LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   War in Afghanistan justified? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=176383)

Nancy Allen`` 03-08-2007 10:47 PM

War in Afghanistan justified?
 
Of course Iraq wasn't justified but was it right to retalliate against the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan for September 11?

Spider AL 03-09-2007 07:17 AM

It wasn't retaliation, because the Taliban didn't mastermind the 9-11 attacks. The 9-11 attacks were most likely funded and orchestrated by Saudi Arabians.

The reason the US attacked Afghanistan was because the Afghan government refused to hand over some people the US suspected of being involved. The Afghan government wanted to see some evidence first. That's a reasonable demand. We always want to see evidence in OUR countries before extraditing people to other nations. The US certainly always wants to see some evidence.

But of course, there's one rule for us and one rule for poor underdeveloped countries. ;) So instead of providing evidence, we invaded.

So of course the war wasn't justified, as diplomatic channels were not pursued in any meaningful way beforehand. War must be a last option to be justified at all.

TK-8252 03-10-2007 08:44 PM

Not justified, because after all, the Taliban DID offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to a neutral country for trial.

Rogue15 03-18-2007 11:15 AM

of course it was justified. kill those taliban mother ****s!!!

TK-8252 03-18-2007 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue15
of course it was justified. kill those taliban mother ****s!!!

Why?

Tinny 03-18-2007 10:40 PM

This is from wikipedia:

Quote:

In 1996, Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he had helped finance the Taliban.[11]

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several al Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[12] The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan[13] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[14]Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records but no physical 'proof' at the time linked bin Laden to allegations made by US intelligence and government channels.[15][16]

The Taliban continued to harbor bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks, protesting his innocence[17], while at the same time offering to hand him over to a third nation. In 2004 bin Laden took personal responsibility for ordering the attacks on New York and Washington in a videotape broadcast on Al Jazeera.

TK-8252 03-19-2007 12:56 AM

Quote:

The Taliban continued to harbor bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks, protesting his innocence[17], while at the same time offering to hand him over to a third nation.
...Which is exactly why our invasion of Afghanistan was not necessary.

Tinny 03-20-2007 02:24 PM

Sounds more like allowing him a greater chance to escape.

Jan Gaarni 03-20-2007 02:46 PM

Quote:

The Taliban continued to harbor bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks, protesting his innocence[17], while at the same time offering to hand him over to a third nation.
Sounds more like "Oh crap, that crazy bugger did it this time. We better offer something so we don't loose our rule over this land!" :D

Spider AL 03-20-2007 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tinny:

Sounds more like allowing him a greater chance to escape.

TK is correct, Tinny. You're labouring under a misapprehension.

The situation you describe doesn't make any sense. If the Taliban wanted to give Bin Laden time to escape, they would perhaps have claimed that they did not have any knowledge of his whereabouts. They could have claimed any number of things. Instead they asked for evidence and offered to turn Bin Laden over to a third party. That's not a method of stalling for time, it's a direct statement that they had the man and were willing to turn him over under certain circumstances.

Do you seriously think the Taliban were fools? Idiots? Do you think they wanted Afghanistan to be invaded by US troops? Pshaw.

What the Taliban did was ask for evidence to support the accusations of the US government... and offered to turn Bin Laden over to a third party (a neutral party). Both are reasonable requests. As stated before, the US demands no less in similar situations. When was the last time the US agreed to extradite someone to another country without any evidence whatsoever? Hell, the US doesn't extradite people to other countries even when they're given quite a lot of evidence of their wrongdoings.

So if it's okay for the US to demand evidence, it's okay for everyone else to demand evidence. And if you're saying that the US DIDN'T have to give any evidence, then nobody else has to give evidence either... which would mean that the US should have given up all the terrorists and international criminals it's been harbouring over the years.

Either way, simple moral universality disproves your contentions. I presume you want your nation to behave morally? Well so do I.

-

Furthermore, let's for the sake of completeness accept for a moment that your assertion is correct, (even though it is not correct) and that the "Taliban were merely stalling for time" to allow the evil Bin Laden to escape.

Well does that give the US the right to invade a country causing death, poverty, misery and suffering to the populace of that country? Nope. It still doesn't give them that right. You don't get to smash a whole country just in order to catch one man. That's insanity, plain and simple.

There were plenty of other options of course. That just makes the decision to go straight in to war even more reprehensible.

TK-8252 03-20-2007 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinny
Sounds more like allowing him a greater chance to escape.

And it's a good thing we invaded, because otherwise, we wouldn't have Bin Laden in our custody... wait a minute, he DID escape, despite our invasion. Wonderful.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.