Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan? [Archive]

View Full Version : Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?

Don Corleone

05-08-2007, 19:54

I'm afraid a discussion of the French presidential race is not an appropriate place to have this discussion. So here we are, another war debate.

Now, on October 14, 2001 the USA and our allies launched an aerial invasion of Afghanistan. Several days later a ground invasion began as well. The stated goal was to remove the Taliban from power, to shut down Al Queda training camps and to capture and put on trial Osama bin Laden; for the 1998 embassy bombings, for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 2001 9/11 attacks in which almost 3000 Americans were killed.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, President Bush announced to the world an ultimatum to the Taliban, that if they did not surrender Osama bin Laden, they would be viewed as supporting and sheltering him and would be treated as such. The Taliban's response? They refused to acknowledge the statement. Speaking to Saudi and Pakastani ambassadors, they claimed to acknowledge a non-muslim leader of any country would be an insult to Islam, and that only muslim heads of states where sharia was enforced were legitimate rulers.

After several weeks of stall tactics, during which Saudi Arabia and all other states, save Pakistan, severed diplomatic ties with the Taliban, the USA's deadline expired and war commenced.

Was the USA justified? Note, for the purposes of this thread the subsequent military actions in Iraq are not open for discussion, except in how they can be linked to the original decision to engage the Taliban with military force.

drone

05-08-2007, 20:01

Yes.

The lack of follow-thru has been disgraceful though, but since that is related to the item we are not supposed to discuss I will leave it at that.

BigTex

05-08-2007, 20:16

Yes, the only proper response to an attack on New York and the pentagon.

Sad that we have let the aftermath slip. They were on the right track, but Nato was a poor choice.

Pannonian

05-08-2007, 20:21

Yes, the only proper response to an attack on New York and the pentagon.

Sad that we have let the aftermath slip. They were on the right track, but Nato was a poor choice.
Why was NATO a poor choice?

BigTex

05-08-2007, 20:26

Why was NATO a poor choice?

Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.

Odin

05-08-2007, 20:28

Sasaki Kojiro

05-08-2007, 20:28

Heh, nice poll results.

edit: legio, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

lancelot

05-08-2007, 20:49

I guess I'll play devils advocate on this one and say a guarded 'no.'

Reasons-

Was it even confirmed that Binnie was even in the country? And even if he was (and as has subsequently been shown) he seems reasonably adept at hiding. It stands to reason that maybe the Afghan government had no knowledge of his location.

I cant help but have a gut feeling that the US response was a bit over the top if the search for one man was truly the goal in question.

Which makes me think there were other issues in play- I dont think the exportation of democracy was one of them, thats for sure. Sabre-rattling perhaps?

Tribesman

05-08-2007, 20:56

Don . Has the US removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan ?

Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.

Could you explain why the parts of Afghanistan with a US army presence are screwed up aswell then ?

Pannonian

05-08-2007, 20:56

Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.
How do you propose you could have controlled things better on the ground if NATO hadn't provided the grunts? If you used special forces "advisors" to assist primarily Afghan forces, you would have ended up with a warlord-controlled Afghanistan, as in the OTL, but without even the facade of control that we have now. As for a US army presence - we all know why there isn't one, and Don stated specifically at the start of the thread that he doesn't want it discussed here.

For the French baiters here - "Nous sommes tous les Americains".

Kralizec

05-08-2007, 20:58

Yes.

Goofball

05-08-2007, 21:00

Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.

Examples?

Don Corleone

05-08-2007, 21:10

Actually, I'm surprised, pleasantly so, by the results. I didn't start the thread on a need to justify our actions to myself. There's very few things the US has done militarily that were as obviously appropriate as our action in Afghanistan. I started this thread in direct response to a couple of posts in another thread that implied a different view. Thus far, said posters have yet to contribute in this thread.

I too wish we had prosecuted the Afghanistan theater more fully, focused on our intended goals more vehemently, and paid more attention to the nation building we claimed we were there to do. My point in not mentioning Iraq was not that we can't mention how that has drained resources from the theater in a way that has inhibited our ability to prosecute the war. That's a very valid point.

My point was to avoid discussions along the lines of "Well, based on the fact that the USA used it as justification to later attack Iraq, then no, they were wrong in Afghanistan too".

And don't blame NATO, BigTex. They've done the best that they can, under the circumstances. We've asked them to keep the area free and clear and they've done a pretty good job. I do think they're stretched thin, and I don't know the gist of what NATO service obligations are, but they are there and they are doing the job.

Rodion Romanovich

05-08-2007, 21:18

@topic: No, the claimed casus belli for the war was that the Afghani regime didn't hand over bin Laden. First of all, it's questionable whether at all you can hold someone besides the suicide bombers who carried out the 9/11 attack guilty for that action - the only that are obviously and provably guilty were dead by the time the attack had taken place. Secondly, to claim the Afghani regime illegally protected bin Laden for failing to hand him over is also a fallacy - 200,000 American soldiers have been unable to find the man while occupying the country so how could the Afghani representatives at all be able to find him and/or hand him over? To require someone to perform an impossible task or face war is hardly fair play. Thirdly, the Afghani government had nothing to do with 9/11, they didn't support the action in any way whatsoever and didn't declare war on the USA. So why attack Afghanistan? The war was merely a propaganda action from the Bush administration who needed someone to blame for the attack to look like he cared about the victims of 9/11. From the 9/11 perspective, the attack wasn't justified.

The other possible casus belli would be to act as liberators to remove the repressive talibani government. In that aspect there was more of an excuse to attack, but not through the methods used by the USA - a pure air campaign with random bombings with outdated precisionless bombs, many of which struck civilian targets. There was also no proper program for how to handle the situation after the war. If the latter had been made, the war could have been justied.

Marshal Murat

05-08-2007, 21:22

I think that the U.S. went in, we did the right thing. We stopped the sharia law women oppression of the Taliban, and got the country stablized. However, the unfortunate circumstances elsewhere has rendered out gains to a marginal victory, as warlords seek to carve territory, opium trade flourishes, and the Taliban has moved back into some places.

However, in response to the original question. Yes.

Lemur

05-08-2007, 21:22

We were 100% correct to remove the Taliban. If they had been willing to hand over Bin Laden and his lieutenants, it would be a different story. But as it stands, they were truly a rogue nation, harboring people who had planned and executed a massive attack on civilians.

It goes without saying that the follow-up has been disappointing. I cringe when I read accounts of translators, gear and troops being pulled out of Afghanistan because of Iraq. That's a different thread, though.

ajaxfetish

05-08-2007, 21:26

Secondly, to claim the Afghani regime illegally protected bin Laden for failing to hand him over is also a fallacy - 200,000 American soldiers have been unable to find the man while occupying the country so how could the Afghani representatives at all be able to find him and/or hand him over? To require someone to perform an impossible task or face war is hardly fair play.
I'm going to leave your other points alone, but I'll take issue with this. The Afghani government didn't say, 'This is an impossible task. We can't do it.' They said, 'We don't recognize your right to speak to us, USA.' There was no hint of cooperation, while as I understand it there is plenty of evidence for considerable cooperation with the Al Qaeda forces within their country. If the Taliban had been a little more polite, things may have turned out differently. But then, I don't think there was any real chance of that, or any expectation on the part of US officials, either.

Ajax

Rodion Romanovich

05-08-2007, 21:28

I'm going to leave your other points alone, but I'll take issue with this. The Afghani government didn't say, 'This is an impossible task. We can't do it.' They said, 'We don't recognize your right to speak to us, USA.' There was no hint of cooperation, while as I understand it there is plenty of evidence for considerable cooperation with the Al Qaeda forces within their country. If the Taliban had been a little more polite, things may have turned out differently. But then, I don't think there was any real chance of that, or any expectation on the part of US officials, either.

So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...

ajaxfetish

05-08-2007, 21:29

So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...
No. It's a rhetorical device called understatement. I'm sure you've heard of it.

Ajax

Rodion Romanovich

05-08-2007, 21:31

No. It's a rhetorical device called understatement. I'm sure you've heard of it.

Ajax
So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?

Goofball

05-08-2007, 21:32

So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...

If that's how you read his post, may I suggest a quick dose of "Hooked on Phonics?"

Sasaki Kojiro

05-08-2007, 21:35

I think we were justified even if we know bin laden wasn't in the country.

ajaxfetish

05-08-2007, 21:36

So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?
Theoretically, there's the possibility of US and/or international forces being allowed to operate jointly with Afghani forces to accomplish the task. But as I said earlier, there was no real chance or expectation of the Taliban cooperating with the US. The ultimatum was political theatrics to demonstrate just cause for the world (which doesn't make it wrong: it had to be done). The conclusion was foregone.

Ajax

Crazed Rabbit

05-08-2007, 21:38

Might require a heavy dose.

First of all, it's questionable whether at all you can hold someone besides the suicide bombers who carried out the 9/11 attack guilty for that action - the only that are obviously and provably guilty were dead by the time the attack had taken place.

Osama claimed responsibility. There is no question of his guilt.

Thirdly, the Afghani government had nothing to do with 9/11, they didn't support the action in any way whatsoever and didn't declare war on the USA.

They harbored those who carried it out.

Really, your case against the war is poor.

CR

Don Corleone

05-08-2007, 21:39

Regardless of Bin Laden himself, there was tons of evidence that Al Queda was operating training camps openly within Afghanistan. The UN passed three resolutions over it!!! When the bombers were sought to face criminal charages, they took refuge within Afghanistan. The Taliban were openly supporting them. Forget Bin Laden himself for a moment, the two organizations: Al Queda and the Taliban, are inexorably linked. They were fully cooperating with each other.

The USA gave the Taliban one last chance on September 12th, 2001. We told them past behavior will be forgotton. Hand over those responsible and we will let bygones be bygones.

Did the Taliban respond that they couldn't because they don't know where AQ were? No (And they did know where Al Queda itself was)

Did the Taliban respond that they wouldn't because they hadn't seen enough proof yet? (Actually, they tried this, 6 hours before the first bombs started landing) No.

Their answer? No answer. They effectively said "you are not muslims and you are not worthy of acknowledging", a great big 'go :daisy: yourself'. They knew fully well they were making a decision about their destiny. They were betting that the rest of the Muslim world would back them, and they were wrong, because, as it turns out, Muslims recognized how wrong the Taliban were on this issue as well.

Goofball

05-08-2007, 21:40

So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?

I believe he is saying that if the Taliban had said "We don't know where he is, but we will cooperate fully with U.S. and other nations to locate and capture this mass murderer" then there wouldn't have been a war.

Rodion Romanovich

05-08-2007, 21:40

Rodion Romanovich

05-08-2007, 21:42

Osama claimed responsibility. There is no question of his guilt.

Every year, there are over 1,000 non-murderers "admitting" murder in normal legal systems, who are later found out to have lied. Someone admitting a deed doesn't equal guilt. What do you think are the proofs that bin Laden did the attack, despite the fact that he is alive, and the attack was a suicide attack?

ajaxfetish

05-08-2007, 21:43

I just find it odd how you can consider it your right to punish an entire population because you're pissed with 1 person in that population and want to carry through your personal vendetta. It's a bit like Hitler wanting to kill all Jews because he was pissed with 2 guys - his father and the guy who rejected his art school application. Lenin too expressed this type of idea: "it's better to kill 100 innocents, than let 1 guilty get away". To me, it's utterly barbaric and irrational to follow this type of thought pattern: to think it's more important to punish a guilty man than to avoid killing innocents in the process.

But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view. Perhaps I'm odd and not normal for thinking so? What do you think? Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by? Or maybe I should keep reasoning the way I do, since I consider it a lot more rational.
Had Hitler's father and Art School Dean committed mass murder of innocents? Were 'all Jews' protecting the two and shielding them from international justice? Was Hitler's objective only to remove the Jews from their position of power so as to bring the murderers to justice? Your analogy makes zero sense to me, but Godwin would be proud.

Ajax

edit: As to the 100 innocents vs 1 guilty--I personally prefer the sentiment (was it Franklin's?) that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent, but the invasion wasn't just a matter of justice. America did not take issue with Al Qaeda and Osama for past injuries alone. The organization represented a continuing threat to innocents worldwide, and for that matter the Taliban represented a continuing threat to innocents within its own country. The invasion was part retribution, part protection.

Rodion Romanovich

05-08-2007, 21:44

Had Hitler's father and Art School Dean committed mass murder of innocents? Were 'all Jews' protecting the two and shielding them from international justice? Was Hitler's objective only to remove the Jews from their position of power so as to bring the murderers to justice? Your analogy makes zero sense to me, but Godwin would be proud.

Ajax
The analogy is simple: someone having a quarrel with you, and you're prepared to kill plenty of civilians to get to the few that are your real enemies. In this case even worse: you want to kill someone you have no proofs against (I have yet to hear any proof that bin Laden had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attack) to score propaganda points at home, and in order to get him you're prepared to kill thousands of innocents. Let's call it "revenge accuracy". The US government killed a few thousands in Afghanistan, but failed to get the one they claim was guilty. The revenge accuracy is thus 0% - 0 successful kills of persons considered guilty per kill of civilians/innocents.

Don Corleone

05-08-2007, 21:47

First, we didn't punish the entire Afghan population. The vast majority of them are happier now than they were in September of 2001. I know the women certainly are. The one argument they might make is "a little more, please sir?"

Second, it wasn't about one person. The Taliban and Al-Queda were fully cooperative in each other's mayhem. The Taliban had been providing a safe haven from which Al Queda had been launching attacks for a decade. And at the end of the day, if we hadn't taken the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and broken up all the Al Queda training camps, the next attack would have made 9/11 look small in comparison. Maybe you're forgetting that all those dirty bomb plans they found in Taliban and Al Queda offices when they cleaned the place up.

Tribesman, didn't forget you old chum. No, the Taliban's not in power anywmore. Sure, they're slowly trying to come back to life, and we've given them much more of a lease on that we should have. Your point is valid, we should finish the job and finish them off. No argument here.

Rodion Romanovich

05-08-2007, 21:52

The positive results of the Afghanistan war were more or less luck, and were not part of the original plan made by Bush. Like I said: deposing of the oppressive regime is a good thing, but the US army under Bush's plan had little do in this compared to the local - muslim - forces who led the ground invasion, who did the dirty job and established a new peaceful regime there. The plan as made by Bush was to score propaganda points by finding a scapegoat and killing as many as possible that could be claimed to have anything in common with the 9/11 attackers. As I explained, even that objective failed, in that bin Laden escaped. After the US bombings stopped, the muslim ground invasion, and hard work by the UN, established what we now have in Afghanistan. It would be pretty unfair for the USA to take the honor for this, since it wasn't part of the initial invasion plan and a large deal of the stablization work was carried out by third parties.

Don Corleone

05-08-2007, 21:57

:wall: Sorry Legio, MoveOn.Org has let you down on this one. I'm afraid you just dove into the deep end with your claim that the US Army shouldn't get the credit for taking out the Taliban.

You do get my respect for taking a position you knew was going to be unpopular and sticking to the facts (or at least your convolved interpretation of them), and not taking personal issue. I do salute you for that. :bow:

Looks like you've got plenty of other people to continue to discuss this with though. Good luck.

ajaxfetish

05-08-2007, 21:59

I'm perfectly happy to give most of the credit to native Afghani forces, and I think that's what it takes to enact lasting change. In my opinion, any move toward democracy must come from within or it is doomed to failure. How does this make it wrong for the US to have invaded and worked in concert with those local forces? Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, but Al Qaeda power in Afghanistan has been severely limited, and they have lost the immunity of their former homebase. This seems to me, while not complete success, a large accomplishment in terms of US objectives. I'll agree with several other posters here that more should have been and still should be invested in bringing the Afghani situation to a successful conclusion. It is unfortunate that another, more misguided venture has diverted most of both the resources and attention that could have been spent on Afghanistan, but I feel the invasion was fully justified and continues to be.

Ajax

P.S.--along with DC, I'd like to voice my respect for your willingness, Legio, to stand alone on this issue and defend a position you consider worth defending in spite of basically unanimous opposition. That is commendable. But as much as I respect your stand, I cannot respect the position you are standing for.

Marshal Murat

05-08-2007, 22:56

(Sounds like Antigone)

The UN and hard-work rarely are uttered in the same statement, unless there is a negative interjected in between the 2.
A combine nations force, the local Afghani's who were seeking to free themselves of the Taliban's influence.

And now, with the liberation and democratization of Afghanistan, things are looking up. It's a HUGE investment opportunity, and companies are moving in, to exploit a labor base that has often been passed over. Telecommunications companies have a new buyer group, and all in all, I think that business investment will continue.
Unless.....
The Taliban can come back and break the local Afghani forces and the NATO troops posted there. Hopefully the Taliban will be broken, Osama Bin Laden is caught, and peace enters the region. While reality interjects it's pessimistic, I'm feeling good about it.

Now to main question.
The US was justified in removing a regime who harbored acknowledged terrorists and killers. AQ is one of the groups that trained in the area, and had an anti-US mindset. You can't diplomatically solve an issue when

a.They aren't a nation
b.The nation they live in is also anti-American.

We punished those responsible for harboring terrorists and violent malicious men who punished the innocent in Kenya and in their attacks against the United States.

CrossLOPER

05-08-2007, 22:56

But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view. Perhaps I'm odd and not normal for thinking so? What do you think? Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by? Or maybe I should keep reasoning the way I do, since I consider it a lot more rational.
I'm not going in too far and I will just say that you have a valid point to argue...

Tribesman

05-08-2007, 23:18

Tribesman, didn't forget you old chum. No, the Taliban's not in power anywmore. Sure, they're slowly trying to come back to life, and we've given them much more of a lease on that we should have. Your point is valid, we should finish the job and finish them off. No argument here.

You might get an arguement from Karzai , he says the Taliban are always welcome in Afghanistan . I wonder what he said about sharing power with them ?:oops:
Hey Don you should have known it was a loaded question~;)

Did the Taliban respond that they wouldn't because they hadn't seen enough proof yet? (Actually, they tried this, 6 hours before the first bombs started landing) No.
Now that seems to clash with what I have read about both the nature and the timing of the responses from the Taliban .

Osama claimed responsibility. There is no question of his guilt.

CR what date was it when he claimed responsibility ?

AntiochusIII

05-08-2007, 23:43

I know the Don doesn't want stuff like [Iraq/future/more Iraq] to distract from the main topic, but since there are claims made here that the Afghans are really better off now I must dispute that position just a little bit.

I mean, the Taliban aren't dead; the local government is very weak; the civilians are less and less receptive to the peacekeeping/occupation forces...these aren't the signs of happy people...

Louis VI the Fat

05-09-2007, 00:05

The scale of the 9/11 attack, the target that was picked, and the tightness of the relationship between AQ and the Taliban meant 9/11 was nothing short of an open declaration of war. By any conventional standard there was a clear casus belli. The justification question, in terms of legality, is easy.

Not to mention, I think a good case could be made for removing the Taliban even despite AQ, even if 9/11 never took place at all. :yes:

To me, it's utterly barbaric and irrational to follow this type of thought pattern: to think it's more important to punish a guilty man than to avoid killing innocents in the process.

But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view.

Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by? You are not alone in this. Disregarding everything else you wrote, the wisdom of revenging 3000 when you are sure it's going to claim a multifold of that in innocent lives is a tough question, morally. At the very least it can't simply be dismissed.

I would counter by saying that:
Firstly, the invasion was not only about avenge, but also about prevention. Secondly, that those responsible for 9/11 were not only the twenty hijackers, but a much larger organisation and their hosts. Thirdly, that those innocent Afghanis (by non-Islamist standards?) would be better off without the repressive Taliban regime. And lastly that global relations are conducted by nations, with nations being the actors in matters of war and self-defense, and that the US by international law had every right to protect their own with, within reasonable bounds, disregard of the citizens of the hostile war-declaring state.

Granted though that this fourth argument belongs to the sphere of legality, not morality. Maybe the others too.

Husar

05-09-2007, 00:06

I think they kind of were, yet I voted Gah!
I don't really know why but something inside me said I shouldn't vote yes...:shrug:

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 00:19

Did the Taliban respond that they couldn't because they don't know where AQ were? No (And they did know where Al Queda itself was)

Did the Taliban respond that they wouldn't because they hadn't seen enough proof yet? (Actually, they tried this, 6 hours before the first bombs started landing) No.

Their answer? No answer. They effectively said "you are not muslims and you are not worthy of acknowledging", a great big 'go yourself'.
Now then Don.......

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

Zaknafien

05-09-2007, 00:29

ajaxfetish

05-09-2007, 00:43

Zaknafien

05-09-2007, 00:54

Afghanistan did not attack the U.S, islamic radicals did. Those are criminal actions, and all the Bush administration did by declaring 'war' on a criminal group is elevate their prestige.

Don't get me wrong, if Afghanistan had conducted the 9/11 attacks, obviously a full scale military retaliation would have been appropriate.

And yes, the attack could be justified even if ultimately it failed, I think. Good intentions and all.

I think with hindsight we can see the more appropriate response would have been to more robustly pursue the law enforcement aspect and bank accounts, funding, etc of the Al Qaeda network. (first of all, Al-Qaeda is misunderstood by most americans and does not really exist as a group, its merely a name given to many many groups and idealists by the government so people can "name" their enemy.)

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 00:57

Oh well , I finally voted .
No it was not justified , the justification used was that the Taliban refused to comply with the demands placed on it .
There was no way they could comply with the demands .
Impossible demands negate the justification .
Sad :shrug: , but it is the only possible answer .

Pannonian

05-09-2007, 01:01

No.

The military response for a criminal terrorist action has only served to solidify terrorist ideology around the world, elevate Al Qaeda and its assosciated groups to the same level of the US Military, essentially making them a legitimate group as opposed to treating them as a criminal organization as they should be.

The United States and Allies' involvement in Afghanistan has done very little to improve the way of life of the thousands of Afghans, many hundreds of whom have been killed directly or indirectly because of Coalition actions in the area. As soon as Allied forces withdraw the Taliban will return to power, period.

I have served two tours in Afghanistan, so I base this analysis off first-hand knowledge.
Wisdom and justification are two different things. It might not have been wise to deal with Afghanistan as we did, in the context of Afghanistan, but it was most certainly justified. After 9/11, America wanted blood, and Afghanistan was the justest place where they could get it. My thinking at the time was that, if the US didn't take out its anger on Afghanistan, it could very well escalate the whole thing elsewhere, most likely Iraq. So I supported any war effort made in that direction, and wanted Blair to try and keep the Americans' minds in that direction, lest they should look elsewhere for trouble. Alas, that didn't work, but it doesn't make the Afghan cause any less valid.

As for solidifying the terrorist cause and not improving the lives of Afghan civilians - the Afghan war was a war of revenge, simple as that. After 9/11, the US was entitled to reciprocal action against the country that harboured their attackers. A cool-minded statesman might have reasoned that war wouldn't be the best way of pursuing US goals, but the political reality was that the American people wanted blood, and giving them the Afghans was the least bad option available. IIRC what I suggested at the time was that there should be a short but impressive demostration of power to satisfy the American people, then switch to other methods to make the most of the political capital the US had at that point. Why does the President of the US have less common sense than this amateur newswatcher?

ajaxfetish

05-09-2007, 01:08

I agree that the American people, including me, were out for blood after September 11, and that the Afghan war was at least in part an act of revenge, but I do not agree that that is enough to justify it. (perhaps enough to make it inevitable, but not to justify) Justification, I think, takes a little more, namely considering the war an act of defense against an aggressor, which I think is the other part of what the war was. Apart from that, I agree with your post, Pannonian.

Ajax

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-09-2007, 01:46

Zaknafien

05-09-2007, 02:02

if you define "well" as not doing anything, then sure they're doing great :) unfortunately the NATO rules of engagement propagated by Canadian command prevent them from taking detainees, among other things. Which is sort of silly in the theatre.

Whacker

05-09-2007, 05:00

Half jokingly, I fully approved of this action because of what the Taliban did to those ancient stone Buddahs. Absolutely disgusting.

Lemur

05-09-2007, 06:14

The demolition of the stone Buddhas really got my goat as well. Nobody should run around blowing up history.

This all reminds me of a woman I used to work with who forwarded me an email in '99 or '00 about how the Taliban brutalized women. It was quite detailed. I spoke to her later, and said that I understood everything in the email to be true, but what was the point? It wasn't as though those guys would bow to any sort of international pressure. The only way to change them would be by force.

"Oh, no, we're not advocating a war."

Then what is the point?

"We're raising awareness."

Raising awareness. All of these years later, I still don't think that's a worthwhile goal. While the Talibs oppressed and destroyed their own people and culture, you would have been hard-pressed to find an American who cared. Then everything changed very quickly.

I'm not sure if this anecdote has a point or not.

Fragony

05-09-2007, 08:59

Isn't this removing from power thingie a bit, or better, terribly premature?

Adrian II

05-09-2007, 10:12

Regardless of Bin Laden himself, there was tons of evidence that Al Queda was operating training camps openly within Afghanistan.And there is more: due to their historic ties (forged during the Soviet episode) the 'Arabs' as they were called were a dominant force within the Taliban regime itself. This was a major reason why Kabul wouldn't cough up their leader, close down their camps and confiscate their weapons. If you are looking for an example of a rogue regime, this was it. I have always supported the removal of that regime and I still do. I always knew that the occupation would be disastrous as well. But it was necessary to prevent the bigger of two evils. Sooner or later the Taliban/Al Qaeda regime in Kabul would, through its high-placed sympathizers in neighbouring Pakistan (the islamist secret service ISI and corrupt scientists like Dr Khan), have procured a nuclear capacity with which it would have unleashed the dogs of hell in the Middle East.

sapi

05-09-2007, 10:25

Husar

05-09-2007, 11:29

[...]the American people wanted blood, and giving them the Afghans was the least bad option available.
That sounds like tribal behaviour to me, also reminds me of Jesus and Pilatus "oh, the people want it, so I give them some blood of strangers to make them shut up." And now the people complain about "all the losses" they are taking there(as if 2000 of almost 300million were a lot...).

IMO that doesn't throw a very good light on "the Americans".

It all depends on the viewpoint though, if you have the narrow-minded tribal viewpoint of a militarily superior "tribe", you can always go for the revenge option and from there it's just a step away from genocide in some peoples' minds(yeah, we have had this sort of "1000 afghans aren't worth a single american soldier's life"-comments here before).

I'm sounding anti-USA again, eh? Well, don't always remind me of the bad parts of US foreign policy.:sweatdrop:

KrooK

05-09-2007, 11:50

Let me reply by question.
Were the Tailban justified to removing Mudzahedins from Afghanistan?

Odin

05-09-2007, 12:33

[skips entire discussion up to this point]

Not justified.

Military strikes - maybe.

Invasion? No.

It was just a waste of time, money and resources.

Far better to bomb a few miliary bases/cities at a time until the government gets the point and surrenders OBL

I agree. An invasion is to costly, the manpower would have been better served at home. The U.S. has the tactical ability to pinpoint bomb infrastructure from many miles away with minimal harm to its forces.

Zaknafien

05-09-2007, 12:50

well, alot of people do not understand that the taliban was a popular movement within afghanistan seen by a large majority of its population as legitimate, if not 'saviors' of the country from the turmoil after the soviet pull-out. the taliban originated as a group of religious crime-fighters if you will in khandahar, going after the roving rape and murder gangs in the south.

caravel

05-09-2007, 12:52

The fundamental question of all this is: Did the US have the right to invade and occupy Afghanistan? I would say not.

The way I see it 11/09/01 was a strictly terrorist attack by a terrorist group or by those acting on behalf of a terrorist group, not on behalf of any regime, and certainly not on behalf of the Taliban regime. Yes there may have been an element, probably including the Taliban, laughing their socks off at the United States' misfortune, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that the Taliban regime orchestrated or carried out the attack . None of the terrorists themselves were Afghans, in fact they were mostly Saudis. The link to Al Qaeda was based on a Saudi in Afghanistan claiming that he had orchestrated the attacks. So you have a group of Saudis actually carrying out the attack and another Saudi claiming to have been behind it.

Many of you are also ignoring the excuses, and the lies. Bin Laden was never taken, and never brought to account. This was supposed to be the main objective/for going in there in the first place, but was in fact hollow propaganda. When the questions started popping up, the usual excuses started to get churned out, the Taliban were evil and needed to be removed etc. The same happened in Iraq after the WMD debacle, Saddam was harbouring terrorists, linked to Bin Laden even, false, the ba'athists were an evil and repressive regime, true, as were the Taliban,very true, and as are the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and hundreds of other regimes worldwide. The problem I have with this is that invading on a trumped up pretext failing to find the man and then when it is obvious there's nothing else for it, they resort to the same old "they were evil/harbouring terrorists/thinking of building wmds/we're liberating them" line.

What I find disturbing is this very selective meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states (mostly middle eastern or asian ones that either have some of the worlds largest oil reserves or whose territory involves a certain pipeline) around the world. Not having same kind of faith in the US and UK governments as some of you, I'm not so sure that this meddling is for the good of those being meddled with. I also doubt it is for the good of US citizens or UK subjects.

Zaknafien

05-09-2007, 12:54

Incongruous

05-09-2007, 13:18

Poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly handled.
Also shows a complete lack of understanding when dealing with terrorists by the White house. Afghanistan is once again in the hands of fractured warlords and drug dealers (yeah go occupying force!).
Liberation is definatley not a word one would throw around anywhere near the name Afghanistan niether is success.
Catastrophe or failure perhaps.
But hey, this is what happen in polotics, real morals are replaced with words and dirty dealing. People become statistics. Someone is making huge amounts of money somewhere, so there is a plus side.

Adrian II

05-09-2007, 13:49

Also shows a complete lack of understanding when dealing with terrorists by the White house. Afghanistan is once again in the hands of fractured warlords and drug dealers (yeah go occupying force!).The Taliban no longer control the country and they are on the defensive. That is the most important result. And the greatest danger, an islamist take-over of Pakistan, is still clear and present. There is no way that Nato can leave the area without the direst consequences. God knows the present picture isn't pretty, but it would be far worse had this regime been allowed to govern and expand unchecked in the region.

The invasion was justified because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaeda, not because they personaly organised the 9/11 attacks. Any decent government would have handed over Bin and consorts at the drop of a rosary. Kabul didn't, so the invasion was necessary.

Sure, all states have 'dirty morals', particularly in war. But don't kid yourself that U.S. morals are similar to (or worse than) those of the Taliban. Such moral equivocation is worse than dirty morals.

Conradus

05-09-2007, 14:59

I'm afraid I voted Gah! because I can't really make up my mind. Back in 2001 I would've voted yes without a moment's doubt. 'Revenge for 9/11/making sure it wouldn't happen again' and the removal of a dangerous regime was legitimation enough for me back then. But now, I have a double feeling.
The Taliban never was defeated utterly, the goverment is weak, conditions haven't improved that much and the war has claimed many lives, and didn't achieve what it wanted. Sure AQ has to move its base of operations, but Osama still lives and nobody knows where he is. And then I consider that the hijackers of the planes on 9/11 weren't Afghani's and that it does make sense that a country refuses to hand over inhabitants/friends of the regime to a regime it doesn't 'like' and whose justice system it doesn't accept. I mean, even the USA isn't going to hand over some of it's 'war criminals' to the International Court in The Hague and they are arguably not as biased as American judges after 9/11.

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 19:22

The invasion was justified because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaeda, not because they personaly organised the 9/11 attacks.
But that wasn't the justification was it , the justification was non-compliance with the ultimatum , just as the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was the justification for war against Serbia .
The ultimatum the US issued was crap , yet was not open for discussion or negotiation and had to be accepted immediately . That pile of crap removes the proper justification .

Any decent government would have handed over Bin and consorts at the drop of a rosary. Kabul didn't, so the invasion was necessary.

No government would have accepted the ultimatum given .

Lemur

05-09-2007, 19:27

No government would have accepted the ultimatum given .
As Jar-Jar Binks would say, exqweeeze me? Governments hand over criminals all the time. It's called extradition. They even sign agreements to do it automatically.

I really don't understand how you can call our demand for Bin Laden & Co. unreasonable.

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 19:27

Sorry Tribesman, I have to disagree with you on this point. The Taliban already had UN resolutions against them for harboring Al Queda after the embassy bombings. It's your contention that they had the right to continue to do so and we were wrong for insisting they turn them over? Telling the Taliban to do so is 'a pile of crap'?

In your own words, just how much aid and abetment can you give an international criminal before you're complicit in their crimes?

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 19:48

Telling the Taliban to do so is 'a pile of crap'?

I really don't understand how you can call our demand for Bin Laden & Co. unreasonable.
Well thats two quick and easy ones ... read what I wrote . Especially the post when I voted .......Sad :shrug: , but it is the only possible answer .
Or even better read the ultimatum .:yes:
If you want to you can even do a compare and contrast with the other ultimatum I mentioned .
Then come back and try and tell me it wasn't a pile of crap .

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 19:53

As I understand it, the ultimatum issued was pretty simple and straight forward "Surrender Bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Queda holed up in your country or face the consequences". Is that how you remember it as well, T?

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 19:58

Try again Don , your memory already let you down earlier in the topic .~;)

Or try the compare and contrast , that might be fun .:2thumbsup:

Adrian II

05-09-2007, 19:59

But that wasn't the justification was it , the justification was non-compliance with the ultimatum , just as the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was the justification for war against Serbia .But that wasn't the start of the affair was it? The ultimatum was the last stage of a lenghty period of diplomacy.

When was the frist time Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for the killing of five Americans in Riyadh?
And when was the second indictment for the embassy bombings in Africa?

Which former U.S. President had tried in vain to get him extradited? And when were two UNSC Resolutions adopted that called for sanctions against Afghanistan as long as Kabul did not extradite Osams bin Laden?

How many years passed before the U.S. finally had enough and decided it couldn't sit back and wait for another major attack by Al Qaeda orchestrated out of Afghanistan?

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 20:01

Try again Don , your memory already let you down earlier in the topic .~;)

Or try the compare and contrast , that might be fun .:2thumbsup:

Sorry, I'm not playing your game today. You're either going to have to commit actually making a direct statement, or I have to dismiss your position as "the US has no right to defend itself no matter what threats it faced". You're free to continue to use your usual obfuscation all you care to.

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 20:10

You're either going to have to commit actually making a direct statement
I already have .

or I have to dismiss your position as "the US has no right to defend itself no matter what threats it faced".
That would be a rather silly thing to say .

But that wasn't the start of the affair was it?
It doesn't matter if it was the start or not , it was the justification used .

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 20:21

Let me put it another way. Perhaps you could tell me what the ultimatum that you view as so unfair was?

Adrian II

05-09-2007, 20:24

It doesn't matter if it was the start or not , it was the justification used .Oh, but it does matter. The diplomatic wrangling between Washington and Kabul over Osama had been going on for three whole years, hadn't it?

And do you remember all the laughable pretexts the Taliban came up with? "Osama went missing" - that was a good one. Osama was the son-in-law of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, for Christ's sake, and we were supposed to believe they 'couldn't find him'. Personally I loved the one about extradition being a breach of their 'time-honoured Afghan hospitality'.

After three years of diplomacy and tugs of war (and three terrorist attacks, each one more devastating than the previous one) the U.S. gave the Taliban a final choice: either you root up Al Qaeda's organisation on your territory to our complete satisfaction, or we will do it for you and we will treat you as its accomplices. Even after 9/11 the U.S. offered to let Osama be extradited to, and tried in, a third country. The Taliban refused. The invasion was the only option left to Washington.

PanzerJaeger

05-09-2007, 20:30

Why are you trying so hard Don. Any question posed to tribesman in which he can side with the US or X, he will side with X - even if it happens to be the Taliban and OBL. :shame:

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 20:32

I don't think it's quite so simple as that, PJ. I will grant you that he does appear to be allowing the Taliban quite a bit of latitude here, or at least he appears to be, which is why I'd like to know what he actually thinks the ultimatum that was so impossible to fulfill was. The one I'm familiar with sounds not only reasonable, but is actually done around the world by other nations, on a regular basis.

Adrian II

05-09-2007, 20:35

Why are you trying so hard Don. Any question posed to tribesman in which he can side with the US or X, he will side with X - even if it happens to be the Taliban and OBL. :shame:Oh, give him some credit. Based on his track record in this forum (I don't know anything else about him) I would trust Tribesman almost blindly to take the right side in any conflict. But he hates sloppy thinking and easy-going majority views. That's his basic attitude. I sometimes share it.

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 20:41

While I agree with you Adrian that there is frequently more to Tribesman's views than may initially meet the eye, I don't think that's the case here. If I understand him, and his comments about the period between 9/11/2001 and 10/14/2001; he appears to be making the point that the Taliban was in fact justified in refusing to turn over OBL and that the USA was unjustified in demanding that they do, hence the war to enforce that demand (and the other 4) was bogus. Correct, T?

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 21:00

What I find disturbing is this very selective meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states (mostly middle eastern or asian ones that either have some of the worlds largest oil reserves or whose territory involves a certain pipeline) around the world. Not having same kind of faith in the US and UK governments as some of you, I'm not so sure that this meddling is for the good of those being meddled with. I also doubt it is for the good of US citizens or UK subjects.

Yeah, but if we didn't invade Afghanistan how else would we get those killer contracts for the pipeline?

Right, the famed Afghan pipeline. I almost forgot about that. You folks clearly must be using Fahrenheit 911 as a primary source. The theory proposed by Mr. Moore ws that we rushed into war with Afghanistan so that Haliburton could rush in and build a trans-Afghan pipeline and drain oil and gas out of central Russia.

As urgent as it was, seems a little odd that no construction has yet started, close to 6 years later.

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 21:13

Oh, but it does matter. The diplomatic wrangling between Washington and Kabul over Osama had been going on for three whole years, hadn't it?

You wouldn't be on about the 33 admitted discussions would you ?
(perhaps there are more that are not yet admitted)

While I agree with you Adrian that there is frequently more to Tribesman's views than may initially meet the eye
Keep thinking Don:2thumbsup:
Oh dear.......
I don't think that's the case here. If I understand him, and his comments about the period between 9/11/2001 and 10/14/2001; he appears to be making the point that the Taliban was in fact justified in refusing to turn over OBL and that the USA was unjustified in demanding that they do, hence the war to enforce that demand (and the other 4) was bogus. Correct, T?
Have I once mentioned Bin Laden in this topic ?

Lemur

05-09-2007, 21:19

No it was not justified , the justification used was that the Taliban refused to comply with the demands placed on it .
There was no way they could comply with the demands .
Impossible demands negate the justification .
This seems to be the heart of your argument, as far as I can make it out. That and the CBS new item you linked (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml), which doesn't seem tremendously relevant.

Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, "No." But his translator said, "No, not without evidence."

He also said he had no information on bin Laden's current whereabouts.

Are you accepting the Taliban's position at face value? Even though cooperation between AQ and the Talibs was well-documented and longstanding? Or is there something else that you're aiming for? At this point, baiting Don and declaring that you've already proved your point isn't helpful. Please clarify so that we may understand where you're coming from.

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 21:20

As I said Tribesman, I'm not up for playing games like a trained dog. You'll either have to come out and specifically point to the portion of the ultimatum that you believe to be unfair, (the dismantling of Al-Queda training camps, the allowance of American inspectors to check that they really are dismantled, etcetera) or you'll have to leave me bereft of the insights of your supreme intellect. I have no patience for this.

Grey_Fox

05-09-2007, 21:36

One term:

'Base of operations'

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 21:43

You'll either have to come out and specifically point to the portion of the ultimatum that you believe to be unfair, (the dismantling of Al-Queda training camps,
Where does it mention Al-Qaida training camps ?
Besides which as released NSA archives show the main Al-Qaida camps were nothing to do with the Taliban , they were under a directive from elsewhere .

Likewise the demand about all terrorists and supporters , absolute bollox .

And where do you start with "unjustly detained foriegners" the main group concerned there had been detained under local law , and funnily enough other foriegn detainees ended up in Gitmo .

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 21:43

Alright, I'm sick of this. Here are all five conditions, spelled out explicitly from George W. Bush's speech to Congress on September 20th, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/20/ret.afghan.bush/index.html):

"Deliver to U.S. authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda [terrorist organization] that hide in your land.

"Release all foreign nationals including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

"Protect all journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

"Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities.

"Give the US full access to terrorist training camps so we make sure they are no longer operating."

Which of those 5 is so eggregious and unfair? That the Taliban stop imprisoning foreign journalists? That they actually allow verification that the training camps had been closed?

Don Corleone

05-09-2007, 21:53

Where does it mention Al-Qaida training camps ?
Besides which as released NSA archives show the main Al-Qaida camps were nothing to do with the Taliban , they were under a directive from elsewhere .

Likewise the demand about all terrorists and supporters , absolute bollox .

And where do you start with "unjustly detained foriegners" the main group concerned there had been detained under local law , and funnily enough other foriegn detainees ended up in Gitmo .

Finally, we're getting somewhere. Look, whether the Al-Queda training camps were working with the Taliban, or just operating within their borders with the Taliban's tacit approval is irrelevant. They were granting shelter and refuge to a group that was actively attacking the US on multiple occassions. Every diplomatic request we made for the extradition of the terrorists, from Khobai to Tanzania to Yemen to finally 9/11 was met with yet another attack.

Yes, the language 'all terrorists and supporters' is vague and broad. Of course the Taliban could have argued that point. But they didn't did they? They refused to acknowledge us. Instead, they played a child's game of telling the Pakastanis "Tell the Americans that we're not speaking to them, but if we were, we would tell them we refuse".

Now as for 'unjustly detained foreigners', you can make the argument that maybe some of those being held were being held for actually having broken local laws. But a sizeable number were being held as human shields.

I fail to see how any of the terms of that ultimatum were impossible to act upon, except in Bush's 'no discussion, no negotiation' phrase. Truth is, the Taliban could have really screwed him on that if they had turned over a few known terrorists and then went to the UN and said "Look, we're trying to cooperate here", and then done nothing on the rest of it. There wouldn't have been a military response.

But they didn't choose that route, did they?

edyzmedieval

05-09-2007, 21:53

No, till the moment Bush will stop winking his eye to the Queen.

Tribesman

05-09-2007, 22:38

Yes, the language 'all terrorists and supporters' is vague and broad.
Now you are getting there , look at the ultimatum , its bollox , there is no way the Taliban could comply .
Since there is no way they could comply then failing to comply is not a justification .

Of course the Taliban could have argued that point.
No , remember the condition attached to the demands .
No discussion , no negotiation , immediate effect

Truth is, the Taliban could have really screwed him on that if they had turned over a few known terrorists and then went to the UN and said "Look, we're trying to cooperate here", and then done nothing on the rest of it. There wouldn't have been a military response.

But they didn't choose that route, did they?
Your memory is playing up again , the UN was one of the two international organisations proposed .

Now then Don , why I suggested a comparison with the 1914 ultimatum is quite simple , at first glance they appear reasonable and justified , but are in reality delivered in terms that cannot be complied with .

What I don't understand though , is considering the US militaries assessments that I have read about the situation in the country and region , the relationship between Taliban , Al-Qaida , ISI and the populations in various areas , plus the negative assessments of air-strikes , SF ops , local forces and full ground deployment ....is why the hell they went in as they did and when they did .(and of course to mention the topic which you didn't want mentioned , why they made an extremely difficult task an almost impossible task)

Adrian II

05-10-2007, 00:38

Likewise the demand about all terrorists and supporters , absolute bollox .After three years of terrorist plots and Taliban obstinacy, that was a fully justified demand. The Taliban had made it perfectly clear that they would not oversee the dismantling of Al Qaeda themselves. The fake reasons they gave were ridiculous. The fake reason you come up with wasn't even mentioned in their communiques.

Likewise the release of all unjustly detained foreigners, such as aid workers arrested for 'spreading Christianity' and journalists like Yvonne Ridley (UK), Michel Peyrard (France), Daigen Yanagida and Isamu Iida (Japan), was fully justified.

The ultimatum contained nothing new; all those demands had been made on the Taliban earlier by various governments, by international bodies like the EU, by human rights organisations and last but not least by the UN Security Council. There is no way around it, Tribesman.

Sarmatian

05-10-2007, 01:41

Which of those 5 is so eggregious and unfair? That the Taliban stop imprisoning foreign journalists? That they actually allow verification that the training camps had been closed?

"Deliver to U.S. authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda [terrorist organization] that hide in your land.

"Release all foreign nationals including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

"Protect all journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

"Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities.

"Give the US full access to terrorist training camps so we make sure they are no longer operating."

1. Let's say the first one is okay, although it still leaves americans an option to say "thats not all, you still have some". All is very vague...

2. "Unjustly accused" is very vague...

3. Protect all journalists and diplomats - that's pretty much clear. Aid workers, however, is not.

4. At first glance everything seems ok with this one. But, problem with it is that goal is not clearly measurable. Americans could be unsatisfied indefinitely saying that there are still people who support terrorists or terrorism who are not extradicted.

5. Completely appropriate.

It seems to me this was reverse Don Corleone's type of offer - we'll give them an offer they can't accept. America's public was outraged after the 9/11 attack and they wanted someone's blood. They wouldn't have been satisfied with a footage of american inspector walking around empty barracks that used to be a terrorist camp in afghanistan...

Tribesman

05-10-2007, 18:54

After three years of terrorist plots and Taliban obstinacy, that was a fully justified demand.
Really ????
What is a terrorist or a supporter ?
Who are the appropriate authorities that they should be handed over to ?
for example the Jammu and Kashmiri groups operating out of Afghanistan should they be handed to Pakistan , India or China? What about the Baluchi groups ? Iran or Pakistan ?
Since it said all Afghanistan then what about the areas that were not held by the Taliban ?are the various groups that make up what became the Northern alliance counted as terrorists , what about the Uzbek Tajik and Turkomen groups in their area .

The Taliban had made it perfectly clear that they would not oversee the dismantling of Al Qaeda themselves.
And America knew perfectly well that the Taliban were not able to dismantle Al-Qaida , one of their real concerns was that with the growing domestic hostility to the Taliban regime Al Qaida may have overthrown the Taliban....though of course they go on to wonder how long until the local hostility would grow to overthrow them in turn .

The fake reasons they gave were ridiculous.
No more ridiculous than some of the demands being made of them .

The fake reason you come up with wasn't even mentioned in their communiques.

Firstly , what fake reason ?
secondly , I am speaking for myself not for some fundamentalist nutters so why would my reasoning appear in their communiques ?

Likewise the release of all unjustly detained foreigners
?????????errrrr....fully justified you say??????wouldn't that be a matter for judicial revue on a case by case basis by whoever holds jurisdiction .

such as aid workers arrested for 'spreading Christianity' and journalists
Anyhow doesn't it kind of stick in your throat that other terrorist supporting nations do the same thing but don't get invaded .
Or is your throat already stuck with the fact that the terrorist supporting nation that issued the ultimatum also unjustly detains foriegners .:inquisitive:

The ultimatum contained nothing new; all those demands had been made on the Taliban earlier by various governments, by international bodies like the EU, by human rights organisations and last but not least by the UN Security Council. There is no way around it, Tribesman.
The ultimatum did contain something new .
As said earlier , my first post on the actual question not on what others had so far written .......

Oh well , I finally voted .
No it was not justified , the justification used was that the Taliban refused to comply with the demands placed on it .
There was no way they could comply with the demands .
Impossible demands negate the justification .
Sad , but it is the only possible answer .

It remains the only possible answer , which is sad .
I know where you are coming from , but all you have put forward are reasons why an ultimatum was undeniably justified , but the ultimatum itself was badly written rubbish which does away with the justification that it should have carried .

Seamus Fermanagh

05-10-2007, 19:17

Okay, Tribes, I'll agree with you.

The ultimatum was written with the knowledge that the recipient not only would almost certainly not WISH to comply, but would have at least some difficulty COMPLYING even if they had wished to do so. This is also true of the AH ultimatum to Serbia and, I will stipulate, a majority of pre-war ultimatums throughout history. As such, it was no more than a legalistic "fig-leaf" to provide a pretext for a course of violence that had already been decided upon.

We should never have sent such a silly document. We should simply have begun the assault without giving up any shred of strategic surprise that may have still existed at that point (not much in all likelihood).

I myself followed this practice as a child. I issued two "stop that" warnings per offender. If these were ignored I did not provide formal notice of anything, I just hit them until they could no longer bother me. The USA might wish to adopt a similar policy in the spirit of honest relations.

Odin

05-10-2007, 19:21

I myself followed this practice as a child. I issued two "stop that" warnings per offender. If these were ignored I did not provide formal notice of anything, I just hit them until they could no longer bother me. The USA might wish to adopt a similar policy in the spirit of honest relations.

:laugh4:

2nd

Tribesman

05-10-2007, 19:33

We should never have sent such a silly document. We should simply have begun the assault without giving up any shred of strategic surprise that may have still existed at that point (not much in all likelihood).

Slight problem there Seamus , America was unable to .
The fig-leaf as you call it was to get the neccesary help so they could assault , they knew air and missile strikes were a waste of time and counterproductive , but heres the real bugger ,(considering how they actually acted in the event) they knew a protracted ground presence would also be counterproductive .

Adrian II

05-10-2007, 21:56

Really ????
What is a terrorist or a supporter ?I'm not going to waste time on this stuff.

Tribesman

05-10-2007, 22:31

I'm not going to waste time on this stuff.
Awwwwww....and I threw in the Tajik just for you ,as with your talk of UNSCresolutions you should know that as part of the peace and reconcilliation agreement they were supposed to have closed their terrorist bases in afghanistan , disbanded and joined the political process in their own country:yes:
Still there though .

Whassup Adrian are you stuck on accepting whats false about this.......
The ultimatum contained nothing new; all those demands had been made on the Taliban earlier by various governments, by international bodies like the EU, by human rights organisations and last but not least by the UN Security Council.
very important clarifying parts from those demands were completely omitted in the ultimatum weren't they .

This is also true of the AH ultimatum to Serbia and, I will stipulate, a majority of pre-war ultimatums throughout history. As such, it was no more than a legalistic "fig-leaf" to provide a pretext for a course of violence that had already been decided upon.

Oh I dunno Seamus , the majority yes but there are other examples .Britains ultimatum over Poland seems pretty clear cut and entirely justifiable in all its terms .

Adrian II

05-10-2007, 22:46

Whassup Adrian are you stuck on accepting whats false about this.......Define 'is'. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Xiahou

05-10-2007, 23:52

Really ????
What is a terrorist or a supporter ?
Who are the appropriate authorities that they should be handed over to ?
for example the Jammu and Kashmiri groups operating out of Afghanistan should they be handed to Pakistan , India or China? What about the Baluchi groups ? Iran or Pakistan ?
Since it said all Afghanistan then what about the areas that were not held by the Taliban ?are the various groups that make up what became the Northern alliance counted as terrorists , what about the Uzbek Tajik and Turkomen groups in their area .

No doubt, these were the exact same concerns the Taliban had when they refused to cooperate. Priceless. :laugh4:

If they had an ounce of sincerity, they could have offered to give intelligence on Al Qaeda- if they honestly didn't know where Bin Laden was (total BS), they could've given any information they had and cooperated with US agents in his capture. Were the demands harsh? Of course they were. An organization that was based in Afghanistan and aided and sheltered by the Taliban had perpetrated horrific attacks on the US- they were in big trouble and if they wanted to minimize repercussions, they needed to cooperate fully and quickly. Instead, they decided to stall and play the same old games- a poor choice for them.

Was the US justified? Of course it was. We would've been justified attacking immediately without any warning or ultimatum.

Tribesman

05-11-2007, 07:32

No doubt, these were the exact same concerns the Taliban had when they refused to cooperate. Priceless.
Can you answer any of those questions you quoted ?
If not then you havn't got a point at all .

We would've been justified attacking immediately without any warning or ultimatum.
But they didn't did they , so that is irrelevant .

ShadeHonestus

05-11-2007, 07:43

When is Tribes just going to say that it was all about the Illuminati and their double top secret oil and poppy seed pipelines and therefore anything involving the U.S. and the removal of the Taliban was just scenery.

Xiahou

05-11-2007, 08:02

Can you answer any of those questions you quoted ?
If not then you havn't got a point at all .Your questions are a complete red herring and a distraction from the question in the original post. My answer to them would be irrelevant. The relevant information is that Taliban never made a serious effort at cooperation on any points listed in the ultimatum- not one.

But they didn't did they , so that is irrelevant .Of course it's relevant- what nonsense. After what happened the US was completely justified in removing the Taliban from power- full stop. That's the original question at hand. Was the US justified? Yes. End of story. The US did give the Taliban an "out" if they were willing to make some serious concessions, but they obstinately refused- even when faced with a much deserved invasion and overthrow. It was their call to make, they made it, and are living(or not) with the consequences.

The fact that the US gave the Taliban a choice, however unsavory it was to them, has no bearing on their justification. It only shows that the US made a gesture, however small you may think it is, to avoid conflict.

When is Tribes just going to say that it was all about the Illuminati and their double top secret oil and poppy seed pipelines and therefore anything involving the U.S. and the removal of the Taliban was just scenery.He's too much of a showman to unveil that this early on. :clown:

ajaxfetish

05-11-2007, 09:22

We would've been justified attacking immediately without any warning or ultimatum.

But they didn't did they , so that is irrelevant .
If the US were justified attacking without first giving an ultimatum, how could they possibly be unjustified after giving an ultimatum? In the first scenario, the Taliban are given no choice at all, just attacked; in the second, they're offered an out--or in Tribes opinion, still given no choice at all, so either better or the same as the first scenario, which was already justified. Sorry, Tribes, but you can't dismiss it as irrelevant just because it didn't happen, because the justification Xiahou asserted is independent of any ultimatum. Besides, the whole ultimatum thingy is a distraction from the main point. It's part of the process, not the justification, which came well before it was issued. And as I already noted, it was just political posturing anyhow, the Taliban's response being easily predictable before it was issued.

Ajax

ShadeHonestus

05-11-2007, 18:15

But they didn't did they , so that is irrelevant .

I resent that misquote! :smash:

The fact that the US gave the Taliban a choice, however unsavory it was to them, has no bearing on their justification. It only shows that the US made a gesture, however small you may think it is, to avoid conflict.

Imagine what the tin hatters would say if they hadn't, damned if you do damned if you don't.

What's funny is that the more moderate of the radical nutjob Islamic element, "Member's Only" included, were upset at Osama Bin Laden, not for his action but for his lack of following Islamic tradition in issueing 3 warnings or ultimatums before an attack. I'm sure the ultimatums would have read like "remove all your influence in the world, convert to Islam, and make Britney Spears wear a burqa or behead her." Of course had they done this I'm sure would put them in a better light with the tin hatters than the U.S. for retaliation.

Redleg

05-11-2007, 19:44

and make Britney Spears wear a burqa or behead her."

Well we might want to consider that one a little more. .....

Tribesman

05-11-2007, 19:53

Your questions are a complete red herring and a distraction from the question in the original post.
Not in the slightest . The red herring is the one you are throwing , you are throwing it because you don't like the answer you would arrive at .

Of course it's relevant- what nonsense. After what happened the US was completely justified in removing the Taliban from power- full stop. That's the original question at hand. Was the US justified? Yes. End of story.

Yes end of story because you like most who gave an instant yes in this poll havn't thought about the question .:yes: And certainly don't want to think about the question because of the answer

If the US were justified attacking without first giving an ultimatum, how could they possibly be unjustified after giving an ultimatum?
Because they gave the ultimatum , and the ultimatum was bollox .
It is that simple .

Besides, the whole ultimatum thingy is a distraction from the main point. It's part of the process, not the justification
Nope the ultimatum is the main point as it is the justification that was used .
Since it was the justification that was used all other points in the process are secondary to it .

Lemur

05-11-2007, 20:00

Redleg

05-11-2007, 20:01

Yes end of story because you like most who gave an instant yes in this poll havn't thought about the question .:yes: And certainly don't want to think about the question because of the answer

Incorrect - some of us considered the 6 previous years of history and negotations that preceded the events.

Because they gave the ultimatum , and the ultimatum was bollox .
It is that simple .

Only if one wishes to forget the previous failed attempts at negotating with the Taliban.

Nope the ultimatum is the main point as it is the justification that was used .
Since it was the justification that was used all other points in the process are secondary to it .

Try again in more simple terms, the ultimatum was not the justification that was used to invade Afganstan.

Odin

05-11-2007, 20:02

@ tribesman

so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?

Statistically thats improbable.

Xiahou

05-11-2007, 20:20

Okay Tribesman, since in your opinion everyone you're arguing with is willfully blind to the wrongness of our actions, I would like to hear your take on what the U.S.A. should have done.

Should we have done nothing, and accepted the attacks of 9/11 as our just desserts?
Should we have given the Taliban [insert number] more months to hand over Bin Laden & Co.?
Should we have modified our demands in a specific way to make them just and reasonable?

You don't need to repeat your view that the rest of us are too cowardly to consider The Truth. You've made that assertion multiple times. Rather, please specify what you would have liked to see done differently.
I dont think it's that at all. He's arguing that the US was justified, until the ultimatum was offered. Which is like arguing that I'm justified in suing him if he burns down my house, but if I offer an out of court settlement which he refuses, I am no longer justified in suing. It's absolute nonsense. Other than that, he's just trying to shift the discussion to an area where he feels that he can make a stronger argument- things like "What really is a terrorist?", which has nothing to do with US justification or even the subsequent ultimatum.

I resent that misquote!Fixed. :bow:

Tribesman

05-11-2007, 20:54

@ tribesman

so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?

Statistically thats improbable.
Improbable , try some of the polls put here about WMDs and Iraq :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
try one now you still get people insisting that long disproven "facts" are indeed true, because they don't like the other answer.

Try again in more simple terms, the ultimatum was not the justification that was used to invade Afganstan.
Try again Red unless you are trying to say that the issuing of the ultimatum that non compliance of would lead to action , is not what was issued ,was not complied with and was acted on .

Lemur

Should we have modified our demands in a specific way to make them just and reasonable?

Yep , a little clarity in language and content changes a bollox statement into a clearly defined justifiable statement .They didn't have to be reasonable , just not impossible and so vague as to be meaningless .

Xiahou

He's arguing that the US was justified, until the ultimatum was offered
yep

Which is like arguing that I'm justified in suing him if he burns down my house, but if I offer an out of court settlement which he refuses, I am no longer justified in suing.
Nope , more of a if someone owes me money but is a tennant on someone elses property and I cannot get the money becuse the landlord refuses to allow me acces to his tennant , I could be justified in suing the landlord to get access to his tennant , and maybe even get the landlord to pay for the costs of I accrue though his obstinacy then I am justified . Because I am on a war against debt . But if I try and get the landlord to allow me access to all property in his town even if he does not own it , to collect all debt irrespective of what debt it is or who it is owed to then I would still be on a war on debt but not be justified .

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 00:33

@ tribesman

so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?

Statistically thats improbable.

Yeah, well, the majority of Americans also believed that Iraq was a threat in 2003 and we were wrong then too.:idea2:

ShadeHonestus

05-12-2007, 00:44

WMD's were found...just not of the nuclear variety. Pertaining to the variety found, Saddam had previously shown a willingness to use them. WMD's and a threat all in one.

Tribesman

05-12-2007, 00:54

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
See what I mean Odin

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 00:56

WMD's were found...just not of the nuclear variety. Pertaining to the variety found, Saddam had previously shown a willingness to use them. WMD's and a threat all in one.

yeah, we found some old ass stuff rom the 70s buried in the desert. :inquisitive:

ShadeHonestus

05-12-2007, 01:23

yeah, we found some old ass stuff rom the 70s buried in the desert. :inquisitive:

Oh of course, but you miss the point...that this is of equal validity to the tired rhetoric like that displayed above by tribes.

Sarmatian

05-12-2007, 01:44

Oh of course, but you miss the point...that this is of equal validity to the tired rhetoric like that displayed above by tribes.

Yes, but tribes' rhetoric is harmless. This rhetoric has already costed tens (hundreds?) of thousand lives... Or maybe I, too, am missing a point?

ShadeHonestus

05-12-2007, 02:07

If you believe its harmless, I have some declassified CIA documents detaling the locations of Chinese embassies that I'll sell you.

Tribesman

05-12-2007, 09:35

If you believe its harmless, I have some declassified CIA documents detaling the locations of Chinese embassies that I'll sell you.

So you believe what I have written is harmful ??????:dizzy2:
Harmful to what exactly ?

Redleg

05-12-2007, 14:45

Try again Red unless you are trying to say that the issuing of the ultimatum that non compliance of would lead to action , is not what was issued ,was not complied with and was acted on .

Incorrect that was not what I stated. The ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion. The ultimatum was a step in the process, but it is not in itself the justification.

Your arguement that it is the justification is nothing more then misdirection.

Tribesman

05-12-2007, 21:36

The ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion.
Really ???
What was it then , the ultimatum that is , it must have been something mustn't it , after alll its got a latinish word base and eveything , it must mean something ....so what does it mean (not from the big Red book please)tell me some other logical reason where an ultimatum is not an ultimatum and cannot be an ultimatum.(there is an answer , but it would only further reinforce waht I said)

The ultimatum was a step in the process, but it is not in itself the justification.

The ultimatum by its nature is the final step before things happen , all steps on the way are part of the process . The final step is that which is used , which as it is used is the justification .
The final step is flawed in this case .
No way round it , like I said initially its sad , its a real bugger , but there can be no other answer .

Unless of course someone can show that the ultimatum isn't bollox , or that the ultimatum that was used as the justification isn't the ultimatum that was used as the justification .

No arguements from me about the justification of action agsinst Al-Qaida or the fundynutters , the question is the justification that was used .
The ends cannot justify the means (basic morality lesson#1).....end of story(though the ends are still very uncertain)

ShadeHonestus

05-12-2007, 23:17

So you believe what I have written is harmful ??????:dizzy2:
Harmful to what exactly ?

What does "exactly" mean? :dizzy2:

You use what ability you have on arguing the shadows and completely forgoing the substance. By your own words you seek to make illegitimate a legitimate action by your love of exercising that which means nothing. What you know all too well is that those who are just mentally armed enough to read, but not reason, pick up on garbage like this and run in multiple directions. Mostly they do so out of the need to feel a belonging or identify with some quasi peer group or use like half truths to appear enlightened to others in the place of real intelligence. The result is obvious.

You are the Org's Barnum..lots of show and the only substance is manufactured past reality.

caravel

05-12-2007, 23:25

@ tribesman

so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?

Statistically thats improbable.
The problem with this type of poll is that is can be interpreted as "do you dislike the Taliban?" or "did the Taliban deserve a good hiding?", the answer to which is obvious - they were a repugnant regime.

But as the question is "Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?", then I would still have to say no, as there was no justification. September 11th, the official pretext, was not any justification as the Taliban were not involved in that attack, they may be accused of harbouring terrorists but I think you'll find that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan all fit the category of some of the many countries harbouring terrorists. The undemocratic nature of the regime is also not justification for it's removal because there are many undemocratic countries in the world that the US does not invade in order to install democracy there. The non democracy thing is usually the secondary pretext anyway. When the primary excuse for war doesn't go down well with the masses, the usual "they're undemocratic" line gets recycled.

It was the same with Iraq. There were no WMDs, both the UK and US governments were blatantly lying and fabricating evidence (the so called dodgy dossier), but never mind all that, they were "undemocratic", part of the so called "axis of evil" (another one of these inventions such as "the war on terror" and "anti americanism") and Saddam, formerly a great ally of the British (back in the days when he was a friendly evil dictator like Pinochet and a few others) needed to be removed.

Also, Afghanistan is not any better off for the invasion. It is still as war torn and factionalised as it ever was, Taliban resurging, even more dependent on the opium crop and women's rights didn't just improve over night either. In short it didn't work and will never work. So do I think it was justified? No. Was it a success? No (and neither is Iraq). Am I having my doubts because I'm not part of the current 82.43% in favour? No.

:bow:

Redleg

05-13-2007, 00:17

Really ???
What was it then , the ultimatum that is , it must have been something mustn't it , after alll its got a latinish word base and eveything , it must mean something ....so what does it mean (not from the big Red book please)tell me some other logical reason where an ultimatum is not an ultimatum and cannot be an ultimatum.(there is an answer , but it would only further reinforce waht I said)

Your attempt here is noted for what it is. If you want to play silly little games, your not going to get anywhere. Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan.

The ultimatum by its nature is the final step before things happen , all steps on the way are part of the process . The final step is that which is used , which as it is used is the justification .

Your getting warm - but you continue to fall back into the arguement that the ultimatum by itself is the justification. That is not correct. If its the final step, as you just agreed, that in itself does not mean that its the justification for the invasion. Your playing word games and you just trapped yourself in a false arguement.

The final step is flawed in this case .
No way round it , like I said initially its sad , its a real bugger , but there can be no other answer .

Saying that the invasion of Afganstan was not justified is the answer that you wish to express, I don't have a problem with that postion at all. However your use of the ultimatum as the justification for invading Afganstan is a false arguement.

The ulitimatum was not the justification for the invasion, it was just one of the steps in the process.

Unless of course someone can show that the ultimatum isn't bollox , or that the ultimatum that was used as the justification isn't the ultimatum that was used as the justification .

That was never my arguement. Again if your not understanding that is your issue. The justification was never the ultimatum it was just part of the process leading to the attack.

No arguements from me about the justification of action agsinst Al-Qaida or the fundynutters , the question is the justification that was used .
The ends cannot justify the means (basic morality lesson#1).....end of story(though the ends are still very uncertain)

The question on the justification that was used to invade Afganstan has not been addressed by yourself, you have been argueing a false premise for the last several pages.

Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan, its only a part of the process as you have alreadly agreed.

Tribesman

05-13-2007, 00:51

You are the Org's Barnum..lots of show and the only substance is manufactured past reality.
Then undoubtably you will be able to show that something I have written is false :yes:
Go ahead , until then you have no basis in saying it is manufactured reality do you .

Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan.

So the ultimatum wasn't an ultimatum then .
That is what you are saying Red .
And that doesn't make sense .
So are you able to redefine "ultimatum" or are you talking nonsense , or perhaps you can show something else that was used as justification , there was lots of justification after all, but it was the non-complaince with the ultimatum that was ultimately used ....And thats the flaw

Your playing word games and you just trapped yourself in a false arguement.

Not in the slightest .

Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan, its only a part of the process as you have alreadly agreed.
Ah but it was wasn't it , it was the key element of the process , the key that was actually used to open the door to invasion:yes:

BTW
Your attempt here is noted for what it is.
And what do you note my attempt as ?Is it an obvious attempt to bash all religeous beliefs again :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Due to me being a terrorist:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

05-13-2007, 02:46

My turn I guess...

I intent to buy I car because taking the train takes me too long. I have written down this intent. Now, what is my reason for buying this car - long train travel time or the piece of paper that states my intent to buy a car?

Likewise, a country intents to attack another because of acts of aggression. It issues an ultimatum to the country stating that they should do A and B before C. Now, what is the reason for going to war - the acts of aggression, or the piece of paper that states the intent to retaliate unless?

Lemur

05-13-2007, 02:56

Louis takes one for the team ...

ajaxfetish

05-13-2007, 07:26

Ah but it was wasn't it ,
Well . . . no. Still no.

Ajax

Tribesman

05-13-2007, 11:07

Well . . . no. Still no.

So ajax you are trying to say that the thing which was used isn't the thing which was used .:inquisitive:
Well sorry ajax but that makes no sense at all .

Conradus

05-13-2007, 11:10

Likewise, a country intents to attack another because of acts of aggression. It issues an ultimatum to the country stating that they should do A and B before C. Now, what is the reason for going to war - the acts of aggression, or the piece of paper that states the intent to retaliate unless?

The reason is the act of aggression, but the justification for that war would be neglecting/failing the terms of the ultimatum.

Tribesman

05-13-2007, 11:17

Woohoo :balloon2:

The reason is the act of aggression, but the justification for that war would be neglecting/failing the terms of the ultimatum.
Conradus gets it .
Simple isn't it:2thumbsup:

Louis VI the Fat

05-13-2007, 15:01

Justification has two meanings. It can denote the act of justifying, or the condition of being justified.

This thread is clearly about the latter. There can be no reasonable doubt about that.

Even so, we can argue the topic in either the former or the latter meaning. What we can't do, is confound both meanings, or randomly swap them at will.

The ultimatum-thesis is built on arguing that the 'act of justifying' is flawed. This flawed justification in the former meaning is then transferred to the second meaning, the 'condition of being justified'.
This is a rhetorical fault and renders an invalid argument. The ultimatum-thesis is built on justification being a homonym, a word with different meanings, and confounding its multiple meanings.

If we swap the multiple meanings at will, we will reach absurd conclusions.

We should then accept that whenever the US issues a watertight ultimatum, they are therefore 'justified' in their actions. For example, America issues an ultimatum to Liechtenstein to rename its capital Vaduz into Jesusville by noon tomorrow or face nuclear destruction. Following the logic of the ultimatum-thesis, the US are now 'justified' into obliterating Liechtenstein, because the conditions of the ultimatum are straightforward and easy to comply with.

The reason is the act of aggression, but the justification for that war would be neglecting/failing the terms of the ultimatum.
The act of aggression entitled the justification in the meaning of the condition of being justified. Failing to meet the terms of the ultimatum served as a justification in the meaning of an act of justifying.

That was for clarities sake. It is besides the point of this post, but I would argue that the ultimatum did not serve, nor should be regarded as, an act of justification at all.

edit: meh, irritating spelling mistake...

ajaxfetish

05-13-2007, 17:56

So ajax you are trying to say that the thing which was used isn't the thing which was used .:inquisitive:
Well sorry ajax but that makes no sense at all .
I was about to post something very similar to Louis' post above. Well said. Furthermore, out of curiosity Tribesman, could you link to a statement from the White House saying something along the lines of 'Our justification for invading Afghanistan is the ultimatum we have just presented to them.' ?

Ajax

Conradus

05-13-2007, 18:51

I was about to post something very similar to Louis' post above. Well said. Furthermore, out of curiosity Tribesman, could you link to a statement from the White House saying something along the lines of 'Our justification for invading Afghanistan is the ultimatum we have just presented to them.' ?

Ajax

Per definiton of an ultimatum, when one neglects it, that is the justification of the attack, whatever the reasons may be. Because when you send an ultimatum, but then attack them for another reason -even when the ultimatum was accepted/neglected-, why send it in the first place? Sending an ultimatum, having it rejected and then attacking implies that you attack because the ultimatum was rejected. Thus the ultimatum becomes the justification.

Redleg

05-13-2007, 19:41

So the ultimatum wasn't an ultimatum then .
That is what you are saying Red .

Once again you are incorrect about what I am saying. The ultimatum was not the justification.

And that doesn't make sense .

Only for those attempting a false arguement about an ultimatum being the justification for war. An ultimatum is only a step in the process of going to war.

So are you able to redefine "ultimatum" or are you talking nonsense , or perhaps you can show something else that was used as justification , there was lots of justification after all, but it was the non-complaince with the ultimatum that was ultimately used ....And thats the flaw

The one attempting to redefine or speaking nonsense is yourself. You continue on with the ultimatum being the justification, after you even admitted that it was a step in the process of going to war. So your going to either have to leave the arguement there, or shall we procede to your normal next step in a discussion where you attempt to ridicule anyone who doesn't see it your way?

ShadeHonestus

05-13-2007, 19:52

Do you view what was demanded, which was justified per the acts of aggression, as purely an ultimatum or an opportunity to avoid violence. I guess the Taliban's justification for crying foul against coalition forces, after aiding the projection of violence against them previous, is their refusal of an opportunity to avoid violence. The peaceniks and those who detest worldwide violence should certainly be condemning the Taliban for not taking the opportunity while applauding the U.S. for offering it. If not, then I fear they are illegitimate in their identity and are purely politically agendized.

Redleg

05-13-2007, 20:24

Justification has two meanings. It can denote the act of justifying, or the condition of being justified.

This thread is clearly about the latter. There can be no reasonable doubt about that.

Even so, we can argue the topic in either the former or the latter meaning. What we can't do, is confound both meanings, or randomly swap them at will.

The ultimatum-thesis is built on arguing that the 'act of justifying' is flawed. This flawed justification in the former meaning is then transferred to the second meaning, the 'condition of being justified'.
This is a rhetorical fault and renders an invalid argument. The ultimatum-thesis is built on justification being a homonym, a word with different meanings, and confounding its multiple meanings.

If we swap the multiple meanings at will, we'll reach absurd conclusions.

We should then accept that whenever the US issues a watertight ultimatum, they are therefore 'justified' in their actions. For example, America issues an ultimatum to Liechtenstein to rename its capital Vaduz into Jesusville by noon tomorrow or face nuclear destruction. Following the logic of the ultimatum-thesis, the US are now 'justified' into obliterating Liechtenstein, because the conditions of the ultimatum are straightforward and easily complied with.

The act of aggression entitled the justification in the meaning of the condition of being justified. Failing to meet the terms of the ultimatum served as a justification in the meaning of an act of justifying.

That was for clarities sake. It is besides the point of this post, but I would argue that the ultimatum didn't serve, nor should be regarded as, an act of justification at all.

Now Louis someone might take offense to your post. It explains several key points very well.

Are you sure your really not from Switzerland.....:laugh4:

ajaxfetish

05-13-2007, 21:17

Per definiton of an ultimatum, when one neglects it, that is the justification of the attack, whatever the reasons may be. Because when you send an ultimatum, but then attack them for another reason -even when the ultimatum was accepted/neglected-, why send it in the first place? Sending an ultimatum, having it rejected and then attacking implies that you attack because the ultimatum was rejected. Thus the ultimatum becomes the justification.
Please see Louis' latest post.

Ajax

Seamus Fermanagh

05-13-2007, 22:33

Justification has two meanings. It can denote the act of justifying, or the condition of being justified.

This thread is clearly about the latter. There can be no reasonable doubt about that.

Even so, we can argue the topic in either the former or the latter meaning. What we can't do, is confound both meanings, or randomly swap them at will.

The ultimatum-thesis is built on arguing that the 'act of justifying' is flawed. This flawed justification in the former meaning is then transferred to the second meaning, the 'condition of being justified'.
This is a rhetorical fault and renders an invalid argument. The ultimatum-thesis is built on justification being a homonym, a word with different meanings, and confounding its multiple meanings.

If we swap the multiple meanings at will, we will reach absurd conclusions.

We should then accept that whenever the US issues a waterproof ultimatum, they are therefore 'justified' in their actions. For example, America issues an ultimatum to Liechtenstein to rename its capital Vaduz into Jesusville by noon tomorrow or face nuclear destruction. Following the logic of the ultimatum-thesis, the US are now 'justified' into obliterating Liechtenstein, because the conditions of the ultimatum are straightforward and easy to comply with.

The act of aggression entitled the justification in the meaning of the condition of being justified. Failing to meet the terms of the ultimatum served as a justification in the meaning of an act of justifying.

That was for clarities sake. It is besides the point of this post, but I would argue that the ultimatum did not serve, nor should be regarded as, an act of justification at all.

edit: meh, irritating spelling mistake...

Nailed the issue in one neat post (I believe the localjargon is "pwned"). Thank you.

Petrus

05-14-2007, 16:31

I voted GAH!

In the days that followed the 11 september 2001, my greatest fear was that to see the us choose to transform Pakistan into radioactive ashes.

Given the fact that those attacks had obviously their roots into this islamist ideological nest, the war to Afghanistan seemed a logical and correct answer.

But.

Afghanistan was the islamist equivalent to a Pakistani protectorate, so limitation of the response to this country was not enough to cut the roots.

The Taliban regime was the only period of peace in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion which means that the resources required to replace it effectively were huge and success not guaranteed.

Fanatics only deserve to be hung with their own guts and this is not limited to Afghanistan, but launching a war to a whole country is not the best way to reach this objective.

The closest historical example of a war after a terrorist attack and an ultimatum to a government supposed to host terrorist organizations was between the Austria-Hungary empire and the little Serbia in 1914. As Austria-Hungary did not exist anymore four years and nine millions dead latter, one can question the relevance of a full scale military response to a terrorist attack.

So I would say that the military invasion would have been justified if it had effectively targeted the removal of islamist power in the area and that it was not if it was limited to pushing the god suckers a little bit farther.

Tribesman

05-14-2007, 18:35

Nailed the issue in one neat post (I believe the localjargon is "pwned"). Thank you.

Nope , not at all , the condition and the act are part of the same parcel , if any part of the process is flawed then the whole process is flawed .
An interestingly silly example Louis used though .
So Louis this Jesusville ultimatum , this final demand ,what would the process of reaching that final demand be ? It seems that all steps in that process are flawed .

That was for clarities sake. It is besides the point of this post, but I would argue that the ultimatum did not serve, nor should be regarded as, an act of justification at all.

So another one arguing that the ultimatum isn't an ultimatum:no:

Louis VI the Fat

05-14-2007, 20:21

So Louis this Jesusville ultimatum , this final demand ,what would the process of reaching that final demand be ? It seems that all steps in that process are flawed .
We shouldn't look at all the steps in the process. We should focus on the ultimatum. There is a clear ultimatum with demands Liechtenstein could easily comply with. This ultimatum is used by America as its justification for the attack. Unless you want to argue that an ultimatum is not an ultimatum, America's nuclear destruction of Liechtenstein is therefore justified.

Or is it?

No, of course not. What I demonstrated above, is a reversal of your position. It uses the same rhetorical fallacy as your argument about Afghanistan below, the heart of your argument.
I've demonstrated the nature of the fallacy in my previous post.

No it was not justified , the justification used was that the Taliban refused to comply with the demands placed on it .
There was no way they could comply with the demands .
Impossible demands negate the justification .

Louis VI the Fat

05-14-2007, 20:24

Gah! Petrus wrote a great post. We should be discussing his arguments. :shame:

Tribesman

05-14-2007, 20:40

No, of course not. What I demonstrated above, is a reversal of your position. It uses the same rhetorical fallacy as your argument about Afghanistan below, the heart of your argument.
I've demonstrated the nature of the fallacy in my previous post.

No you havn't since there is no grounds for the ultimatum you presented so it is flawed , whereas there were grounds for the other ultimatum but the ultimatum itself was flawed .
if any part of the process is flawed then the whole process is flawed .

Tribesman

05-14-2007, 20:55

Gah! Petrus wrote a great post. We should be discussing his arguments.
He has a good point , however .....The Taliban regime was the only period of peace in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion which means that the resources required to replace it effectively were huge and success not guaranteed.

It wasn't a period of peace , before they withdrew in the face of the coming invasion the war in the north was still ongoing, they had just fought against 3 large rebellions in the South and East(supposedly their secure heartland) and had narrowly avoided a massive Iranian invasion .

Afghanistan was the islamist equivalent to a Pakistani protectorate, so limitation of the response to this country was not enough to cut the roots.

Any thoughts on the clashes between the Aghan government army and the Pakistan army in Afghanistan last week , or the reports that the US delegation ambushed in Pakistan (and the US soldier killed in that ambush) were attacked by Pakistani soldiers ?

Louis VI the Fat

05-14-2007, 21:14

No you havn't since there is no grounds for the ultimatum you presented so it is flawed , whereas there were grounds for the other ultimatum but the ultimatum itself was flawed .Am I correct that your argument is then that the US was initially justified, but that they lost their justification by isuing an unworkable ultimatum and acting upon it?

Tribesman

05-14-2007, 21:42

Am I correct that your argument is then that the US was initially justified, but that they lost their justification by isuing an unworkable ultimatum and acting upon it?
Yep in the same way as catching a murderer red handed but then convicting them on made up evidence makes the conviction unjust .
yep they would be a murderer , yep they would deserve punishment , but the final part of the process was flawed so the action of actual punishment becomes unjustified .

Louis VI the Fat

05-14-2007, 22:59

What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?

Xiahou

05-14-2007, 23:33

Yep in the same way as catching a murderer red handed but then convicting them on made up evidence makes the conviction unjust .
yep they would be a murderer , yep they would deserve punishment , but the final part of the process was flawed so the action of actual punishment becomes unjustified .
Worst analogy ever. :no:

Let's try to fix it:
It's like catching a murderer red-handed and offering to cut him a break if he testifies against his accomplices. For whatever reason (heck, maybe the "accomplice" was even innocent), the murderer can't or won't testify. Then, the murderer receives the full punishment that he rightly deserves.

There, much better. :2thumbsup:

Tribesman

05-15-2007, 07:23

Worst analogy ever.
Xiahou .
trouble reading ? or just trouble understanding ?
Its a good anology since there was no need for made up evidence , but it was used , which makes the conviction unjust .

What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?
Are you trying to tell me that you are trying to argue the point without even reading it ??????
that explains a lot .
Hey Louis when you wrote this...It can denote the act of justifying, or the condition of being justified.

This thread is clearly about the latter. There can be no reasonable doubt about that.
had you actyually read the title of the topic or the question in the poll ?
It helps if you read yhe words and not go on what you think the words might be .

ShadeHonestus

05-15-2007, 07:25

What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?

It seems as though the demonized ultimatum is that which was commented on during Bush's address of Sept 20, 2001. The directly relevant parts follow with the entire speech easily found around the web for further context.

--------------------------
There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.

They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled.

Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime.

It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.

By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:

-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.

-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.

-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.

The Taliban must act and act immediately.

They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate. I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.
--------------------------

Here is more precise narrative of the actual exchange taken from a googled site:

COMPERE: But first this evening, US President George Bush today delivered his ultimatum to the Taliban: Hand over Osama bin Laden and all the members of his organisation and let US troops onto Afghan soil to destroy bin Laden's camps or suffer the consequences.

To Washington for an account of the speech, in a moment.

First though to breaking news, with the Taliban response to the US ultimatum.

ABDUL SALEM SAEEF: Religious followers demand that the united nation and organisation of the Islamic conference conduct neutral and meticulous investigation to find, [indistinct] and prevent unjustified harassment of innocent people.

The votes of our school of religion write that if infidels attack the territory of a country of Muslim, Jihad becomes an Islamic obligation for the Muslims of that country.

The voices of the Holy Koran, scenes of the holy prophet, [indistinct] and all votes [indistinct] of the school of religion [indistinct] to wage Jihad.

COMPERE: The Taliban Ambassador in Pakistan, Abdul Salem Saeef, at a media conference in Islamabad a short time ago.

He also maintained that his government would not force Osama bin Laden to leave Afghanistan. Asked if bin Laden was still in the country, he said he did not have specific information about his movements.

The Taliban Ambassador in Pakistan also said that giving information that leads to attacks on Afghanistan would be seen as an act of murder.

------------------

Also to note is that the final ultimatum wasn't given until around Nov 28th I think...so over a month from the speech and I'm unclear on how long from the actual delivery of the first official declaration of the ultimatum.

Petrus

05-15-2007, 11:41

He has a good point , however .....The Taliban regime was the only period of peace in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion which means that the resources required to replace it effectively were huge and success not guaranteed.

It wasn't a period of peace , before they withdrew in the face of the coming invasion the war in the north was still ongoing, they had just fought against 3 large rebellions in the South and East(supposedly their secure heartland) and had narrowly avoided a massive Iranian invasion .

From what i know about the situation at the end of their reign, they had managed to pass from a permanent war between afghan warlords to some sort of feudal theocratic ruling. Peace is not necessary the most correct term but at least it was no more the complete and bloody chaos that has occured for years.

Any thoughts on the clashes between the Aghan government army and the Pakistan army in Afghanistan last week , or the reports that the US delegation ambushed in Pakistan (and the US soldier killed in that ambush) were attacked by Pakistani soldiers ?

I've read that a us and a pakistani soldier had been killed but i ignored this was due to a fighting between us and pakistan forces. I suppose this new deserves to be confirmed.

I think pakistan is not a united nation in the sense europeans or americans understand it.

It is a mix of tribes and ethnic groups whose main common reference is religion.
Islamists educate the children and give this country a loose form where islam is the only reference shared by all pakistani.
A whole part of the country seems to ignore any form of secular ruling outside tribal structures and that the army seems to be very heterogeneous.

So i would say that some forces in pakistan try to expand the frontiers to include afghanistan - if the word frontier has a meaning in this context - since maybe twenty years, that it did not stop with the arrival of the allies and that it will not stop until pakistan has managed to evolve from islamist ideology, probably never.

After all, what is the difference between the 'tribal zone' and afghanistan?

I suppose those clashes correspond to those elements, something natural in a feudal theocratic world.

Louis VI the Fat

05-15-2007, 17:05

What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?
Are you trying to tell me that you are trying to argue the point without even reading it ??????
that explains a lot .
Hey Louis when you wrote this...It can denote the act of justifying, or the condition of being justified.
This thread is clearly about the latter. There can be no reasonable doubt about that.
had you actyually read the title of the topic or the question in the poll ?
It helps if you read yhe words and not go on what you think the words might be .

The terms of the ultimatum are in the speech Bush delivered on Sept 20, 2001. My CBS link refered to this speech. Don Corleone quoted the relevent demands earlier, and this is indeed the ulimatum I speak about. The entire speech can be found around the web. Below follow the directly relevant parts for your convenience:

By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:

-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.
-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.
-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.
-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act immediately. Thanks.

So you agreed that the US was initially justified to remove the Taliban regime, but that they lost their justification by issuing an unworkable ultimatum and acting upon that. This ultimatum consisted of the following demands:

Deliver the leaders of AQ; release foreign nationals; protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers; close terrorists camps and give the US access to them; hand over terrorists.

What is the problem with it?

Is it that these demands are unreasonable in itself? In which case I would ask you, what, if it is not the apprehension of accomplices of the 9/11 terrorists and the prevention of further attacks by closing training camps, could then possible have been the justification for America in the first place?

Is it that the Taliban couldn't possibly comply with these justified demands? In which case I ask you, why, if America is initially justified in removing terrorists from a foreign country, would America suddenly lose this justification if it becomes clear that the foreign country is not capable of removing the terrorists themselves?
This makes no sense. I think the exact opposite should be true: if a government is not, or no longer, capable of removing terrorists from within its own territory, outsiders gain in justification to intervene. Where we to follow your reasoning, we would reach the conclusion that whenever a regime maneuvers itself into such a position that it can no longer control acts of war committed by parties residing in its jurisdiction, it is automatically untouchable and legally impervious to outside intervention. Which is absurd.

Or is the problem that America lost its justification in a legalistic sense? You mentioned the analogy to a murder trial. In a criminal trial, the prosecution presses charges against a defendant. If the prosecution fails to prove the accusations, or messes up, the defendant walks.
I don't think this is a proper analogy. In a criminal trail, there are no demands on the accused, no ultimatums. Both belong to another legal act, which is the more proper analogy, that of the criminal arrest. For example, shots are fired from within a house, a suspect can be seen behind the windows. Police is called to the scene, and issues a demand to the house owners: either open the door immediately, come out with your hands up and allow us entry to search for suspects, or we'll storm in.
Arguing that the house owner didn't have a key to all the rooms, and that the police therefore issued an ultimatum that they couldn't comply with, and that the police should therefore pack up and go home is absurd and not supported under any legal system.
This legalistic argument of 'impossible demands' also ignores the fact that apparently America would've been justified if they hadn't issued any last chance opportunity to cooperate at all.

Basically you are arguing that the US was initially, and in principle, justified in removing terrorists from Afghanistan, that in a final ultimatum America offered Afghanistan the opportunity to do it themselves, that Afghanistan was of course unable and unwilling to comply with this demand, and that thereby the US lost their justification to do it for them. I don't think is is a convincing argument.
On the contrary. Issuing these demands strengtened America's justification for an invasion. In a moral sense, it gave a last chance opportunity for the Taliban to cooperate. That they didn't, showed that they were either incapable or unwilling to remove the terrorists from Afghanistan, both of which in a practical sense very much strengthened America's right to intervene.

Tribesman

05-15-2007, 20:09

What is the problem with it?

Read the topic .:book:
Or play spot the difference between all earlier demands/requests , be they by the UN EU ICC or US , and the US ultimatum .
Its very easy to see .:yes:
Here have a hint to get you started.......
Al-qaida operatives in areas of the country controlled by you .....or.......all terrorists in the country

Then you will see why instead of strengthening the case....
On the contrary. Issuing these demands strengtened America's justification for an invasion. the changes to the final demands screwed it up entirely .

ShadeHonestus

05-16-2007, 02:04

So if the demands were so far off to qualify them as illegitimate to the matter at hand or out of the scope of the recipient why did the Taliban issue a response like that which they did?

Seamus Fermanagh

05-16-2007, 04:39

Tribesy:

You'd make a heck of a public defender. You do go after any shred of a perceived flaw with impressive vigor. I've seen pit bulls back down sooner.

Meneldil

05-16-2007, 11:03

I voted Gah.

Personally, I think they were justified, mainly because the Talibans were rulling a real rogue states, and basically a load of crazy nutjobs. Back then, I would surely have voted "yes".

Then, morally, and legaly, I'm not sure they were justified. Invading a country because he doesn't want to answer you is not justified, just as is invading a country to find a single person.

Louis VI the Fat

05-16-2007, 17:05

Read the topic .:book:
Or play spot the difference between all earlier demands/requests , be they by the UN EU ICC or US , and the US ultimatum .
Its very easy to see .:yes:
Here have a hint to get you started.......
Al-qaida operatives in areas of the country controlled by you .....or.......all terrorists in the country

Then you will see why instead of strengthening the case....the changes to the final demands screwed it up entirely .
Games of hints, clues and spot the differences are for six year olds. Adults use arguments. If you have an argument, make it. If you feel you have already made it, point that out or refer to it.

Repeated suggestions that your fellow debators should read the thread first is slanderous and insulting in general, and not very clever in this case in particular - my posts indicated that I had a good grasp of the debate in this thread. My asking you to explain the ultimatum and the demands was not an indication of cluelessness - I had myself referred to the ultimatum already.
It was an invitation to you to explain the nature of the ultimatum and the demands in your own words so I could see where you were coming from. Apparently, the entire justification of the war hinges on the nature and exact phrasing of the demands, hence the relevance of the question. I was not in fact 'arguing the point without reading it' as you repeatedly suggest, I was trying to gain a clear understanding of the arguments of my fellow debators. Debates gain more from an effort to understand the position of the other than from childish games and insults.

We won't be getting any closer to each other's position, we've seemingly exhausted our arguments, and this debate is not gaining in friendliness, so maybe we should leave it at this.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 14:15

you know, most americans thought the government was justified in the illegal invasion of panama at the time too, when now we know it was clearly illegal and a violation of international law.

Redleg

05-20-2007, 14:26

you know, most americans thought the government was justified in the illegal invasion of panama at the time too, when now we know it was clearly illegal and a violation of international law.

Can you provide proof of such a statemet? Or are you just stating an opinion? Especially since the Panama Legistative Body declare a state of war existed between the United States and Panama prior to the invasion.

One can claim that it was not justified but your going to need stronger grounds to state it was clearly illegal and a violation of international law when one of the nations involved declared a state of war existed prior to the invasion.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 14:38

Can you provide proof of such a statemet? Or are you just stating an opinion? Especially since the Panama Legistative Body declare a state of war existed between the United States and Panama prior to the invasion.

One can claim that it was not justified but your going to need stronger grounds to state it was clearly illegal and a violation of international law when one of the nations involved declared a state of war existed prior to the invasion.

well it could be another topic all of its own but the international community was outraged at the time as most still are over the action in panama. the media coverage in the US was stifled to only pro-US stances at the time and covered most of this up. The 'declaration of war' by the Panamanian government was entirely false, as were most of the others of H.W. Bush's claims of reasons for intervention.

Noriega had long been an ally of the U.S. in Pentagon and CIA circles from his job in PDF's G-2. The CIA used his connection to further their interests in the Caribbean and Central and South America for year. Noriega was no Torrijos, but nontheless the criminal charges against him were widely believed to be false, created by the administration in response to his strong stance on trying to keep the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty and the removal of US military bases in the canal zone, which were widely known in Central America as training camps for right-wing death squads.

George Bush was suffering an image problem in 1989, what reporters called the "wimp factor". This took on special significance when Noriega adamantly refused to consider a 15-year extension on the School of the Americas (i.e., death squad summer camp.)

The invasion then, was an unprovoked attack on a civillian population. Panama posed absolutely no threat to the United States nor any other country. Politicians, governments, and press around the world denounced the unilateral US action as a clear violation of international law.

The only thing Panama had done was defy the wishes of a handful of powerful politicians and corporations who were worried about the Canal Zone falling into the hands of its rightful owners, and that a Japanese firm might get the contract to modernize it, leaving the American corporations to loose out on billions.

Noriega was characterized as evil, an enemy of the people, drug trafficker, etc, and provided the administartion with the excuse to invade a country with a population of two million, that just so happened to sit on one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the world.

Afterwards, the army forbade the Red Cross, the press, and other outside agencies to enter the heavily bombed areas for three days, while soldiers incinerated and burned the casdualties. (Ive talked with veterans of the operation.) the press eventually asked questions about how much evidence of criminal activity was destroyed, and how many died due to lack of medical attention, buth such questions were never answered.

Then defense secretary Dick Cheney estimated the death toll between 500 and 600, but independent groups now place the number at 3,000--5,000, mostly civilians, with another 25,000 left homeless.

Look at the evidence yourself and make your own decision.

Redleg

05-20-2007, 14:59

well it could be another topic all of its own but the international community was outraged at the time as most still are over the action in panama. the media coverage in the US was stifled to only pro-US stances at the time and covered most of this up. The 'declaration of war' by the Panamanian government was entirely false, as were most of the others of H.W. Bush's claims of reasons for intervention.

Again this sounds like your only stating opinion. Where does it state that the declaration of war was entirely false, since Noriega himself stated that it existed. International community outrage does not equate to illegality. It equates to not being diplomatic but not contray to international law.

Noriega had long been an ally of the U.S. in Pentagon and CIA circles from his job in PDF's G-2. The CIA used his connection to further their interests in the Caribbean and Central and South America for year. Noriega was no Torrijos, but nontheless the criminal charges against him were widely believed to be false, created by the administration in response to his strong stance on trying to keep the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty and the removal of US military bases in the canal zone, which were widely known in Central America as training camps for right-wing death squads.

True, Noriega had long been an ally with the United States. The criminal charges were proven to be correct in a court of Law. The Panama Canal Treaty was honored also.

George Bush was suffering an image problem in 1989, what reporters called the "wimp factor". This took on special significance when Noriega adamantly refused to consider a 15-year extension on the School of the Americas (i.e., death squad summer camp.)

The School of Americas was much more then just a death squad summer camp, but then I image you know that if your involved in the military intelligence community as you claim.

The invasion then, was an unprovoked attack on a civillian population. Panama posed absolutely no threat to the United States nor any other country. Politicians, governments, and press around the world denounced the unilateral US action as a clear violation of international law.

Again offer the proof from the International Court or even the United Nations. Opinion does not make fact. Then what about the murder of an american citizen by Panama forces prior to the invasion? Your also ignoring the fact about the declaration of a state of war issued by the Panama legistlative body.

The only thing Panama had done was defy the wishes of a handful of powerful politicians and corporations who were worried about the Canal Zone falling into the hands of its rightful owners, and that a Japanese firm might get the contract to modernize it, leaving the American corporations to loose out on billions.

Can you provide proof of this statement?

Noriega was characterized as evil, an enemy of the people, drug trafficker, etc, and provided the administartion with the excuse to invade a country with a population of two million, that just so happened to sit on one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the world.

Ah almost a statement that agrees with the history of the event.

Afterwards, the army forbade the Red Cross, the press, and other outside agencies to enter the heavily bombed areas for three days, while soldiers incinerated and burned the casdualties. (Ive talked with veterans of the operation.) the press eventually asked questions about how much evidence of criminal activity was destroyed, and how many died due to lack of medical attention, buth such questions were never answered.

I too have talked to veterns of Panama and served with many for several years. Your going to have to provide a news report that the Military denied access by the Red Cross to several areas - especially since one of the main issues was widespread looting done after the invasion. A lesson that the United States failed to learn once again and it happened again 15 years later in Iraq.

Then defense secretary Dick Cheney estimated the death toll between 500 and 600, but independent groups now place the number at 3,000--5,000, mostly civilians, with another 25,000 left homeless.

Look at the evidence yourself and make your own decision.

I have - and that is the problem with your statements - you state opinion but the evidence contradicts much of your own statements. How can a soverign body make a false declartion of war when the head of state of that nation acknowledges that the document was drafted up?

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 15:07

here's a decent article on the subject:

Panama has been traditionally controlled by its tiny European elite, less than 10% of the population. That changed in 1968, when Omar Torrijos, a populist general, led a coup that allowed the black and mestizo [mixed-race] poor to obtain at least a share of the power under his military dictatorship.

In 1981, Torrijos was killed in a plane crash. By 1983, the effective ruler was Manuel Noriega, a criminal who had been a cohort of Torrijos and US intelligence.

The US government knew that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking since at least 1972, when the Nixon administration considered assassinating him. But he stayed on the CIA payroll. In 1983, a US Senate committee concluded that Panama was a major center for the laundering of drug funds and drug trafficking.

The US government continued to value Noriega's services. In May 1986, the Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency praised Noriega for his "vigorous anti-drug trafficking policy." A year later, the Director "welcomed our close association" with Noriega, while Attorney-General Edwin Meese stopped a US Justice Department investigation of Noriega's criminal activities. In August 1987, a Senate resolution condemning Noriega was opposed by Elliott Abrams, the State Department official in charge of US policy in Central America and Panama.

And yet, when Noriega was finally indicted in Miami in 1988, all the charges except one were related to activities that took place before 1984 -- back when he was our boy, helping with the US war against Nicaragua, stealing elections with US approval and generally serving US interests satisfactorily. It had nothing to do with suddenly discovering that he was a gangster and a drug-peddler -- that was known all along.

It's all quite predictable, as study after study shows. A brutal tyrant crosses the line from admirable friend to "villain" and "scum" when he commits the crime of independence. One common mistake is to go beyond robbing the poor -- which is just fine -- and to start interfering with the privileged, eliciting opposition from business leaders.

By the mid 1980s, Noriega was guilty of these crimes. Among other things, he seems to have been dragging his feet about helping the US in the contra war. His independence also threatened our interests in the Panama Canal. On January 1, 1990, most of the administration of the Canal was due to go over to Panama -- in the year 2000, it goes completely to them. We had to make sure that Panama was in the hands of people we could control before that date.

Since we could no longer trust Noriega to do our bidding, he had to go. Washington imposed economic sanctions that virtually destroyed the economy, the main burden falling on the poor nonwhite majority. They too came to hate Noriega, not least because he was responsible for the economic warfare (which was illegal, if anyone cares) that was causing their children to starve.

Next a military coup was tried, but failed. Then, in December 1989, the US celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War by invading Panama outright, killing hundreds or perhaps thousands of civilians (no one knows, and few north of the Rio Grande care enough to inquire). This restored power to the rich white elite that had been displaced by the Torrijos coup -- just in time to ensure a compliant government for the administrative changeover of the Canal on January 1, 1990 (as noted by the right-wing European press).

Throughout this process, the US press followed Washington's lead, selecting villains in terms of current needs. Actions we'd formerly condoned became crimes. For example, in 1984, the Panamanian presidential election had been won by Arnulfo Arias. The election was stolen by Noriega, with considerable violence and fraud.

But Noriega hadn't yet become disobedient. He was our man in Panama, and the Arias party was considered to have dangerous elements of "ultranationalism." The Reagan administration therefore applauded the violence and fraud, and sent Secretary of State George Shultz down to legitimate the stolen election and praise Noriega's version of "democracy" as a model for the errant Sandinistas.

The Washington-media alliance and the major journals refrained from criticizing the fraudulent elections, but dismissed as utterly worthless the Sandinistas' far more free and honest election in the same year -- because it could not be controlled.

In May 1989, Noriega again stole an election, this time from a representative of the business opposition, Guillermo Endara. Noriega used less violence than in 1984. But the Reagan administration had given the signal that it had turned against Noriega. Following the predictable script, the press expressed outrage over his failure to meet our lofty democratic standards.

The press also began passionately denouncing human rights violations that previously didn't reach the threshold of their attention. By the time we invaded Panama in December 1989, the press had demonized Noriega, turning him into the worst monster since Attila the Hun. (It was basically a replay of the demonization of Qaddafi of Libya.) Ted Koppel was orating that "Noriega belongs to that special fraternity of international villains, men like Qaddafi, Idi Amin and the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Americans just love to hate." Dan Rather placed him "at the top of the list of the world's drug thieves and scums." In fact, Noriega remained a very minor thug -- exactly what he was when he was on the CIA payroll.

In 1988, for example, Americas Watch published a report on human rights in Panama, giving an unpleasant picture. But as their reports -- and other inquiries -- make clear, Noriega's human rights record was nothing remotely like that of other US clients in the region, and no worse than in the days when Noriega was still a favorite, following orders.

Take Honduras, for example. Although it's not a murderous terrorist state like El Salvador or Guatemala, human rights abuses were probably worse there than in Panama. In fact, there's one CIA-trained battalion in Honduras that all by itself had carried out more atrocities than Noriega did.

Or consider US-backed dictators like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti and a host of Central American gangsters through the 1980s. They were all much more brutal than Noriega, but the United States supported them enthusiastically right through decades of horrifying atrocities -- as long as the profits were flowing out of their countries and into the US. George Bush's administration continued to honor Mobutu, Ceausescu and Saddam Hussein, among others, all far worse criminals than Noriega. Suharto of Indonesia, arguably the worst killer of them all, remains a Washington-media "moderate."

In fact, at exactly the moment it invaded Panama because of its outrage over Noriega's abuses of human rights, the Bush administration announced new high-technology sales to China, noting that $300 million in business for US firms was at stake and that contacts had secretly resumed a few weeks after the Tiananmen Square massacre.

On the same day -- the day Panama was invaded -- the White House also announced plans (and implemented them shortly afterwards) to lift a ban on loans to Iraq. The State Department explained with a straight face that this was to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...."

The Department continued with the pose as Bush rebuffed the Iraqi democratic opposition (bankers, professionals, etc.) and blocked congressional efforts to condemn the atrocious crimes of his old friend Saddam Hussein. Compared to Bush's buddies in Baghdad and Beijing, Noriega looked like Mother Teresa.

After the invasion, Bush announced a billion dollars in aid to Panama. Of this, $400 million consisted of incentives for US business to export products to Panama, $150 million was to pay off bank loans and $65 million went to private sector loans and guarantees to US investors. In other words, about half the aid was a gift from the American taxpayer to American businesses.

The US put the bankers back in power after the invasion. Noriega's involvement in drug trafficking had been trivial compared to theirs. Drug trafficking there has always been conducted primarily by the banks -- the banking system is virtually unregulated, so it's a natural outlet for criminal money. This has been the basis for Panama's highly artificial economy and remains so -- possibly at a higher level -- after the invasion. The Panamanian Defense Forces have also been reconstructed with basically the same officers.

In general, everything's pretty much the same, only now more reliable servants are in charge. (The same is true of Grenada, which has become a major center of drug money laundering since the US invasion. Nicaragua, too, has become a significant conduit for drugs to the US market, after Washington's victory in the 1990 election. The pattern is standard -- as is the failure to notice it.)

and another:

ince the beginning of the civil war in Bosnia in 1991, there have been news reports of the atrocities committed in that troubled region. There have even been reports that the Bosnian Serbs have executed thousands of Muslims and buried them in mass graves. Many Americans would be astonished that the same atrocities were committed by the U.S. military in Panama in 1990, according to an award winning documentary on the Panama invasion.

In early July, 1996, the U.N. sent earth-moving equipment to uncover mass graves discovered near Srebrenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina, where thousands of Muslims are believed to be buried. The U.N. is attempting to build a case against Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, and his military commander, Gen. Ratko Mladic,in order to charge them with war crimes.

This type of mass burial during war is not unique to the Balkans, according to documentary film produced by THE EMPOWERMENT PROJECT.

The ninety minute film entitled THE PANAMA DECEPTION builds a substantial case against the U.S. military for the same types of war crimes. A portion of the film shows the exhuming of a large mass grave containing the bodies of both men and women, young and old. Almost all were civilians that were killed during the U.S. invasion. Some of the victims had been shot in the back of the head, execution style. It is asserted during the documentary that there are many mass graves within Panama but are located within the U.S. military controlled zone and are not accessible.

U.S. Army General Maxwell Thurman admitted during an interview shown in the film that there was a grave containing "some number" of bodies. He did not elaborate. A Pentagon spokesman said calling it a mass grave would be "imprecise".

The official U.S. toll of Panamanian deaths is approximately 256 and admits that 75 percent of those were civilians. Four different human rights groups put the death toll at 2,500 to 4,000 civilians.

THE PANAMA DECEPTION shows a "scorched earth" aftermath in the neighborhoods of Colon, San Miguelito and El Chorillo. Twenty thousand civilians lost their homes during the American bombardment and subsequent fire, and many lost their lives as well.

Former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, has condemned the invasion as illegal. He also said that is was characterized by a "shear, overwhelming use of raw firepower."

A spokesman for the Organization of American States (OAS) said in an interview included in the documentary that the U.S. invasion was a violation of the OAS charter (of which the U.S. is a signator), the U.N. charter and the the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention clearly prohibits attacks against civilian targets.

The U.S. military barred reporters from taking pictures during the invasion. Panamanian reporters who approached the neighborhood of El Chorillo (where the Panamanian armed forces were headquartered) were arrested and had their film confiscated. There is very little film footage of the actual invasion. The American military was careful to conceal its actions, similar to the Bosnian Serbs and the Stalinist Soviet Regime.

During the invasion the American press parroted the official story about "freeing Panama from narco-dictator Noriega" (like the Soviets freed Hungary in the late 50's). Even though there was no legal justification for the invasion, there was not a word of protest from the mainstream American media.

On June 16, 1996, the PANAMA DECEPTION was broadcast by the Southern Educational Communications Association via satellite to all of the public television stations in the United States. Even though the film won the Academy Award for best documentary feature in 1993, PBS refused to show it on the national network.

Like many crimes, the U.S. invasion of Panama was carried out at midnight. When the day arrives for the complete uncovering of the deeds of all men, Americans will stand aghast at the crimes committed by their own country under the cover of darkness.

hm, check these out if you want to learn more.

John Lindsay-Poland (2003). Emperors in the Jungle: The Hidden History of the U.S. in Panama. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3098-9

Noriega's memoirs are pretty good too.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 15:13

oh, and if you'd like the watch the aforementioned documentary, here it is for free on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-72PfcKOuo&mode=related&search=

Redleg

05-20-2007, 15:22

here's a decent article on the subject:

hm, check these out if you want to learn more.

John Lindsay-Poland (2003). Emperors in the Jungle: The Hidden History of the U.S. in Panama. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3098-9

Noriega's memoirs are pretty good too.

You do realize that the article leaves just as much out as it includes. For one it fails to mention the state of war between Panama and the United States. Wikipedia at least was able to include that in its write up. Plus other sources also have it.

If your going to claim it was illegal you should at least be able to cite the international court or the United Nations for such a claim. What you have posted is an opinion piece which contains some truth, but leaves out some facts.

Now this particuler site airs out all the dirty facts of both sides of the issue

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gilboa.htm

But it steers away from stating illegal war. Again provide a source of other then opinion that claims the conflict was illegal. It might have not been justified in many people's opinion, but to claim it was illegal falls flat on its face since congress authorized the use of force, and neither the International Court or the United Nations has ruled it illegal.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 15:33

Former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, has condemned the invasion as illegal.

A spokesman for the Organization of American States (OAS) said in an interview included in the documentary that the U.S. invasion was a violation of the OAS charter (of which the U.S. is a signator), the U.N. charter and the the Geneva Convention.

There's a couple from the article itself. I'm not suprised if the UN did not judge the invasion, as the US controlled it even more in 1989 than it does today.

Redleg

05-20-2007, 15:36

ince the beginning of the civil war in Bosnia in 1991, there have been news reports of the atrocities committed in that troubled region. There have even been reports that the Bosnian Serbs have executed thousands of Muslims and buried them in mass graves. Many Americans would be astonished that the same atrocities were committed by the U.S. military in Panama in 1990, according to an award winning documentary on the Panama invasion.

In early July, 1996, the U.N. sent earth-moving equipment to uncover mass graves discovered near Srebrenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina, where thousands of Muslims are believed to be buried. The U.N. is attempting to build a case against Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, and his military commander, Gen. Ratko Mladic,in order to charge them with war crimes.

This type of mass burial during war is not unique to the Balkans, according to documentary film produced by THE EMPOWERMENT PROJECT.

The ninety minute film entitled THE PANAMA DECEPTION builds a substantial case against the U.S. military for the same types of war crimes. A portion of the film shows the exhuming of a large mass grave containing the bodies of both men and women, young and old. Almost all were civilians that were killed during the U.S. invasion. Some of the victims had been shot in the back of the head, execution style. It is asserted during the documentary that there are many mass graves within Panama but are located within the U.S. military controlled zone and are not accessible.

War crimes might or might not have happened. And if they did happen the officers and men that committed them should be tried for their actions. But again this criminal action does not make the conflict illegal - it makes the action committed by those who did the action criminal.

U.S. Army General Maxwell Thurman admitted during an interview shown in the film that there was a grave containing "some number" of bodies. He did not elaborate. A Pentagon spokesman said calling it a mass grave would be "imprecise".

And what does the statement mean? That a mass grave exists, or are you attempting to make the statement imply that the general is admitting to a war crime?

The official U.S. toll of Panamanian deaths is approximately 256 and admits that 75 percent of those were civilians. Four different human rights groups put the death toll at 2,500 to 4,000 civilians.

THE PANAMA DECEPTION shows a "scorched earth" aftermath in the neighborhoods of Colon, San Miguelito and El Chorillo. Twenty thousand civilians lost their homes during the American bombardment and subsequent fire, and many lost their lives as well.

Again this does not prove the illegality of the conflict, only proves that bad things happen in war.

Former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, has condemned the invasion as illegal. He also said that is was characterized by a "shear, overwhelming use of raw firepower."

Getting better but was again he is stating it was an opinion. But at least he has some creditials in stating so. But where is the follow up on this statement.

A spokesman for the Organization of American States (OAS) said in an interview included in the documentary that the U.S. invasion was a violation of the OAS charter (of which the U.S. is a signator), the U.N. charter and the the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention clearly prohibits attacks against civilian targets.

Now was the target a civilian target or was it part of the military/industrial/governmental complex where the unfortunate aspects of bombing those targets carried over onto the civilian area? (I know the answer, the question is do you?)

The U.S. military barred reporters from taking pictures during the invasion. Panamanian reporters who approached the neighborhood of El Chorillo (where the Panamanian armed forces were headquartered) were arrested and had their film confiscated. There is very little film footage of the actual invasion. The American military was careful to conceal its actions, similar to the Bosnian Serbs and the Stalinist Soviet Regime.

Ah during this time period the military did not allow reporters free rein on the battlefield. Does this action prove anything other then the military might not have wanted civilian reporters in the area?

During the invasion the American press parroted the official story about "freeing Panama from narco-dictator Noriega" (like the Soviets freed Hungary in the late 50's). Even though there was no legal justification for the invasion, there was not a word of protest from the mainstream American media.

On June 16, 1996, the PANAMA DECEPTION was broadcast by the Southern Educational Communications Association via satellite to all of the public television stations in the United States. Even though the film won the Academy Award for best documentary feature in 1993, PBS refused to show it on the national network.

And lack of media converage equates to illegal activity by the government? What point does the author want to state on this. No protest by the mainstream media does not equate to an illegal war.

Like many crimes, the U.S. invasion of Panama was carried out at midnight. When the day arrives for the complete uncovering of the deeds of all men, Americans will stand aghast at the crimes committed by their own country under the cover of darkness.

Now this statement is just to damn funny - the United States conducts most of its operations at night because of our night vision advantage over many nations.

hm, check these out if you want to learn more.

John Lindsay-Poland (2003). Emperors in the Jungle: The Hidden History of the U.S. in Panama. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3098-9

Noriega's memoirs are pretty good too.

Read that one and several others. Again many are opinion pieces using facts to develop their opinion based upon their own preception of the events. Your claim was that it was an illegal war, however all you have shown is that the statement comes from opinion, not from the three bodies that have the call to state that an action is illegal.

Redleg

05-20-2007, 15:38

There's a couple from the article itself. I'm not suprised if the UN did not judge the invasion, as the US controlled it even more in 1989 than it does today.

Again you made a statement as a fact - the conflict was never deemed illegal, by any of the three bodies that could deem it illegal.

The declaration of a state of war by Panama sort of over-rides the illegality claim that your making.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 15:42

Redleg

05-20-2007, 15:50

so if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around it doesnt make a sound? your line of reasoning is that simply because a puppet organization did not deem it illegal is it not. that's legal technicality. lets change the question then, was it 'justified'? as the thread title states?

Not at all - the legality of the war was settled by the United States Congress when it authorized the use of force against Panama. That Panama futher compounded the issue by declaring a state of war before that authorization makes the claim of illegality unfounded.

Ah that question has alreadly been answered - one can state that the war was not justified - as stated ealier, Noreiga could of been ignored or arrested. The United States military could of just pulled up stakes and left. The canal deal was a done deal the canal was being turned over regardless of who was in power or not in Panama.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 15:52

do you really think that as a result of the invasion the issue of the canal zone was not decidied? if so you're being naive, friend. seriously?? And just because the US congress says its legal, what gives them that authority?

How can one claim the unilateral aggressive invasion of panama was legal, and the unilateral aggressive invasion of kuwait by saddam was not?

Redleg

05-20-2007, 16:03

do you really think that as a result of the invasion the issue of the canal zone was not decidied? if so you're being naive, friend. seriously?? And just because the US congress says its legal, what gives them that authority?

Not naive at all - since the initial treaty was a 99 year lease of the ground and President Carter had alreadly decided to honor that treaty. Neither Regan or Bush cancelled that decision. The canal zone issue was alreadly decided before the invasion.

From an earlier link.

Noriega was a corrupt dictator heading an efficient narcomilitaristic regime in Panama. He was involved in drug trafficking, arms smuggling, money laundering, and the ruthless oppression of his people. He also systematically violated the American-Panamanian Canal treaties and harassed U.S. forces and institutions in Panama. But were all these violations sufficient to justify a massive military intervention to remove Noriega from power? In the last forty years, the United States intervened in Latin American countries but always in connection with perceived communist threats and the cold war. Noriega was not a communist and did not plan to move Panama into the Soviet sphere of influence. On the contrary, he played a key role in American efforts to contain the spread of communism in Central America. Historically, Panama was strategically important to the United States because of the Panama Canal. By the mid-1980s, however, the canal had lost much of its strategic value.(1) In 1978 President Jimmy Carter recognized this change and negotiated an agreement to transfer control of the canal to Panama by the end of the century.(2)

The United States Constitution give congress the authority, which was ratified by the people of the United States.

How can one claim the unilateral aggressive invasion of panama was legal, and the unilateral aggressive invasion of kuwait by saddam was not?

Again the Invasion of Panama had a prior declaration of a state of war by the invaded country directed at the invading country.

Then again the United Nations declared the invasion of Kuwait illegal. No such delaration was declared about Panama.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 17:10

Redleg

05-20-2007, 17:42

The U.S. has agreed since 1945 to abide by the United Nations Charter under the force of law and the U.S. Constitution.

The U.N. Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 4, states: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The United Nations Charter does not subsecede the United States Constitution. Our soveriegnty was not given over to the United Nations. Again the United Nations has not ruled the Invasion of Panama illegal under international law, neither has the International Court.

The Organization of American States (OAS) has a similar provision. The OAS was formed in 1948 to implement the 1947 Rio Treaty signed at Rio de Janeiro by most American states, including the U.S., and Panama, agreeing to protect against aggression every state in the Western Hemisphere. Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties are part of the supreme law (the Constitution itself).

Correct - which means when Congress grants authority for the use of force it is abiding under the same concept - the United States Constitution. You have defeated your own arguement here.

On December 22, 1989 the OAS voted a harsh condemnation of the U.S. invasion by a vote of 20 to 1. The one country voting against the condemnation was, of course, the United States.

The condemnation of the act was not a ruling of an illegal act under international law. The organization as a body condemned the act.

On December 29, the U.N. General Assembly voted a harsh condemnation of the U.S. invasion by a vote of 75 to 20. The U.S. and some of her allies comprised all 20 of the votes against condemnation.

Again is this the ruling of being an illegal war? A condemnation while severe is not a ruling of illegality.

In addition, Panama never declared war on the U.S. Gen. Noriega said, in fact, that "a state of war" existed with the United States, and this only after the US-backed coup attempt against him that killed his personal unit of guards.

Which agrees with the statement I have stated. THe Panama legislative body declared that a state of war existed between the two nation prior to the invasion. Which implies that in the diplomatic front - Panama acknowledge a state of war exists between the two nations prior to the authorization of force.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 17:47

Redleg

05-20-2007, 17:50

well if country A attacked country B, country B must agree that "a state of war" exists between them. Panama obviously did not want a war and did not declare war on the U.S. first.

Which goes to the issue of justification not legality. You stated illegal not un-justified. The legality issue was addressed by by the Panama government with their statement and the United States government with the congressional authorization for the use of force.

Condemnations by other bodies is a severe statement but does not equate to an illegal ruling.

Redleg

05-20-2007, 17:53

well if country A attacked country B, country B must agree that "a state of war" exists between them. Panama obviously did not want a war and did not declare war on the U.S. first. Its clear that you will never be convinced, but all I can hope is open minded people watch the documentary and do some research and some patriotic Americans realize the things we've done in the past and continue to do and hopefully enough of us will wake up one day to change the current system.

Your confusing my postion about using the term illegal, with what I have read and know. Facts determine that no ruling of illegal war has ever been issued by the bodies that can determine such a ruling.

For instance if you wish to talk the Iran-Contra issue you will find that I deplore the United States actions and the illegality of it. Or do you wish to discuss the mining of a certain Central American coastal harbor? Or just about all of the time period of improper actions in Central and South America that violated our laws - but were conducted under CIA operations. Or do you wish to discuss the Banana Republics and the use of military force to protect corporate interests in latin america during that time period.

While Panama was not justified by any means of common sense - it was not illegal given the course of events.

Voting is the way to change the system - not spouting something is illegal when the facts don't back up the charge.

Boyar Son

05-20-2007, 20:08

Yes I believe the U.S. was justified in removing the Taliban from Afganistan.

Tribesman

05-21-2007, 18:46

Yes I believe the U.S. was justified in removing the Taliban from Afganistan.
Irrelevant , since they havn't been removed from Afghanistan and the Afghan president says that the Taliban are always welcome in Afghanistan .

Zaknafien

05-21-2007, 18:53

not to mention the Taliban (and Al Qaeda for that matter) had nothing to do with 9/11.

Don Corleone

05-21-2007, 21:38

not to mention the Taliban (and Al Qaeda for that matter) had nothing to do with 9/11.

I suppose you're insinuating that the US perfomed 9/11 on itself, to justify aggression against a blameless group? Any evidence to support this claim that you didn't get from Michael Moore (who, for the record freely admits that he is an entertainer and not a journalist, and as such, feels free to invent 'facts' and 'evidence')?

Zaknafien

05-21-2007, 23:25

Grey_Fox

05-21-2007, 23:37

Jesus Zak, both of those have been debunked. Even Wiki says that.

Zaknafien

05-21-2007, 23:41

no, they havent been. heres an example of supposed debunking:

* Loose Change compares the Collapse of the World Trade Center to other notable high rise fires, but does not clarify differences in building design and size, structural damage and compromised fireproofing.[25] (However, not all the critiques agree on this point - 9-11 Research, for example, critiques Loose Change but supports the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center). There is no exploration on the effect of fire on unprotected structural steel, which "loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F."[26] Kevin Ryan the "expert" source from Underwriters Laboratories for steel certification is actually a non-expert from a subsidiary for water testing,[3] Underwriters Laboratories does not certify structural steel,[25][3] and ASTM E119 certification involves intact fireproofing as conducted by Underwriters Laboratories for the NIST in 2004.[27] The NIST could find no record of any previous certification tests ever being conducted on the novel WTC floor system.[27] The NIST demonstrated the fireproofing was not intact by firing shotguns on fireproofed steel; critics find this unconvincing.[28]

Boyar Son

05-21-2007, 23:45

Irrelevant , since they havn't been removed from Afghanistan and the Afghan president says that the Taliban are always welcome in Afghanistan .

Hehe! how is it irrelevant since my opinion deals with the topic?

Grey_Fox

05-21-2007, 23:47

no, they havent been.

In my opinion there is more than enough information out there to call them disproven - myths so to speak.

Redleg

05-21-2007, 23:48

there's an overwhelming amount of evidence actually. I'd suggest checking out some of the great documentaries out there like Loose Change or 9/11 Revisited.

I challenge you to watch at least 1 in its entirety and still be convinved the 9/11 comission's report was accurate.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

http://www.laughingpond.com/watch.asp?clientid=loosechange&refer=loosechange911.com&videoid=lc2194jf34j2mnd3koa

As stated before those two films have been debunked several times.

http://www.debunking911.com/

Your losing more and more creditablity with angry rethoric that is short of hard facts.

Tribesman

05-22-2007, 00:02

how is it irrelevant since my opinion deals with the topic?
read what you wrote:idea2:

Grey_Fox

05-22-2007, 00:07

no, they havent been. heres an example of supposed debunking:

blah blah blah[25] (However, not all the critiques agree on this point - 9-11 Research, for example, critiques Loose Change but supports the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center) blah blah blah

Saying it's possible is nowhere near close to saying that it actually happened.

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 00:09

As stated before those two films have been debunked several times.

http://www.debunking911.com/

Your losing more and more creditablity with angry rethoric that is short of hard facts.

while on the other hand many seem to be afraid of asking questions outright and ready to accept the assurances of the establishment and ridicule those who question as 'crazy' or 'conspirists'. There are many questions that have not been satisfactorially answered.

just off the top of my head, why would the FBI confiscate and not release the video footage from the hotel and gas station across the street from the pentagon with a perfect view of the impact site? to this day those videos have not been released by the FBI. Why? if the government wants to conclusively prove once and for all a plane hit the pentagon, why not release the footage.

Boyar Son

05-22-2007, 00:09

read what you wrote:idea2:

"Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?"

"Yes I believe the U.S. was justified in removing the Taliban from Afganistan."

There you go~D

Grey_Fox

05-22-2007, 00:13

There's already footage of both planes hitting the world trade centre...

There's also hundreds if not thousands of eyewitness accounts.

What would a couple of videos more do?

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 00:17

well actually there are only a dozen eyewitness accounts for the pentagon strike, which could easily be fabricated or placed. the 5 frames that have been released do not show any type of aircraft. why would they not release them is the question.

Don Corleone

05-22-2007, 00:20

Zak, let's suppose we hypothetically give you a pass on the Pentagon (and frankly, that is one hell of a pass, based on the pathetic levels of credibility most of the 911-hoax sites offer, they mostly ask questions that they claim cannot be answered 100%. True, but nobody can prove 100% that I'm not the father of Anna Nicole's baby).

Why would the military industrial complex bomb itself? And how would they know to chose the exact moment the 2 planes hit the twin towers? Wouldn't they achieve the same affect by bombing somebody they don't care, like Congress? :laugh4:

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 00:29

we all know the reasons, for the supposed false flag operations, why attack the pentagon itself? i presume for some sort of plausible deniability but we might never know for sure of course.

the plane just so happened to hit the only wall of the pentagon that was recently re-inforced.

the plane also luckily struck the farthest possibly away from Mr. Rumsfeld's office.

The Bush Administration claims the terrorists were successful because the U.S. had faulty intelligence, bad luck, and bureaucratic ineptitude, but that isn't true. Vice President Dick Cheney monitored the flight path of Flight 77, the commercial airliner that crashed into the Pentagon. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as American Airlines Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. Secretary Norman Mineta testified to the 911 Commission on May 23, 2003:

"When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. . . . Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC. . . . We did not know how many more attacks might be in progress. . . . During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out."

And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?"

And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building."
—SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon press briefing

Freudian slip? LOL

Besides, is it really so far-out? We know for fact the US government has conducted and planned to conduct several terrorist operations in the past, incluidng the hijacking or faking of plane hijackings and bombings to blame on our enemies. We've attacked ourselves before as well, FACT.

http://www.geocities.com/s911surprise3b/american_airlines_flight_77/thewebfairy_com_killtown_aa77.jpg

In the aftermath, it was reported by media sources that a giant 100 ft. crater was plowed into the front lawn of the Pentagon as the result of a powerful airliner crash? Why does photographic evidence overwhelmingly show that this was absolutely not the case? Why no crater? Why no skid marks? Why no burn marks? Why was the entire world deliberately mislead?

Given that the only hole is approximately 16 ft. in diameter - how does a jetliner over 44 feet tall and 125 ft. wide fit into that hole as shown in the crystal-clear and close-up photographic evidence from the Pentagon?

Don Corleone

05-22-2007, 01:03

Zak, you are a hoot. They bombed the Pentagon, with themselves in it, just to have plausible deniability? Do you know how implausible all this sounds? Not to mention, we're talking about the US government here. They couldn't even fire some political appointees properly, yet somehow they pulled this off without a shred of actual hard evidence, just you and your conspiracy sites?

You said you were in military intelligence, right? Are you guys conducting an experiment on the population at large, to see how gullible we are?

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 01:07

can you answer the questions?

and no, im not talking about the US government. Im talking about the multi-national U.S. conglomerates who puppeteer several people within the government.

Grey_Fox

05-22-2007, 01:18

There was a big thing done here disproving that missile theory a year or two ago, but I'm not going to try and find it, but I'll summarise what I can remember.

The wings snapped off the plane on impact, hence why no 200 food with hole.

And how is a person meant to find Rummies office when travelling at 500mph?

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 01:20

Grey_Fox

05-22-2007, 01:22

Into ze hole following the rest of the plane. Inertia man.

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 01:25

uh, that hole was only 16 feet across. come on. seriously.

Strike For The South

05-22-2007, 02:01

When have we attacked ourselves before?

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 02:10

Strike For The South

05-22-2007, 02:14

The USS Maine was an accident. It wasnt a delibrate act, Granted it was a mircale for the imprealsit goverment but it wass not delibrate.

Redleg

05-22-2007, 02:19

while on the other hand many seem to be afraid of asking questions outright and ready to accept the assurances of the establishment and ridicule those who question as 'crazy' or 'conspirists'. There are many questions that have not been satisfactorially answered.

Legimate questions and concerns have been raised. However you mentioned two theories that have alreadly been debunked. And debunked on this forum by individuals who are highly critical of the United States.

just off the top of my head, why would the FBI confiscate and not release the video footage from the hotel and gas station across the street from the pentagon with a perfect view of the impact site? to this day those videos have not been released by the FBI. Why? if the government wants to conclusively prove once and for all a plane hit the pentagon, why not release the footage.

Good question - but that is not the same as bringing up two theories that have alreadly been debunked. Questions still are being asked about Pearl Harbor also, many loop holes have not been closed concerning that event, however everyone accepts that the Japanese did indeed attack the United States at Pearl Harbor.

Asking questions about the failure of the security systems and agencies responsible for intelligence and the security of the nation are more then welcome.

Bringing up conspricary theories that are alreadly debunked well loses creditablity.

Redleg

05-22-2007, 02:30

the most famous case would most likely be the USS Liberty incident--where, I'll grant you, it wasnt US forces conducting the attack, but rather was Israeli military forces attacking US forces on orders from the President of the United States. Check it out, its pretty shocking.

You need to stop while your way behind. This is just getting to damn funny.

The plan was to have the Liberty sank by "Egyptian" aggressors, allowing the US to enter the war on Israel's side and take over Egypt.

That was indeed the plan of the Israel operation.

Unfortunately a Russian vessel intervened and witnessed the attack whereupona after several hours of strafing and torpedoing the ship, the attackers had to be called off because of the witnesses, leaving the Liberty to limp back to the fleet.

A famous quote from then President Johnson was "God******, I want that ship to go to the bottom!" when commanders kept asking if they could send help, according to 6th Fleet rear admiral Lawrence Geis.

Good it be that President Johnson was refering to something else? Hmm Or maybe he did refer wanting the ship sunk to hide the evidence of the Israel Attack from the American People.

you could look into the scores of false flag operations that have been conducted by the SOF community and the CIA.

Another great example would be the sinking of the USS Maine as a pretext for war with Spain.

One must look at each instance, for examble its been proven by several that the most likely happening for the USS Maine was that the boiler blew up. If you know anything about steam powered boats during that time period and the location of the boiler - you begin to see that the possiblity of this occurance was more likely then an own purpose sinking of the ship by some nubleous force.

The war with Spain is a text book examble of yellow journalism.

Operation Northwoods is probably the most famous official plans for false flag terrorist operations conducted by the US against the US, though President Kennedy didnt like the idea.

Plans do not equate to reality. There are many plans are made and never actually executed to test the readiness of the Armed Forces.

The problem with neublus conspiracy theories of such a magnitude is that they do not rest on truth but on the suspecions of the conspiracy maker.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-22-2007, 03:18

You need to stop while your way behind. This is just getting to damn funny.

Read these runes! They compass much witful advice.

That was indeed the plan of the Israel operation.
Anybody ever pry any source material out of Tel Aviv on that? The official line has always been mistaken identity/regrettable incident.

One must look at each instance, for examble its been proven by several that the most likely happening for the USS Maine was that the boiler blew up. If you know anything about steam powered boats during that time period and the location of the boiler - you begin to see that the possiblity of this occurance was more likely then an own purpose sinking of the ship by some nubleous force.

The war with Spain is a text book examble of yellow journalism.

I'd read an article and seen a piece on THC that the #1 theory currently is an undetected coal bunker fire (shockingly common in the era) and ammunition stored improperly close on the otherside of a metal bulkhead.

The problem with neublus conspiracy theories of such a magnitude is that they do not rest on truth but on the suspecions of the conspiracy maker.

All conspiracy theories take as their start point that little or nothing happens by chance. All events must be the result of human agency, so if something bad happens, it must be the result of somebody who wanted the ill occurrence to happen for their own nefarious ends.

So Cheney doesn't really hunt quail, he goes to bayou country to pack C4 into levees -- Bush trusts his aim. :smartass:

Impact craters from a crashing airplanes cannot be round -- despite what those pesky physicists have told us about the shape of impact craters regardless of the impact trajectory -- so if there was no trench it must have been an explosive missile. :wiseguy:

And a 10 minute kerosene fire cannot possibly ignite other substances around it generating a fire capable of weakening structural steel -- only a demolition job could have weakened enough floors to bring down the three buildings. :shame:

Conspiracy theories are a lovely effort at ego-stroking -- only human skullduggery could have accomplished X. :dizzy:

Redleg

05-22-2007, 11:58

Impact craters from a crashing airplanes cannot be round -- despite what those pesky physicists have told us about the shape of impact craters regardless of the impact trajectory -- so if there was no trench it must have been an explosive missile. :wiseguy:

Correct there is no such thing as a round impact crater - all form a eciplical shape based upon the angle of impact. Even then a perfect 90 degree impact would not result in a perfect round crater.

Redleg

05-22-2007, 12:00

I'd read an article and seen a piece on THC that the #1 theory currently is an undetected coal bunker fire (shockingly common in the era) and ammunition stored improperly close on the otherside of a metal bulkhead.

Read that one too, I still prefer the boiler theory because of its common occurence during the time period also. But the bunker fire is also very viable, given that coal dust in itself has a tendency to explode in confine spaces.

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 12:01

i find it it amazing that you are so keen on believing the government line, when we know for a fact that the government has lied to us about myriad things in the past. how can one be so naive?

so you tell me then, where did the plane go?

how were all four black boxes at the world trade center, made from the most indestructable materials on earth, dissintigrate, whilst one of the 'terrorist' passports, made of what's known as paper, miraculously survive?

how come 8 of the supposed hijackers are still alive and well today, living in various countries around the world and giving interviews about how their IDs were stolen?

how do you explain the molten steel in WTC 1 and 2, 5 floors below street level?

how come nearly 1 billion dollars in gold was removed from WTC 1 and 2 during the attack, and has not been accounted for to this day?

those are just a few of the many unanswered questions, and you seem to think the government is telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. come on.

and regarding the Liberty:

* "...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."- Former CIA Director Richard Helms[7]

* "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous "- Former US Secretary of State Dean Rusk[8]

Redleg

05-22-2007, 12:09

i find it it amazing that you are so keen on believing the government line, when we know for a fact that the government has lied to us about myriad things in the past. how can one be so naive?

A lie of the nature you want to believe it to be, would of alreadly cracked given the nature of American Politics.

so you tell me then, where did the plane go?

Into the building. Collasping into itself because of the nature of the building that it hit. The Plane also went fairily deep into the complex.

how were all four black boxes at the world trade center, made from the most indestructable materials on earth, dissintigrate, whilst one of the 'terrorist' passports, made of what's known as paper, miraculously survive?

Hmm have you ever been around any material that survived a fire as intense as what brought down the Twin Towers? Have you ever been around an impact zone? Funny things are found at other plane crashes.

how come 8 of the supposed hijackers are still alive and well today, living in various countries around the world and giving interviews about how their IDs were stolen?

LOL - stolen ID's automatically mean that the United States government stole them. Oh boy now that is funny.

how do you explain the molten steel in WTC 1 and 2, 5 floors below street level?

Gravity.

how come nearly 1 billion dollars in gold was removed from WTC 1 and 2 during the attack, and has not been accounted for to this day?

Ah that is a lot of gold - but no-one has ever provide proof that the gold was actually stored in the World Trade Centers.

those are just a few of the many unanswered questions, and you seem to think the government is telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. come on.

Tsk Tsk - an emotional appeal because I dis-believe wacky conspricary theories. That is just to funny. When I see facts - I see truth. When I see opinions wrapped around conspricary theories - I see just that.

Redleg

05-22-2007, 12:11

and regarding the Liberty:

Your quote does not prove that the United States ordered the Israeli's to attack the USS Liberty.

It however proves exactly what the crew of the USS Liberty has been stating for many years - that the attack was no accident.

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 17:53

despite what those pesky physicists have told us

Yeah those physicists are quacks! I believe that I can recall a total of 2 which I've met (total survey population would be about 40) which could even be considered moderate democrats (so no love for the current administration). Unfortunately though, being of sound mind, they don't join the ranks of tin hatters. Seriously if there was scientific cred you'd have a seething populace in academia that would revel in bringing these conspiracies to light.

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 17:59

There are many engineers and scientists who doubt the government's official story of 9/11. Maybe if you didnt get all your information from Fox Noise you'd know about them, perhaps. Dismissing such claims as "tin-hat conspiracies" just because you dont agree with them or find comfort in believing the official line is irresponsible. Look--I dont believe in alot of crazy theories. All I am saying, is that there are questions, big questions,that have not been answered. You can speculate, but the fact remains we don't know everything, and the government has hidden things from us. What's wrong with being skeptical and asking questions?

ajaxfetish

05-22-2007, 18:04

What's wrong with being skeptical and asking questions?
Being skeptical and asking questions is just fine. Claiming that our government conducted the 9/11 attacks and others against American people with no supporting evidence besides speculation and paranoia is discrediting, however.

Ajax

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 18:10

Being skeptical and asking questions is just fine. Claiming that our government conducted the 9/11 attacks and others against American people with no supporting evidence besides speculation and paranoia is discrediting, however.

How do we end up thinking so much the same way yet so far apart in other areas. Keeps things interesting.

Maybe if you didnt get all your information from Fox Noise you'd know about them, perhaps. Dismissing such claims as "tin-hat conspiracies" just because you dont agree with them or find comfort in believing the official line is irresponsible.

Yeah nice try with the towing of the "tin hat line" of Fox Noise. lol I've worked in academia for a number of years and those observations are of my own.

Look--I dont believe in alot of crazy theories.

Yet you've gone to great lengths establishing your cred as a true believer and reformed military man who no longer has illusions as to what its all about.

edit- fixed quotes

Don Corleone

05-22-2007, 18:19

Nothing wrong with asking questions at all Zak. In fact, I encourage you to. But there's a world of difference between asking a genuine question and using the proverbial 'loaded question' to make a statement without basis in fact.

Example:

-Good question: Is there any evidence that McCain and Kennedy colluded to hide the details of the Immigration reform bill from the media? If so, what what was the intent of this obfuscation?

-Bad question: Most intelligent people agree that the Illuminati ordered McCain and Kennedy to stifle disemmination of information on the reform bill so that they can begin their human farming experiments in the Sonora desert to feed the aliens that circle our planet every day, but maybe you have evidence that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what most of us brave, informed and intelligent people already know to be true is wrong?

Zak, every time I see a new post by you, I keep waiting for the final punch line, like "I'm from Slate.com and I'm doing a study on how crazy a theory the average internet user will swallow, so long as it maligns Bush, the USA or both". Until you decide to let us in on the joke, I'm certainly enjoying the peyote-free fantasy trips you're taking us all on.

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 18:51

McCain and Kennedy to stifle disemmination of information on the reform bill so that they can begin their human farming experiments in the Sonora desert.

Oh nice, human farming, what is the name of their evil corporation? I want to get in on that stock.

Banquo's Ghost

05-22-2007, 19:33

Oh nice, human farming, what is the name of their evil corporation? I want to get in on that stock.

Halliburton of course, doesn't everyone know that? Soylent Green Division. :wink:

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 19:38

Halliburton of course, doesn't everyone know that? Soylent Green Division. :wink:

...speed dialing the broker.

Redleg

05-22-2007, 21:55

There are many engineers and scientists who doubt the government's official story of 9/11.

Doubt does not equate to crazy conspricary theories that you have been mentioning.'

Maybe if you didnt get all your information from Fox Noise you'd know about them, perhaps.

Actually I read a lot - and sites such as Al Jaz, Jordan Times, and several others. So your attempt here is as foolish as many of your other comments.

Dismissing such claims as "tin-hat conspiracies" just because you dont agree with them or find comfort in believing the official line is irresponsible.

I dismiss them because those with some science background have alreadly debunked them. A host of websites are devoted to the conspricary theories and an equal number provide the debunking of them. So again your attempt here is as foolish as the conspricary theory aspect of your comments.

Look--I dont believe in alot of crazy theories. All I am saying, is that there are questions, big questions,that have not been answered. You can speculate, but the fact remains we don't know everything, and the government has hidden things from us. What's wrong with being skeptical and asking questions?

For a man who says he doesn't believe a lot of crazy theories your sure are bring them up alot and then attacking those who state that the theories have been debunked.

Being skeptical is fine and dandy - being a conspricary tin-hatter is not. When someone points out that the conspricary theory has been debunked and attempting such an angry rethoric stance that you have taken in this thread - well ensure that most of your arguement and concern is lost in the angry rethoric.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 00:24

One reason I've never been very particular to these conspiracy theories is the blunt fact they tend to rely far too heavily on ascribing unreal levels of competence and loyalty to the supposed conspirators. Those guys are after all supposed to be human (and when they're not, well, guess...:alien:), and humans are by and large stupid, lazy, greedy, petty, short-sighted, difficult, jealous, sometimes much too prone to inebriation or mouthing off at the bar on a Friday night, and so on and so on. And the more folks you have in a conspiracy the more certain it is some wonk critically slips up, by accident or by design.

The amount of people needed "in the know" to plan, execute and cover up any funny business in the whole 11/9 deal boggles the mind.

And that's before adding in the fact there aren't all that many groups more dysfunctional, schizophrenic and factionalised as the US "power elite", military-industrial complex, and security services. Nevermind now their peculiar tendency to have appointed morons in senior positions.

Nevermind now that going by any even remotely credible motivation any such group of conspirators could have reached their goals by far less gratuitously spectacular, demanding and risky ploys.

Just thought I'd share that bit of hard-boiled cynicism about my fellow man. :beam:

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 00:31

Although at times its equal to imagining spin 1/2 of sub atomic particles. I do find myself nodding in agreememnt with you in this instance Watchman. Even when wincing at some of the not so subtle American insults. :laugh4: Some of which, if placed within a modicum of decency, I would own as true.

Zaknafien

05-23-2007, 00:59

Oh, I'm aware of the incompetence of the vast majority of government and military personnel and the idiocy of (not only Americans) but humans in general. I'm just saying, people who believe our government wouldnt do such a thing if they could are misled and naive.

OK, here's one that bugs me, what do you guys think about this:

On September 17th, 2001, bin laden denied involvement in the attacks.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

The "Smoking Gun" Osama bin Laden video was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. 1 These two images from the video show a man who we are supposed to believe is bin Laden.

EDIT: Image link removed

These are images from older videos known to be of Osama bin Laden.

EDIT: Image link removed

Differences between the features of Osama bin Laden and the confessor include:

* Osama has a much taller and narrower nose.
* Osama has a less rounded brow ridge.
* Osama is less well nourished.
* Osama has lower and less full cheeks.
* Osama's forehead slopes back more.
* Osama's face is wider at the level of his eyes.

not to mention confessor bin-laden is right handed in the video when we know for a fact binladen is left handed.

If the US and its pals could fake such a video -- and they're easy to fake, either with morphing or stand-in impersonators -- why wouldn't they? Think about it. You're going to bomb a destitute people in a destitute land. You want to neutralize world outrage that will inevitably follow. So you have a man -- I'll call him Osama bin Fake-It -- speak out as the bombs fall. Fake-it sends a message that offends world conscience, praising the slaughter of New York civilians, thereby neutralizing sympathy the world might have for bin Laden's protectors (your intended bombing victims).

The makers of the Taliban Home Video rely upon our having a short memory. They hope we won't remember an authentic CNN interview with Osama Bin Laden, conducted by Peter Arnett and shown in March, 1997. In that interview, bin Laden makes his views clear. In the 2001 Taliban Home Video, bin Fake-it turns Bin Laden's views around 180 degrees. Coincidentally, the 180 degree turns just happen to serve US 2001 propaganda purposes.

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 01:06

No doubt that the Illuminati have corrupted Tosa into not displaying those pictures.

Grey_Fox

05-23-2007, 01:11

Right click on them and click on view image.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 01:14

That doesn't quite answer the question who the Heck did it if not Osama and his merry men. Or how, if one assumes they did it, the US conspirators have managed to avoid major leaks out of sheer spite and personality issues if nothing else, nevermind now the difficulties involved in actually executing the whole plot without something going haywire or exposing the whole deal.

Does Not Compute. Too fanciful, compared to a handful of bumbling but lucky fools managing to slip past some bumbling but complacent letter-soup fools and putting hijacked passenger jets to a novel use in the urban renewal industry.

Grey_Fox

05-23-2007, 01:15

Tom Clancy managed to think up using civilian airliners as guided missiles. So did Dale Brown.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 01:19

One has to wonder about Osama's bookshelf.

Zaknafien

05-23-2007, 01:20

well clearly it doesnt answer anything, but all im saying, is that there are unanswered questions, and we do not know the truth yet.

Redleg

05-23-2007, 01:26

Does Not Compute. Too fanciful, compared to a handful of bumbling but lucky fools managing to slip past some bumbling but complacent letter-soup fools and putting hijacked passenger jets to a novel use in the urban renewal industry.

And this is the most likely scenerio concerning what happened. The only unanswered question is who put them up to it?

Hince the desire to capture Bin Laden since he was believed to have the means and the desire to do such a thing. He had also made statements that he would attack the United States by some means prior to the actual attacks.

Zaknafien

05-23-2007, 01:32

Redleg

05-23-2007, 01:38

You've got to look at who benefited from the 9/11 attacks though. The oil and construction conglomerates, the defesne contractors, and the 'neo'-conservative whackos. Would the handful of wealthy neocons use such a tragedy to their advantage and to push forward their insane objectives of global empire and military dominance? sure they would, i think.

Those who wish to profit off of the sorrows of men are a shameful lot, however that does not imply that they conducted the act.

There is a lot of things I detest about how the operations are being conducted - but that does not imply that I believe the conspricary theories that you first advocated in this thread.

Should oil and construction conglomerates benefit from the conflict - personally I don't believe so, but I am also a realist about such things have always happened - greedy businessmen have always taken advantage of others in conflict - the best the nation could do is to limit the amount of profitering.

Complain about the amount of war profittering that is happening because of government contractors and I am all for listening to it, but that is a far cry from your earlier postion.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 01:39

Hince the desire to capture Bin Laden since he was believed to have the means and the desire to do such a thing....a $249.98 fiscal 2002 military budget to pay for exploding shoes, fake IDs, and pirated copies of Microsoft Flight Simulator (http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/budget.shtml) ?

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 01:42

You've got to look at who benefited from the 9/11 attacks though. The oil and construction conglomerates, the defesne contractors, and the 'neo'-conservative whackos. Would the handful of wealthy neocons use such a tragedy to their advantage and to push forward their insane objectives of global empire and military dominance? sure they would, i think.

And they could have afforded a much better fake video...

-edit- I mean honestly, Tom Cruise was made to look like lots of people in MI1 -/edit- Unless of course you're saying that they are so desperate that they can't out budget a Hollywood movie.

Unless they meant to have the fake video discovered thereby placing the blame on the evil corporations! AH HA! Now who is the walrus from this...Socialists! I knew socialists are to blame! Get Lenin out of that sealed glass tomb, we need a patsy to issue a proper beat down. (Socialist/Leninist/Marxist distinctions aside we are conspiracy theorists and only interested in Lenin at this point)

Zaknafien

05-23-2007, 01:47

Well, following that line of thought, would they even be adverse to such a plan, if they knew about it? FInding a scapegoat like bin laden is easy. Why, in July 2001, bin laden was known to be in Dubai at an American hosptial and have met with a known CIA operative where he just so happened to have acquired a large amount of money.

Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden.

Just makes someone wonder, you know ;)

Redleg

05-23-2007, 02:00

Well, following that line of thought, would they even be adverse to such a plan, if they knew about it?

One never knows for sure - but such an action goes back to the conspricacy theory problem. Such a stance would not survive the actuality of the event within most American Business.

FInding a scapegoat like bin laden is easy. Why, in July 2001, bin laden was known to be in Dubai at an American hosptial and have met with a known CIA operative where he just so happened to have acquired a large amount of money.

Could it be that his rich father or a member of his family happen to provide him a lot of money? Or that he happened to clean out one of his own bank accounts? Or are you attempting to imply that the CIA operative acquired a large amount of money.

Whats funny is that the news report don't say which one it was.

Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden.

Just makes someone wonder, you know ;)

Oh I have long suspected that the Saudi's have been playing both sides against the middle for many years to insure that the house of Saud remains in power.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 02:33

Oh I have long suspected that the Saudi's have been playing both sides against the middle for many years to insure that the house of Saud remains in power.I thought that was commonly regarded as the longstanding (if short-sighted) cornerstone of their policy ? "Screw everything else so long as we get to rake in the dough and spend it."

Proletariat

05-24-2007, 03:53

well clearly it doesnt answer anything, but all im saying, is that there are unanswered questions, and we do not know the truth yet.

So true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI
:laugh4: