Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Documentary = Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    When and how did the US engage in negotiations with the Taliban after their public offer (that their Ambassador in Pakistan is shown making on video, at a press conference) to engage with the US?
    As I've already pointed out ad infinitum to you the American negotiations were simple and to the point:


    1. Deliver to the US all al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan
    2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals
    3. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers
    4. Close immediately every terrorist training camp, and hand over every terrorist and their supporters
    5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

    Perfectly reasonable, and of course the Taliban refused.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
      As I've already pointed out ad infinitum to you the American negotiations were simple and to the point:


      1. Deliver to the US all al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan
      2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals
      3. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers
      4. Close immediately every terrorist training camp, and hand over every terrorist and their supporters
      5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

      Perfectly reasonable, and of course the Taliban refused.
      Negotiations involve dialog between officials, and the Taliban wanted negotiations (specifically on a mutually acceptable way of addressing the AQ issue) - what you have pointed out 'ad infinitum' is simply a list of demands, with no actual engagement/negotiation/dialog between US and Taliban officials over those 'demands' after the Taliban's public offer to negotiate.
      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

      Comment


      • He's going in circles. Stupid circles, to boot.

        I'm out.
        Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          He's going in circles. Stupid circles, to boot.

          I'm out.
          Hey, I feel the same way about the arguments you and Pari are making.
          Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
          https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

          Comment


          • If I may ask. What results non-military options brought from Iran or Saddam's Iraq or Cuba?
            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
              And why not 'Taliban apologists'? They are essentially arguing for a similar approach to end the war that I argue should have been explored before starting the war in the first place ...
              I don't have a reputation for diplomacy.

              Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
              Negotiations involve dialog between officials, and the Taliban wanted negotiations (specifically on a mutually acceptable way of addressing the AQ issue) - what you have pointed out 'ad infinitum' is simply a list of demands, with no actual engagement/negotiation/dialog between US and Taliban officials over those 'demands' after the Taliban's public offer to negotiate.
              As Pari said,there were negotiations.Do what we say or you die.After that negotiations continued.With Ultima Ratio Regum.
              Those who know don't speak
              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                I don't have a reputation for diplomacy.
                I understand that, I am merely pointing out OoE's double standard in painting me as a 'Taliban apologist' for arguing that the US should have pursued the policy in 2001 (before it spent hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives were lost) that it is trying to pursue now.
                As Pari said,there were negotiations.Do what we say or you die.After that negotiations continued.With Ultima Ratio Regum.
                What was wrong with negotiating the transfer of OBL and Co. to, and trial in, a neutral third country and possibly avoiding war?
                Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                Comment


                • OOE may be polite towards a fellow wabbit.What I think about those that lost our war I said already.What I'll do them if the circumstances change in our countries is better left unsaid.

                  OBL was not a common criminal.He was a foreign enemy.No room for third parties and no room for trials.Simple as that.
                  Those who know don't speak
                  He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                    OOE may be polite towards a fellow wabbit.
                    Surely you jest sir!
                    OBL was not a common criminal.He was a foreign enemy.No room for third parties and no room for trials.Simple as that.
                    Foreign enemy or common criminal - the goal was to bring him (and anyone else involved) to justice, and justice can be served in a court room.
                    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                      Surely you jest sir!

                      Foreign enemy or common criminal - the goal was to bring him (and anyone else involved) to justice, and justice can be served in a court room.
                      Dude,Muslim tourists in a city you've never heard of ,were rejoicing 9/11 live.It's not about justice and never was.
                      About OBL,it's easy.The Taliban refused to surrender him.Third parties are unacceptable.It's either a US court or no court.

                      What's ''neutral'' court going to do?Listen the defense attorney explaining about the apostate regime in KSA,that allows infidel troops on its sacred soil?Have people around the world nod in agreement when listening AQ's vision of the world?
                      Justice exists only within a community.Bin Laden was not inside the community of US.Outside,there are only interests.It was OBL's interest to draw US in a war.It was US' interest to win that war in order to mantain it's position in the ME in the long run.
                      In theory,court rooms are the same.In practice,they are not.See Soviet judges at Nurnberg.
                      Those who know don't speak
                      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                        Dude,Muslim tourists in a city you've never heard of ,were rejoicing 9/11 live.It's not about justice and never was.
                        Which city?

                        About OBL,it's easy.The Taliban refused to surrender him.Third parties are unacceptable.It's either a US court or no court.
                        That particular position taken by the US is precisely what I am arguing was an irrational and flawed policy that resulted in massive economic and human casualties over a decade of war.
                        What's ''neutral'' court going to do?Listen the defense attorney explaining about the apostate regime in KSA,that allows infidel troops on its sacred soil?Have people around the world nod in agreement when listening AQ's vision of the world?
                        How would any of that be different from AQ's propaganda tapes and statements carried by various media outlets and available on the internet?
                        Justice exists only within a community.Bin Laden was not inside the community of US.Outside,there are only interests.It was OBL's interest to draw US in a war.It was US' interest to win that war in order to mantain it's position in the ME in the long run.
                        In theory,court rooms are the same.In practice,they are not.See Soviet judges at Nurnberg.
                        Justice can exist outside of a community/nation provided the governments involved act to make such a thing possible - the US never even tried, choosing instead to engage in a decade long war of little consequence (with respect to destroying Al Qaeda/associated extremism).
                        Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                        https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                          I understand that, I am merely pointing out OoE's double standard in painting me as a 'Taliban apologist' for arguing that the US should have pursued the policy in 2001 (before it spent hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives were lost) that it is trying to pursue now.

                          What was wrong with negotiating the transfer of OBL and Co. to, and trial in, a neutral third country and possibly avoiding war?
                          You mean apart from the fact that it was not going to happen and that it was a ploy to waste time till OBL got away?
                          "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                            How exactly was the 'pot being defended against' two to three orders of magnitude larger than the estimated trillion plus dollars spent so far?
                            US is worth north of $60 trillion plus, throw in interests around the world and the figure rises. That is the pot.

                            Now what do you do to defend against any attacks that target that pot.

                            Prove to the world that an act like 9/11 has consequences.

                            Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                            And if this was such a shining success of a 'deterrence policy', that brought 'all the guys the US did not like to come over to Afghanistan and play', how do you explain the rise of Al Qaeda and/or affiliated groups in Iraq, Yemen and Africa?
                            The question is whether Al-q is as relevant today as it was ten years ago.

                            I see them as down but not out.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jun 13,, 00:23.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                              Negotiations involve dialog between officials, and the Taliban wanted negotiations (specifically on a mutually acceptable way of addressing the AQ issue) - what you have pointed out 'ad infinitum' is simply a list of demands, with no actual engagement/negotiation/dialog between US and Taliban officials over those 'demands' after the Taliban's public offer to negotiate.
                              Um, Bush was an official, as was Zaeef.

                              Zaeef:
                              we want to negotiate.

                              Bush:
                              1. Deliver to the US all al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan
                              2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals
                              3. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers
                              4. Close immediately every terrorist training camp, and hand over every terrorist and their supporters
                              5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

                              Zaeef. No

                              end of negotiations
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by notorious_eagle View Post
                                PA after the elections in 2008 have largely left the governance and policy making to the political institutions. Although the political institutions have failed miserably to provide any governance or design important policies, PA hasn't stepped in. PA has no reason to fear because they still enjoy overwhelming support of the masses. If my memory serves me right, the last poll conducted suggested that the PA had an approval rating of 80%, far more compared to any politician. PA would be more than happy to stay in the barracks if the politicians do their jobs.
                                PA helps taliban to power.
                                Taliban offer harbour to & Al-Q & OBL who comes over from Sudan
                                Al-Q plots embassy attacks, USS Cole & 9/11, effectively declares war on the US.
                                US invades
                                12 years on you are saying Pakistan lost several billions & lives as a result of the war.

                                Do the Pak public see the connection between the PA and loss of the billions & life ?

                                If there was no Taliban, OBL might have been somewhere else and you guys would not have had the same misfortune. There would be no TTP. No drone attacks. Karachi would not be losing 2k people annually since 2008 to violence.

                                But rather the perception that is sought is that this is america's war and america is to blame for the last ten years or so.

                                So what happens after 2014 for Pakistan ? does the madness continue, increase or decrease.
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jun 13,, 16:14.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X