USA planned the invasion of Afghanistan MONTHS before 9/11

[blackheart]

Sure none of here may like the way the Taliban did things, but that's not the point is it?

Yes, it is. Sit back in your chair and denounce it all you want, a brutal and tyrannical regime is gone.

So Xenocrates, what you want is to rubber stamp the war?

 

[allhailIndia]

I don't see your point.

There was a law in Afghanistan and it was applied. If you were on the wrong side of it you'd be punished. Seriously punished, but many other countries have the death penalty. Many other countries cut off limbs as punishment. Many countries treat women like dirt (if you know what I mean).

Afghanistan was particularly barbaric because the people there had been brutalised by a long war. But until such time as a UN resolution is passed to go in there, it's none of our business. Afghanistan has been misruled forever, pretty well, I don't see how you expect ordinary uneducated people to make a liberal country in a few years from the mess that Afghanistan was. If you happen to be standing in the wrong place you'll be vapourised by the US in Iraq right now. They have excuses, but the Taliban don't?

If the UN had agreed the invasion of Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons I'd agree with you, but it didn't, so I don't.

There's a good article here about the Afghan war:

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/boyle.htm

I really don't see your point.

And PS: the Taliban were the Afghan people, not, as you would have me believe all Saudis or Pakistanis. But you seem to be supporting illegal US intervention there but not Pakistani! I say one law for all.

You keep talking about the UN again and again, but conveniently forget about the basic document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and not to mention the UN Charter. The Un Charter, under Article 2(4) provides that States shall not make use of force in settling disputes, but under A.51 also recognizes the State's right to self-defence.
If the USA has been attacked by the Al Qaeda, and the Taliban refuse to hand over these persons or even take measures to punish them within their own country, then I see no reason why the US should not be invading them.

Coming to the point of the Taliban, get this into your head, they were not the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They seized power through force, recieved recognition by only about three governments in the world and used terribly brutal measures against their own people. Are you seriously telling me that the world should just stand by and watch as they systematically brutalized women in their country and used inhuman methods of punishment? The legitimate government was still the Northern Alliance, which was democractically elected, flawed as those elections were.

Is it a crime to support democratically elected governments against one which pisses all over basic human rights of its own people?

Yes there were Afghans in the Taliban but they did not have the support of the whole country or even the majority of the country. But they were not, an d I hope you are able to understand the difference, the people of Afghanistan, and did not represent the people of Afghanistan in any sense.

 

[allhailIndia]

Also the article came out before the video-tape of Osama Bin laden gloating over the success of 9/11 so is therefore rather irrelevant in the clean chit it gives to Al Qaeda.

Moreover, for some inane unbelievable reason, it links instability in Afghanistan to the kashmir problem and gets the number of Indo-pak wars completely wrong.

The article believes that Osama Bin laden will not strike any more at the US if American troops left Saudi Arabia. Nonsense. Anybody who was studied the Al Qaeda will know that this is only a recruiting tool and not the sole agenda of middle east terrorist groups. It is ironic that they should recieve the support and sympathy of western liberals considering that the first thing any of these groups will do in getting some power in their own countries would be to get rid of any Arab/Muslim liberals and impose a fundamentalist dictatorship.

 

[zulu9812]

I knew you would say this! God, this is the worst case of doublethink I've seen on the forum yet.

So, the United States was supporting the Taliban - and planning invasion at the same time?

Maybe, just maybe, the US were supporting the Taliban at first but then changed their minds.

 

[zulu9812]

i have noticed some of u are america bashing.

but what is a biger threat to your lifestyle, your ideals, and your nation?
the united states?
or radical islam?

i vote for the seconed.

I'll tell you what the biggest threat to my lifestyle and ideals is:

a pro-America, neo-liberal, New Labour government that aggressively curbs my human rights.

 

[zulu9812]

I don't care if the justification for the war was humanitarian or not. The Taliban is gone. The results are humanitarian.

I remember a film by John Pilger, broadcast by ITV. The documentary included a woman who was teaching other woman how to read. She said that in the days of the Taliban if a woman went to the market unaccompanied, she was raped: but that now, under the Northern Alliance, they are raped instead.

 

[zulu9812]

Yes, it is. Sit back in your chair and denounce it all you want, a brutal and tyrannical regime is gone.

Xenocrates has a good point: you cannot simply invade a country because you disagree with their religion or wider morality. For over 500 years, the Catholic Church regularly interfered with the internal affairs of nations, and even got catholic nations to go to war with protestant and muslim nations - the justification being that the defenders were not catholic. This did not lead to a spread of good catholic values across the known world. It resulted in centuries of almost constant warfare, where the only morality came at sword or gun point. When enough people realised the futility of this doctrine of what we can now call liberal interventionism, it lead to the Peace of Westphalia Treaty in 1648, which was to prevent the Catholic Church from ever exercising such influence again. The Treaty basically said that a country's internal affairs were no-one else's business, and became the bedrock of internationl law.

 

[BasketCase]

I remember a film by John Pilger, broadcast by ITV. The documentary included a woman who was teaching other woman how to read. She said that in the days of the Taliban if a woman went to the market unaccompanied, she was raped: but that now, under the Northern Alliance, they are raped instead.

I remember a whole lot more footage (on plain old basic public TV channels) showing a regime that enforced religion, banned everything from music to colored baloons to pets, and turned a soccer field into a killing field.

I'll tell you what the biggest threat to my lifestyle and ideals is:

a pro-America, neo-liberal, New Labour government that aggressively curbs my human rights.

You left something out: a philosophy that supports religion imposed by force, is also a threat to your lifestyle and ideals.

 

[BasketCase]

There's a question I've asked now and then, that has never been answered once in two years (though one person sent me a PM saying he didn't think there was an answer).

The current favored rule of international law seems to be for nations to stay out of each others' business. Civil war? Ethnic cleansing? Despotism? Stay out of their business as long as the malefesance stays within some other country's border.

So, what is it about a nation's border that makes it sacrosanct? What's the actual thing about that line on the map?

No, it's not enough to say that all the people inside that border agree on it, because they don't. 49% of America's voters voted against George Bush; his leadership is being imposed on 49% of the people against their will. This happens in all nations. What is it that makes a nation sacrosanct, especially when its own citizens have no say in its government and no freedom to leave?

 

[tomsnowman123]

So, what is it about a nation's border that makes it sacrosanct? What's the actual thing about that line on the map?

I'll remember that next time I run into your yard and burn a tree down.

 

[cgannon64]

Maybe, just maybe, the US were supporting the Taliban at first but then changed their minds.

So, assuming this is true, it's a bad thing that the United States decided to stop supporting the Taliban?

Considering that the usual liberal critque of Afghan-American relations is that the US was "supporting" the Taliban, I expected that this thread would be jubilant. But, of course, it's not.

 

[BasketCase]

I'll remember that next time I run into your yard and burn a tree down.

So, would it be the fact that the local politicians made a law forbidding trespassing and arson? Force of political power, backed by the police? What if you opposed such laws against trespassing and arson, but they were passed anyway? Does that make them right? If those same politicians made laws banning women from voting, would you go along with those laws?

What's the thing about borders?

 

[Xenocrates]

You keep talking about the UN again and again, but conveniently forget about the basic document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and not to mention the UN Charter. The Un Charter, under Article 2(4) provides that States shall not make use of force in settling disputes, but under A.51 also recognizes the State's right to self-defence.

There's NO evidence that Al Quaeda were responsible for 9/11. There's also no evidence that the Taliban endorsed Al Quaeda. Hell, there's not much evidence that Al Quaeda even exists. That depends on your definition though... The OP has proved that the 'self defence' justification was invalid here already.

Coming to the point of the Taliban, get this into your head, they were not the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They seized power through force, recieved recognition by only about three governments in the world and used terribly brutal measures against their own people.

Every Government seized power by force, except in the case of Ghandi, who was chosen by the British because other Indians were fighting the legitimate British government. Same for the US etc. Name a government that didn't originally seize power by force!

Are you seriously telling me that the world should just stand by and watch as they systematically brutalized women in their country and used inhuman methods of punishment?

There is a difference between 'standing by and watching' and blowing the crap out of them and the women that we pretend to seek to protect. After millions of years of evolution this is the best we can do? What hapened to diplomacy? Why select the Taliban for the blow up treatment? Pakistan is almost exactly the same. The death penalty is used in the USA. Does that give another country the right to invade?

Is it a crime to support democratically elected governments against one which pisses all over basic human rights of its own people?

The Northern alliance were drugs barons, armed and trained by foreign governments/agencies. Sure they might claim to respect human rights more than the Taliban in order to get our support, but when it comes down to it, they can no more impose Western standards on Afghanistan than I can on Pakistan.

Yes there were Afghans in the Taliban but they did not have the support of the whole country or even the majority of the country.

I disagree on this.

The Taliban's popularity with the Afghan people surprised the country's other warring factions. Many Afghans, weary of conflict and anarchy, were relieved to see corrupt and often brutal warlords replaced by the devout Taliban, who had some success in eliminating corruption, restoring peace, and allowing commerce to resume.

From http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

What I'm saying here is that one country can't take this into their own hands. Otherwise we'd all be at war permanently. Secondly, Muslims would be equally justified in attacking the West. Instead of the barbaric West, they'd label us the decadent West. The Taliban were behaving in the way that they thought their religion required. To attack them is to attack their religion.

PS I can think of ten reasons to justify a foreign invasion of the UK including:

High rate of peadaphilia (sp)
Corruption
Human rights abuses
The Arms trade
Electoral fraud

How can anoither country stand by and watch all of that going on. Shouldn't the French wade in and sort it out?

 

[Xenocrates]

So, what is it about a nation's border that makes it sacrosanct? What's the actual thing about that line on the map?

I think it's just a convention. But there are practical advantages from respecting borders, however abstract they are. It's one of those things that makes no sense, but appears to have some benefit in reducing conflict.

 

[allhailIndia]

There's NO evidence that Al Quaeda were responsible for 9/11. There's also no evidence that the Taliban endorsed Al Quaeda. Hell, there's not much evidence that Al Quaeda even exists. That depends on your definition though... The OP has proved that the 'self defence' justification was invalid here already.



Every Government seized power by force, except in the case of Ghandi, who was chosen by the British because other Indians were fighting the legitimate British government. Same for the US etc. Name a government that didn't originally seize power by force!



There is a difference between 'standing by and watching' and blowing the crap out of them and the women that we pretend to seek to protect. After millions of years of evolution this is the best we can do? What hapened to diplomacy? Why select the Taliban for the blow up treatment? Pakistan is almost exactly the same. The death penalty is used in the USA. Does that give another country the right to invade?



The Northern alliance were drugs barons, armed and trained by foreign governments/agencies. Sure they might claim to respect human rights more than the Taliban in order to get our support, but when it comes down to it, they can no more impose Western standards on Afghanistan than I can on Pakistan.



I disagree on this.



From http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

What I'm saying here is that one country can't take this into their own hands. Otherwise we'd all be at war permanently. Secondly, Muslims would be equally justified in attacking the West. Instead of the barbaric West, they'd label us the decadent West. The Taliban were behaving in the way that they thought their religion required. To attack them is to attack their religion.

PS I can think of ten reasons to justify a foreign invasion of the UK including:

High rate of peadaphilia (sp)
Corruption
Human rights abuses
The Arms trade
Electoral fraud

How can anoither country stand by and watch all of that going on. Shouldn't the French wade in and sort it out?

Where the hell have you been in the last 6 years?

This debate can be summed by stating that you hate the US, and even if it means turning a blind eye and ignoring ALL facts about the Taliban and the Al Qaeda, you WILL support them.

Stop this poppy-cock about 'rights' of the Taliban and no 'evidence' and what not and come out and say it, 'I hate America'. Saves me the trouble of responding to such utter bull.

Also, you might want to re-inforce that tin foil hat you are wearing, I heard the US is now making more powerful mid reading ray

 

[Phlegmak]

There's NO evidence that Al Quaeda were responsible for 9/11. There's also no evidence that the Taliban endorsed Al Quaeda. Hell, there's not much evidence that Al Quaeda even exists. That depends on your definition though... The OP has proved that the 'self defence' justification was invalid here already.

Hold on. Osama admitted to it. It was in one of Al Qaeda's stupid home movies. It was a movie which al-Jazeera refused to show, but CNN did.

 

[Xenocrates]

Where the hell have you been in the last 6 years?

Not in front of the television watching one side of the story only!

Stop this poppy-cock about 'rights' of the Taliban and no 'evidence' and what not and come out and say it, 'I hate America'. Saves me the trouble of responding to such utter bull.

This is how most people admit that they are wrong! Basically what you are saying is "I just realised that my argument doesn't hold water, and I lack the skill to extractate myself with wit". In that case I accept your sumbission.

There are many (most) people on this forum that disagree with me, but I still respect them.

I often take up a difficult position in order to practice debating skill. Why else would I support the Taliban? If I practice defending the Taliban then I have made the grade as a debater. If you can't even attack the Taliban, you haven't. Let's look at what happened here: I supported the Taliban, but you were the first to crumble. I'm laughing as I type this.

The point of this forum is to practice debate, is it not?

PS it wasn't necessary for me to defend the Taliban, the point of this debate is whether it's OK for one country to attack another without the self defence motive.

You argue that the Taliban were uniquely bad.
I argue that they were similar to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

You argue that modern Western cultural norms are true and correct,
I argue that Muslims are equally justified in using the same kind of arguments to attack us.

I argue that the UN must be the final authority in these cases. Then you argue that America should have the right to decide to smash up countries independently of the UN.

I argue that no special case should be made for any one country. You accuse me of being anti-US. Check mate to me.

 

[Xenocrates]

Hold on. Osama admitted to it. It was in one of Al Qaeda's stupid home movies. It was a movie which al-Jazeera refused to show, but CNN did.

These links are useful here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html

Bin Laden interview with the daily UNMAT:

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam.

From http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html

So you say he admitted it. Other reports are that he denied it. If he admitted responsibility for 9/11 he would have expected that the consequence would be a US attack on Afghanistan and his probable death. Sounds unlikely to me. Couple this to the reports that the CIA has persistently let him escape and the failure of the US to apprehend him, I choose to leave the bin Laden role in 9/11 question open. Remember that GWB said apprehending Bin Laden wasn't a high priority? If anyone else killed 3000 people in the USA I'm pretty sure that they'd be apprehended.

 

[Phlegmak]

In this description of one of al Qaeda's home movies, bin Laden admits to the September 11th attack.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda60.html

This is not the video I referred to in my previous post.

Here's a description of a video from Nov 11, 2001. The text seems so ridiculous, I'm wondering how accurate the article is.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/nov/11ny1.htm

Ah ha! This is the one. Search for the word "doomed".
Harpers

The CNN article.
CNN

By the way, it infuriates me that al-Jazeera didn't air this video at the time it came out. al-Jazeera is a tool of terrorists.

 

[Xenocrates]

I searched Harpers and found this:

Mullah Muhammad Omar, supreme leader of Afghanistan's Taliban, condemned the Attack on America and claimed that Osama bin Laden was not responsible. “Mullah Omar condemns this act. Mullah Omar says Osama is not responsible,” said a Taliban spokesman. “We have brought peace to this country and we want peace in all countries.”»

and this:

Afghanistan's leading clerics said they would try to persuade Osama bin Laden to leave their country voluntarily, an offer that was quickly scorned by the White House. There was a report from Islamabad that bin Laden was last seen in a training camp outside Kabul, just before he rode off into the desert on the back of a horse.»

and the killer:

The major American television networks agreed, out of patriotism, they said, to a request by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice not to broadcast future statements by Osama bin Laden; Rice said she was concerned about secret messages being communicated to “sleeper” terrorists in the United States but did not reveal how she would prevent such evil-doers from viewing the speech via the Internet or satellite television.»

Thanks for the good info about how Bin Laden has been blamed or 9/11. I didn't know that Rice actually tried to prevent Bin Laden's denials getting airtime in the US. Curiouser and curiouser!

I wonder if there are two Bin Ladens? Note the way Somalia was mentioned in this. Somalia has big oil reserves. The Americans have already been accused of arming Somali factions:

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials have been meeting with Somali clan leaders and officials in neighboring Ethiopia. And senior Bush administration officials often mention Somalia as a possible future stage in the war on terrorism.

from http://www.cfr.org/publication/9366/