La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 No, I am not talking about media conspiracies. I am talking about the fact that if the American government really wanted Osama they should have furnished evidence of his direct culpability to committing the 9/11 attacks. It was certainly Al Qaeda cells who carried out the deed and he made prouncements following the attacks in respect of 9/11, but there hasn't been any hard evidence that he orchestrated it or planned it himself. This is important because it is was largely why the U.S. got involved in Afghanistan. The purpose was to capture him and I assume to bring him to justice. Now the Taliban have said in the past they would be willing to hand him over, but on the condition that evidence is given to them of Osama's responsibility for the attacks. But the Americans will not go through the Taliban. Now although I recognise the United States wishes to retain 'credibility' and not lose it by allowing the Taliban to authorise whether they can have him or not, it does make me wonder how desperate they are to have him. However, the conflict does not continue because they are after Osama in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 No, I am not talking about media conspiracies. I am talking about the fact that if the American government really wanted Osama they should have furnished evidence of his direct culpability to committing the 9/11 attacks. It was certainly Al Qaeda cells who carried out the deed and he made prouncements following the attacks in respect of 9/11, but there hasn't been any hard evidence that he orchestrated it or planned it himself. This is important because it is was largely why the U.S. got involved in Afghanistan. The purpose was to capture him and I assume to bring him to justice. Now the Taliban have said in the past they would be willing to hand him over, but on the condition that evidence is given to them of Osama's responsibility for the attacks. But the Americans will not go through the Taliban. Now although I recognise the United States wishes to retain 'credibility' and not lose it by allowing the Taliban to authorise whether they can have him or not, it does make me wonder how desperate they are to have him. However, the conflict does not continue because they are after Osama in any case. LDV what planet do you live on? What do you think Bin Laden was doing - sitting around just chatting with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed about the weather, just having tea with al-Zawahiri to discuss Islamic jurisprudence. Al Qaeda is an organization he heads - its openly acknowledged what the power structure of the organization is - Bin Laden No 1, Al Zawahiri No 2 etc. Prior to 911 the hierachical structure of Al Qaeda operated basically unimpeded with the Hamburg cell visiting it in Afghanistan for briefings etc. You are sounding a little like a holocaust denier who says there is no signed order from Hitler concerning the murder of the jews. That narrow fact is true, but ignores the testimony of aids, and SS and Weihmark (?) generals etc that he was fully briefed and directed the actions of the Einsatzgruppen and the jews "evacuation" to death camps. Al Qaeda organized 911 and Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda or are you going to try and waffle away that? Your point about the Taliban is meaningless - it is very very unclear if the original offer was genuine or a delaying tactic - they inisted he was tried under Sharia law etc - and its a moot point anyway. The US didn't recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government and were going to take out the leadership of Al Qaeda no matter what they said or did. Most definitely the Taliban aren't going to hand him over now no matter what evidence is presented! The war in afghanistan is primarily about creating a friendly stable government which is able to stop the country becoming a training ground for international terrorism. The bit about it being friendly hides a multitude of geopolitical sins based around oil and pipelines, but stopping the country destabilizing the region and wider world is also very important. The current government is little more than the office of the mayor of Kabul and yes its going to be a long war - Osama's head on a stick won't end it, but it will be a significant moment - as was Saddam swinging on a rope - it'll be one part of stabilizing the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 They don't even need the 9/11 charges (although I'm sure they'd have no trouble bringing them), they've got the USS Cole and plenty other charges to put him on the noose. The 9/11 attacks aren't even listed as his charges on the most wanted list.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Alias - it is amazing that a grand jury hasn't issued indictments over 911 yet. The FBI website does explain that is why it isn't mentioned - the FBI is a legal/justice department organization (ok - just about!) while 911 is still basically a military/political affair- so only legally indicted crimes are listed on the Wanted Poster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 the Americans will not go through the Taliban Obama, Petraeus, McCain Agree: Taliban Talks OK [Wired] Karzai to brief PM on secret Taliban talks [independent] US considers talks with Taliban to halt Afghanistan bloodshed [Telegraph] Talks with Taliban the only way forward in Afghanistan, says UK commander [Guardian] NATO supports Afghanistan-Taliban talks [Hindustan Times] Saudi hosts Afghan peace talks with Taliban reps [CNN] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 As with the Israeli Palestinian conflict people talk behind the scenes. The Taliban isn't a homogenous organization - parts of it are more ameniable to being drawn into the political process. A similar thing happened in Iraq with Sunni communities breaking with Al Qaeda. Some see the fight as being beyond politics and out of religious zeal will fight to the death - it happened in Algeria with 100s of thousands dead - but others aren't so blinded by jihad and can be talked to and compromised with. Talking is a good thing in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 LDV what planet do you live on? What do you think Bin Laden was doing - sitting around just chatting with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed about the weather, just having tea with al-Zawahiri to discuss Islamic jurisprudence. Al Qaeda is an organization he heads - its openly acknowledged what the power structure of the organization is - Bin Laden No 1, Al Zawahiri No 2 etc. Prior to 911 the hierachical structure of Al Qaeda operated basically unimpeded with the Hamburg cell visiting it in Afghanistan for briefings etc. You are sounding a little like a holocaust denier who says there is no signed order from Hitler concerning the murder of the jews. That narrow fact is true, but ignores the testimony of aids, and SS and Weihmark (?) generals etc that he was fully briefed and directed the actions of the Einsatzgruppen and the jews "evacuation" to death camps. Al Qaeda organized 911 and Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda or are you going to try and waffle away that? Yes, he is the head of Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda is not a unified state, and is far more 'horizontally' structured in terms of power and direction. The geographical locations and small size of cells permits much independence. He may have orchestrated it, he may have planned it, but he may not have. When it comes to cause behind the war and reasons for going after Osama, it was directly to do with 9/11 and bringing people to justice. If you don't have hard evidence to show that the operation was planned by Osama Bin Laden you cannot bring him to justice. It isn't enough to recognise his role as the top seer of the group. Your point about the Taliban is meaningless - it is very very unclear if the original offer was genuine or a delaying tactic - they inisted he was tried under Sharia law etc - and its a moot point anyway. The US didn't recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government and were going to take out the leadership of Al Qaeda no matter what they said or did. Most definitely the Taliban aren't going to hand him over now no matter what evidence is presented! If the original offer was NOT genuine or a delaying tactic? That's meaningless. If the Americans suspected that they should have called the Taliban's bluff. And the original offer was with the condition of Sharia Law. But what if he was tried under Sharia Law and not severely punished? It just isn't permissible, the US would make sure that Osama is punished as it sees fit. Regardless, there were later offers from the Tabiban to hand him, not for him to just be tried under Sharia Law. The Taliban just asked for evidence. It is simply convenient that the US Government does not recognise the Taliban. It has recognised and continues to recognise many awful regimes. And why aren't the Taliban going to hand him over now??? I don't think they can if the US will not deal with them or unless they don't actually have him. The war in afghanistan is primarily about creating a friendly stable government which is able to stop the country becoming a training ground for international terrorism. The bit about it being friendly hides a multitude of geopolitical sins based around oil and pipelines, but stopping the country destabilizing the region and wider world is also very important. No, I do disagree. The war was originally a hunt to wipe out Al Qaeda. Regardless of the fact that the US governments benefited from 9/11, the US had to be seen to do something to protect business interests, and there was a high risk that the government might be attacked next. But when they went into that country it wasn't difficult for Al Qaeda to flee. Al Qaeda is not a massive force in the area now. But I agree about what you say about a friendly and stable government. Although I do think the war has to stop. It isn't being foughts in the Afghans own interests nor the American peoples. They don't even need the 9/11 charges (although I'm sure they'd have no trouble bringing them), they've got the USS Cole and plenty other charges to put him on the noose. The 9/11 attacks aren't even listed as his charges on the most wanted list.. Like I said, if they had the evidence they would have had this man they have so desperately been trying to capture since 2001. But the USS Cole? Yes that was Al Qaeda, but I am not arguing that Al Qaeda cells did not do such things but Osama himself? When I think about the IRA, the Malayan Communist Party, Chechens, Palestinians, etc., it seems that if the leader has not committed the act then they are not brought to justice, it is those who commit the crimes who are. At best you have accomplices to these acts at time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 LDV ... Al Qaeda organized 911 and Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda or are you going to try and waffle away that? Waffle, waffle waffle Well it was a forlorn hope I know. The war in afghanistan is primarily about creating a friendly stable government which is able to stop the country becoming a training ground for international terrorism. The bit about it being friendly hides a multitude of geopolitical sins based around oil and pipelines, but stopping the country destabilizing the region and wider world is also very important. No, I do disagree. The war was originally a hunt to wipe out Al Qaeda. That's not really true - the US demands were much more wide ranging than Al Qaeda - and were based around ending Afghanistan as a training ground for Terrorism. See this link for more details: After the 11 September attacks ... the USA delivered this ultimatum to the Taliban: Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al Qaeda; Release all imprisoned foreign nationals; Close immediately every terrorist training camp; Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities; Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection. [T]here were later offers from the Tabiban to hand him, not for him to just be tried under Sharia Law. The Taliban just asked for evidence. ... f they [The US] had the evidence they would have had this man they have so desperately been trying to capture since 2001. You really believe this? On what basis - you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The US doesn't need to present evidence to the Taliban - Bin Laden has acknowledged his involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 That's not really true - the US demands were much more wide ranging than Al Qaeda - and were based around ending Afghanistan as a training ground for Terrorism. Much more? The goals were to eradicate a particular group of terrorists and remove a safe haven, if that is what you mean. You really believe this? On what basis - you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The US doesn't need to present evidence to the Taliban - Bin Laden has acknowledged his involvement. On the basis that the Taliban have little to gain by not giving him up. Why continue to be bombed by the US when you can hand him over. And if the US wanted him so desperately they would have handed him over. Even if it is accepted that the US does not need evidence, why not furnish it for the sake of expediency? They would then have Osama thus eliminating the man at the top. As far as I am aware, Osama has not testified to any direct involvement in 9/11. I may be wrong, but I had not heard of any statements explaining how he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 LDV - please understand this - the war in afghanistan is about more than just Al Qaeda or handing over Bin Laden. It is about stopping the country been used as a base for people who wish to export Jihad. For elements of the Taliban this amounts to a declaration of war on their salafist philosophy. Handing over Bin Laden wouldn't stop the US bombing them. You have this fantasy that the Taliban are going - Oh if only the US would turn up and hand us some evidence we could hand over Bin laden and stop being attacked by them. That is a fantasy that exists only in your head. Elements of the Taliban may be willing to join a peace process, but Bin Laden and alot of the Taliban are thick as theives fighting together against "crusader invaders" - they are comrades in arms with overlapping strategies and beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Its okay Chinahand, LDV read a book on it once and is now an expert on the subject. From a military stand point if the soul purpose of the war in 'Stan was to get Osama that would be a bloody massive waste of man power. Like Chinahand has said they are there for many reasons. 1. Remove a political party that is more than happy to have terrorist training camps in their back yard. 2. Remove the safe locations for A'Q to hide, train and grow. 3. To help the Afgan people move away from growing and exporting Opium Poppies which are fuelling a massive drugs market. 4. Help the Afgan people join the rest of the world community. i.e. Women as equal citizens, better infrstructure and better facilities. If the Coalition really weren't that fussed about world reactions they could always just nuke Afganistan, Iran and Pakistan. One of the those sunshine bombs would have to get old OBL. (I'm being silly and in no way think that nuking anyway is going to make the world a better place.....well maybe Salford but we;ll only use a little nuke...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Its okay Chinahand, LDV read a book on it once and is now an expert on the subject. From a military stand point if the soul purpose of the war in 'Stan was to get Osama that would be a bloody massive waste of man power. Like Chinahand has said they are there for many reasons. 1. Remove a political party that is more than happy to have terrorist training camps in their back yard. 2. Remove the safe locations for A'Q to hide, train and grow. 3. To help the Afgan people move away from growing and exporting Opium Poppies which are fuelling a massive drugs market. 4. Help the Afgan people join the rest of the world community. i.e. Women as equal citizens, better infrstructure and better facilities. If the Coalition really weren't that fussed about world reactions they could always just nuke Afganistan, Iran and Pakistan. One of the those sunshine bombs would have to get old OBL. (I'm being silly and in no way think that nuking anyway is going to make the world a better place.....well maybe Salford but we;ll only use a little nuke...) Oh wait, do we need to call in a squaddie to give the lowdown on how the shit is going down in Afghanistan? It is already a massive waste of manpower as the war is still continuing. Points 1 and 2, I completely agree with. They were the original reasons for the campaigning. But once most of Al Qaeda the purpose is just get A result. AL Qaeda is fractured but not destroyed, the Taliban a stated enemy are still fighting. The US government wants to demonstrate results. 3 and 4. Well it benefits the US government and others governments to stop the poppy production. But that was not soldier was began fighting there. It is simply that they are there that the US can conduct its hypocritical war on drugs in Afghanistan. But as for some sort of benevolent presence and goal in making Afghanistan a liberal state, well that is quite ridiculous. The US government could not give two shits what happens to Afghans. All they care about is to get a friendly government set-up in the area, the more compliant the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 well just think, in this harsh times of work and jobs, least its keeping a few ppl in work, so cant be all bad, theres allways an up to a down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 well just think, in this harsh times of work and jobs, least its keeping a few ppl in work, so cant be all bad, theres allways an up to a down Maybe that is the answer. Pressure the Isle of Man to declare war on the Seychelles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 well just think, in this harsh times of work and jobs, least its keeping a few ppl in work, so cant be all bad, theres allways an up to a down Maybe that is the answer. Pressure the Isle of Man to declare war on the Seychelles. well thats allways an option if we had an armed force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.