 10-20 minutes proving I could pay or who I should sue for the cash, then 30 minutes later they finally let me into triage just so they can ease the pain for the next 5 hour wait to have a doctor tell me "my arm is busted" in 3 minutes and pay $300 even after medical insurance.

Yea great system. :rolleyes:

joev

Originally posted by Gargoyle

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you know what the libertarian philosophy encompasses before aspousing the EU has it, because with a 50% + tax rate and socialized medicine, it most certainly doesn't.

libertarian: - lib-er·tar·i·an - (noun).
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.

Do not equate state involvement in the welfare of it's constituents with restriction of their RIGHTs.

Where in Europe has a 50%+ tax rate? I can't think of anywhere... and besides, those states with the highest tax rates also have incredible welfare systems for their people.

Oh... sorry.. I forgot, the US wants to get rid of it's welfare system... all those slacker elderly, sick, poor creaming off the rest....

What was that phrase again? "Give me your tired, your poor..."


Ah well, I'm not going to argue with you anymore because your posts are becoming increasingly rabidly Nationalistic and blindly jingoistic anyway.

It's clear you know little about the world outside your little box. Educate yourself then come back and we'll have a *dialog*.

Oh.. wait.. that's not gonna happen is it? You'd prefer to send cruise missiles.


joev.

P.S. Please note: I didn't use the phrase "neo-nazi totalitarian facist bullies" in this post even tho I really wanted to

Catch_22

Originally posted by Sharkey

Are you talking about those 1000s of people that protect and enable bin Laden? If so, they are "linked" to the crime.

[/b]

No it think that were talking about the thousands of people who live and work in Afghanistan trying to support their families just like people in America. They have no involvement in politics and no say in what their government does (tempted to finish that sentence with "just like america" too).

By being born in this country they deserve to die ??

That my friend is racism.

c22

Nagilum

I would have thought that if anyone knew the dangerous road down which a policy appeasement can lead, it would be western Europeans...I suppose the lesson of history has been lost on you.

Are the lives of the Afghan civilians a satisfactory price to pay for winning this war? Consider this, if bin Laden gets his hands on a serious Bio/Chem/Nuclear weapon, he will kill hundreds of times the number of civilians that will be killed by US bombing. That fact alone makes it worth the price.

Joev, I must say I think you are one of the most incredibly naive people I have ever had the pleasure of debating, but I will give you this, you are passionate about your views...good on ya.

Moriarty

Originally posted by joev
Rubbish... How can the data reveal the source? Photos of Bin-Laden personally blessing the 11.9 terrorist perhaps? Who would know who took it?

In fact revealing that there were inside sources would in my mind be a good thing... Engender suspicion and let the Al Quaeda organisation pull itself apart from the inside.

And *satellite*? Oh... revealing that the US has spy satellites everywhere... talk about letting the cat out of the bag!

Lordy. The gathered intelligence could very easily reveal the source, or the method used to get the source. Revelaing this will show everyone - including terrorist networks - what the US can intercept (sigint - SIGnals INTelligence or in other words communication intercepts) as an example. Likewise, the revealing of the resolutions of NIA / NRO satellites would serve no other purpose than to show subversive groups how to avoid them.

Revealing that there are sources in al quaeda will serve no other purpose than to get those sources killed. Which in turn means that the US will know even less about the organistaion.

Oh, and i was just using satellites as an example of what 'national technical means' actually means, along with sigint as another example. If you didnt catch onto that your not the brightest tool in the box.

Originally posted by joev

Who exactly is supposed to have seen the evidence? and if it does exist... why not show it to the Taliban who have said they will hand over Bin-Laden upon it's provision?

Some EU ministers, the entire NATO council, aswell as some leaders of mid-eastern countries such as pakistan and Saudi Arabia. All have agreed that there is no doubt, after seeing this evidence, that Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were directly involved with 9-11.

Showing it to the taliban, as i have said above, would just compromise details of intelligence gathering. As afghanistan is classified as a 'rogue nation' by the US state department, the US intelligence agencies are unlikely to want to share information with them.

Originally posted by joev

And the fact that the Governments don't release it to us public who are, after all, the people who *THEY SERVE* makes it even worse.

That is really naive of you.

Hobbes

Revelaing this will show everyone - including terrorist networks - what the US can intercept

Yes and could open up a whole new can of worms.

For example. The US showed one set of evidence to the UK and Canada and another set of evidence to the whole world.

Why? Hmm, well isn't the UK and Canada part of the so called "Echelon" that the EU just recently proved existed and is said to be stealing Business secrets.

Revealing that there are sources in al quaeda will serve no other purpose than to get those sources killed. Which in turn means that the US will know even less about the organistaion.

Which is about the only valid reason I can see.

If you didnt catch onto that your not the brightest tool in the box.

Yes insult the poster, that always gets the argument across.

Showing it to the taliban, as i have said above, would just compromise details of intelligence gathering.

Hmm, that's strange I thought if you were going to charge someone you would normally have to prove it to get a country to help you.

Lets say a country (pick any) said "Hey we want this person from the US who we plan to execute for crimes against us but we aren't going to show you any evidence. Hand him over or else".

What would the US reply be?

joev

Originally posted by Nagilum
I would have thought that if anyone knew the dangerous road down which a policy appeasement can lead, it would be western Europeans...I suppose the lesson of history has been lost on you.

I'm not advocating a policy of appeasement. However I fail to see how the current US stance of attempting to Bully countries to acceed to their wishes is any better than that of the Terrorists who they claim are a threat to us all.

For my own part, Henceforth I would fear the Terror of US 'intervention and/or justice' far more than the 'terrorists'.

Are the lives of the Afghan civilians a satisfactory price to pay for winning this war? Consider this, if bin Laden gets his hands on a serious Bio/Chem/Nuclear weapon, he will kill hundreds of times the number of civilians that will be killed by US bombing. That fact alone makes it worth the price.

I cannot in all honesty understand how *anyone* with a even a basic education and a modicum of humanity can justify themselves by saying "We're killing all these innocent people to prevent the unlikely possibility that this other person will kill other people in the future."

That's f**kin sick.

Joev, I must say I think you are one of the most incredibly naive people I have ever had the pleasure of debating, but I will give you this, you are passionate about your views...good on ya.

You call me naive because I don't agree with you? I'm looking at this situation pragmatically and my sense of the reasonable says that invading and bombing the **** out of a country because of ONE man does not make any sense whatsoever.

I'm pointing out that the political will behind these actions is coloured in many shades of darkness... You're spouting the latest nationalistic soundbite that CNN has handed you.

You my friend are the naive one if you believe that this 'war' (I prefer act of terror) is indeed justified.

joev.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes

Yes and could open up a whole new can of worms.

For example. The US showed one set of evidence to the UK and Canada and another set of evidence to the whole world.

Why? Hmm, well isn't the UK and Canada part of the so called "Echelon" that the EU just recently proved existed and is said to be stealing Business secrets.

Uh huh. They have also been long-time partners, all co-operating very closely on matters such as this so id in all honesty expect nothing other than them getting 'in on it' more, so to speak.

Originally posted by Hobbes
Showing it to the taliban, as i have said above, would just compromise details of intelligence gathering.

Hmm, that's strange I thought if you were going to charge someone you would normally have to prove it to get a country to help you.

Lets say a country (pick any) said "Hey we want this person from the US who we plan to execute for crimes against us but we aren't going to show you any evidence. Hand him over or else".

What would the US reply be? [/B]

Your missing the point. Has the US, or, for that matter, myself, ever mentioned charging anyone? US troops are acting on a shoot-on-sight order. Thats usually not productive if you ever intend on trying somone for crimes. This is not a police action, its the US and their close allies declaring war on the al queada network. Im not saying i agree, im stating the facts. The commanders in the states are treating it as war.

Hobbes

They have also been long-time partners, all co-operating very closely on matters such as this

Yes, otherwise known as Echelon.

Your missing the point.

No I don't think I am. If another country did the exact same thing to the US, the US would tell them to go fuk themselves. But for some reason the reverse happens and we are all supposed to believe that the other country will just hand a person over without evidence.


ever mentioned charging anyone?

I certainly never mentioned in the text you quoted. In fact I point out earlier that the US isn't even going to have a trial, only an execution. Again, what do you think the US opinion would be if this incident was reversed and tell me why you think it should be different for the other country?

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes
They have also been long-time partners, all co-operating very closely on matters such as this

Yes, otherwise known as Echelon.

Echelon being a tiny, tiny fraction of the vast co-operation between these nations. Their military train together, develop the same tactics, command structures... Their economies are tied closely to one another. Their political systems are largley the same. I could go on..

Originally posted by Hobbes
Your missing the point.

No I don't think I am. If another country did the exact same thing to the US, the US would tell them to go fuk themselves. But for some reason the reverse happens and we are all supposed to believe that the other country will just hand a person over without evidence.

I think you are. Afghanistan is not 'just another country'. The taliban has participated in state-funded terrorist operations. They care not a jot for their own population. Up until around 8 months ago it was legal for people to activly cultivate and harvest drug crops for heroin and cocaine. They destroyed centuries-old statues of the buddah that were rich in archalogical importance.

Afghanistan has been on the state departments rogue nations list for many years. After the sepetember attacks were linked back to al queada, which operates out of afghanistan, and is partically funded by the taliban, the US gave the taliban leadership a choice. Either disassociate completely with all terrorist groups and cooperate with the US & allies, or be invaded. The taliban in their wisdom chose the latter. This would not happen in a european country, simply because they do not sponsor terrorisim, or support it. Afghanistan's Taliban leadership does.

The US does not sponsor or support terrorist acts. It has a government that has been freely elected by the people. It is a democracy. It is not an extremist goverment, but relativly 'center'. For all those reasons and more it is a completelty irrelevant question.

Originally posted by Hobbes
ever mentioned charging anyone?

I certainly never mentioned in the text you quoted. In fact I point out earlier that the US isn't even going to have a trial, only an execution. Again, what do you think the US opinion would be if this incident was reversed and tell me why you think it should be different for the other country?

Read above.

Von

Afghanistan has been on the state departments rogue nations list for many years.

A lie I think.

There are currently seven countries on the State Department's "terrorism list": Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Each of these countries has repeatedly backed terrorist acts against U.S. military or civilian targets and has subsequently been the target of U.S. economic sanctions and diplomatic reprimands.

The US does not sponsor or support terrorist acts.

Another lie I think. Though this depends on your definition of "terrorism". John Negroponte is Bush's ambassador at the United Nations. Last week, he delivered America's threat to the world that it may "require" to attack more and more countries. As US ambassador to Honduras in the early 1980s, Negroponte oversaw American funding of the regime's death squads, known as Battalion 316, that wiped out the democratic opposition, while the CIA ran its "contra" war of terror against neighbouring Nicaragua. Murdering teachers and slitting the throats of midwives were a speciality. This was typical of the terrorism that Latin America has long suffered, with its principal torturers and tyrants trained and financed by the great warrior against "global terrorism", which probably harbours more terrorists and assassins in Florida than any country on earth.

Hobbes

The US has been caught sponsering Terrorist acts and organizations. Just not domestically.

The Northern Alliance the US feels so fondly about has a track record equal to the Taleban.

But I didn't ask you if you believed it or not, I asked you what would the US do if they were told by another country to hand over someone or else with absolutly no proof that the person they wanted handed over did the crime or not?

Moriarty

Originally posted by Von

A lie I think.

There are currently seven countries on the State Department's "terrorism list": Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Each of these countries has repeatedly backed terrorist acts against U.S. military or civilian targets and has subsequently been the target of U.S. economic sanctions and diplomatic reprimands.

Did i say terrorism list?

Originally posted by Von

Another lie I think. Though this depends on your definition of "terrorism". John Negroponte is Bush's ambassador at the United Nations. Last week, he delivered America's threat to the world that it may "require" to attack more and more countries. As US ambassador to Honduras in the early 1980s, Negroponte oversaw American funding of the regime's death squads, known as Battalion 316, that wiped out the democratic opposition, while the CIA ran its "contra" war of terror against neighbouring Nicaragua. Murdering teachers and slitting the throats of midwives were a speciality. This was typical of the terrorism that Latin America has long suffered, with its principal torturers and tyrants trained and financed by the great warrior against "global terrorism", which probably harbours more terrorists and assassins in Florida than any country on earth.

Fine. That way, almost every european and western power has in some way sponsored terrorisim in its recent history. Either way, my argument stands.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes
The US has been caught sponsering Terrorist acts and organizations. Just not domestically.

The Northern Alliance the US feels so fondly about has a track record equal to the Taleban.

But I didn't ask you if you believed it or not, I asked you what would the US do if they were told by another country to hand over someone or else with absolutly no proof that the person they wanted handed over did the crime or not?

And i answered your question in my last post.

I have never stated support for the northern alliance. I know that their basically as viscous as the taliban, I dont like it. It has absolutley no relevance to the current debate though.

Hobbes

Humour me, because I sure as heck can't find the answer you posted.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes
Humour me, because I sure as heck can't find the answer you posted.

My answer :

Originally posted by Moriarty
Afghanistan is not 'just another country'. The taliban has participated in state-funded terrorist operations. They care not a jot for their own population. Up until around 8 months ago it was legal for people to activly cultivate and harvest drug crops for heroin and cocaine. They destroyed centuries-old statues of the buddah that were rich in archalogical importance.

Afghanistan has been on the state departments rogue nations list for many years. After the sepetember attacks were linked back to al queada, which operates out of afghanistan, and is partically funded by the taliban, the US gave the taliban leadership a choice. Either disassociate completely with all terrorist groups and cooperate with the US & allies, or be invaded. The taliban in their wisdom chose the latter. This would not happen in a european country, simply because they do not sponsor terrorisim, or support it. Afghanistan's Taliban leadership does.

The US does not sponsor or support terrorist acts. It has a government that has been freely elected by the people. It is a democracy. It is not an extremist goverment, but relativly 'center'. For all those reasons and more it is a completelty irrelevant question.

Hobbes

That's not really an answer though. You just avoided the question.

I didn't say when it happens. I said if it happend. I am also not saying Mr Laden is innocent either.

Again..

what would the US do if it was told to hand over one of it's citizens or face the consequences of invasion without being given evidence of that citizens wrongdoing.

What do you think would happen? The US would hand that person over or not?

Oh, and I guess if I asked 3 months ago what would the US do if 2 planes were flown into skyscrapers I guess the answer would be "it could never happen".

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes
That's not really an answer though. You just avoided the question.

I didn't say when it happens. I said if it happend. I am also not saying Mr Laden is innocent either.

Again..

what would the US do if it was told to hand over one of it's citizens or face the consequences of invasion without being given evidence of that citizens wrongdoing.

What do you think would happen? The US would hand that person over or not?

Oh, and I guess if I asked 3 months ago what would the US do if 2 planes were flown into skyscrapers I guess the answer would be "it could never happen".

Aye, well i avoided answering cuz it wont/cant happen Unless of course, the US government goes fanatical overnight, i dont ever see a circumstance where such a situation would occour. Imo its an unfair question

Hobbes

How do you know it won't/can't happen?

It is a hypothetical situation. I wasn't saying it would happen but I would be intrested how the US not being fanatical would some how influence another country to not demand that they hand over a citizen without showing evidence.

Here is exactly what would happen. The US would say "NO". Unless they had evidence there is no way they would hand them over.

Now what I want to know is, why would any other country do the complete oppisite? The US ordered Afganistan to hand over Bin Laden with no proof given of his guilt. What else could they do? kotow to the US?

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes
How do you know it won't/can't happen?

It is a hypothetical situation. I wasn't saying it would happen but I would be intrested how the US not being fanatical would some how influence another country to not demand that they hand over a citizen without showing evidence.

Here is exactly what would happen. The US would say "NO". Unless they had evidence there is no way they would hand them over.

Now what I want to know is, why would any other country do the complete oppisite? The US ordered Afganistan to hand over Bin Laden with no proof given of his guilt. What else could they do? kotow to the US?

Aye, but we both know that the US didnt really want him handed over from the begining. War was the only thing on their minds.

bonkey

And isnt that the crux of it.

The US sttod up after Sep 11 and told the world and their own citizens that they would not go shooting half-cocked, and that the perpetrators of the crime would be brought justice.

The world took heart, because the US was talking justice and not revenge. The US citizenship took heart because they would see justice.

If war, as you say, was always the agenda, then I see no justice, and no-one ever will.

Which goes back to the original question. If we assume that this war is not about justice, what is it about, and how can it be justified? How can the use of cluster bombs on villages (if said story is true) be considered a just way of dealing with a secretive terrorist organisation?

Oh - hang on - maybe this war isnt even about Al Qaeda any more....its about punishing the Taliban, because that way justice can be seen to be done. But remember, Dubya assured us so many times that this was never about toppling the Taliban, it was only about Al Qaeda.

Sheah. Right.

jc