Documentary = Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge

[Agnostic Muslim]

What is the basis of your aruments?....the death toll?

Over a decade of war, the death toll, economic losses, proliferation of terrorist groups ... what more do you need?

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

I dont have to give you any evidence. The US, Afghan, Indian, UK, NATO intelligence have tons of evidence.

So where is it?

You have only justified Talibani actions and that of Pakistani handlers in those posts.

Other than support the Taliban call for negotiations over the extradition/trial of OBL and AQ leaders, which 'Talibani actions' have I justified?

There is nothing irrelevant and irrational in that post. It is a fact that no one wants to play sport in your country. You dont expect me to love a nation whose military sends terrorists to kill innocent civilians and attacks its consulates, all because of rabid communal hatred. (in case you ask for proof..please tell us why the Pakistani Govt supports a terrorist organisation with funds - Pakistan government gives Rs 61 million aid to India's most wanted Hafiz Saeed | NDTV.com)

Hafiz Saeed has denied any involvement in the Mumbai Attacks, and yes, ranting and raving about cricket to smear Pakistan would place you in the Bharat Rakshak nut-case category.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

AM,
Since OBL is not around anymore (or is he? :biggrin what has changed in US demands?

Exactly my point - the Taliban were willing to 'break ties with Al Qaeda' back then, and offered to do so publicly provided the US engage with them, provide evidence and/or have a trial conducted in a neutral country. So 'negotiating with the Taliban' made far more sense in 2001 than it does in 2013.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

2001:
There were no NATO forces around. However, they were doing bombings against US property and civilians on US soil.

Wrong - that would be Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

Why to a neutral country?

Why not?

Because Taliban doesn't recognize US.

You mean the US does not recognize the Taliban, and what exactly has changed on that count now?

2013:
In Afghanistan. (And Pakistan, but they are not NATO)

Which means that the Taliban have been directly perpetrating attacks against US/NATO forces for a decade now, whereas they were not doing so in 2001

Nothing new.

There are operational links between the two in carrying out attacks on US/NATO interests now, whereas there were no such operational links in carrying out attacks on US interests in 2001 and earlier.

It's Taliban to be blamed. They refused the talks back then.

The Taliban offered talks, the US refused.

Demanding same as in 2001 - OBL.

Then why did the US not negotiate in 2001?

How can you negotiate with someone who refutes your initial reason for talks?

The US never made its case through negotiations with the Taliban.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

And the rest of us have repeatedly told you that those who were in the decision making loop would have evaluated each and every option, including post war assessments, before declaring war, and negotiation with the Taliban was NOT one of them.

The fact that the US has decided to negotiate with the Taliban after a decade plus of war would indicate that those in the decision making loop in the US did not properly evaluate all options and consequences in 2001, and made an irrational decision.

The US's OPOBJ was to destroy Al-Qaida and its brass, but it still presented the Taliban with some very candid and definitive options, with which they could have saved their arse. To re-quote Parihaka, they were -

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

The US made demands - it did not engage in negotiations to convince/cajole/coerce the Taliban into compliance, and therefore acted irrationally in declaring war.

It is clear that YOU are the one here with some serious comprehension problem.

Given that you did not elaborate on the perceived dissonance in my two sets of comments, I believe it is you suffering from an inability to comprehend simple English.

 

[notorious_eagle]

I dont have to give you any evidence. The US, Afghan, Indian, UK, NATO intelligence have tons of evidence.

It appears that your hatred is getting the best of your judgement.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said there is no evidence senior people in Pakistan knew that Osama Bin Laden lived so close to Islamabad.

BBC News - Clinton exonerates Pakistan over Osama Bin Laden

This is as high up as it goes in the food chain, its the American Secretary of State.

 

[Chogy]

AM, the U.S. wanted OBL. Obviously. But we also wanted to put some hurt on those that sheltered, supported, and probably encouraged him and his jihadi chronies. The Taliban.

Why should we "negotiate" with the enemy, especially at that moment in history?

 

[antimony]

It appears that your hatred is getting the best of your judgement.



BBC News - Clinton exonerates Pakistan over Osama Bin Laden

This is as high up as it goes in the food chain, its the American Secretary of State.

Lets not take the already existing dis-ingenuity to ridiculous levels.

Not finding evidence is hardly exonerating. Its more like saying : we tried finding enough evidence to fry us some azz, but we didn't find any"

Now I am waiting for someone to throw down a "lawyerly" definition of exonerate

 

[notorious_eagle]

Lets not take the already existing dis-ingenuity to ridiculous levels.

Not finding evidence is hardly exonerating. Its more like saying : we tried finding enough evidence to fry us some azz, but we didn't find any"

Now I am waiting for someone to throw down a "lawyerly" definition of exonerate

Let me flip this argument around

Lets for argument sake say that Clinton publicly accused the GOP of sheltering OBL without any evidence, you would be yelling at the top of your lungs and would probably swear your life by Clinton's accusations. But in this case, you have dismissed her statement simply because it does not suit your point of view. Its innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

AM, the U.S. wanted OBL. Obviously. But we also wanted to put some hurt on those that sheltered, supported, and probably encouraged him and his jihadi chronies. The Taliban.

Why should we "negotiate" with the enemy, especially at that moment in history?

The Taliban were not the 'enemy' in 2001 - an 'enemy' would not have made public statements condemning the 9/11 attacks:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Afghanistan's Taliban ambassador to Pakistan has condemned the string of astonishing terrorist attacks on the United States.

"We want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain. We hope the courts find justice," ambassador Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef said in a statement in Pakistan after America was hit by a series of attacks that have been called the worst since Pearl Harbor.

CNN.com - Taliban diplomat condemns attacks - September 12, 2001

 

[antimony]

Let me flip this argument around

Lets for argument sake say that Clinton publicly accused the GOP of sheltering OBL without any evidence, you would be yelling at the top of your lungs and would probably swear your life by Clinton's accusations. But in this case, you have dismissed her statement simply because it does not suit your point of view. Its innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

Lets not create an unnecessary straw-man. She said "lack of evidence", you took the lazy title and ran with it. You even added your tidbits about the "food chain"

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Lets not create an unnecessary straw-man. She said "lack of evidence"

What does the statement 'lack of evidence' imply to you?

 

[antimony]

What does the statement 'lack of evidence' imply to you?

Exactly what it says, it does not imply exonerate

 

[Double Edge]

The fundamental flaw i see with this discussion is ...

One is expected to negotiate with those (or their hosts) that just bombed you !

This isn't some small bomb attack that occurred in a crowded market place, but three missiles aimed at your defense establishment, where your govt sits and a signature office block.

The charge is the US did not try hard enough to negotiate.

 

[Deltacamelately]

It appears that your hatred is getting the best of your judgement.



BBC News - Clinton exonerates Pakistan over Osama Bin Laden

This is as high up as it goes in the food chain, its the American Secretary of State.

NE,

Love your country, but then, love it genuinely. We, as declared by AM are already enemies. However, AM is not getting us anywhere. You are hedging your argument, based on an enemy diplomat's dubious political assertion? Common, you are better than this.

 

[Chogy]

The Taliban were not the 'enemy' in 2001 - an 'enemy' would not have made public statements condemning the 9/11 attacks:


CNN.com - Taliban diplomat condemns attacks - September 12, 2001

Oh please. You're smarter than that. Of course externally they are going to mouth the necessary words to ingratiate themselves with those countries neutral or otherwise not intimately involved.

The mere fact that the terrorists received bread, salt, materiel, and shelter from the Taliban made them our enemies as well. You sleep with the dogs, you get fleas. And a target on your back.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Exactly what it says, it does not imply exonerate

What would imply exoneration then, if not a stated lack of evidence establishing guilt?

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Oh please. You're smarter than that. Of course externally they are going to mouth the necessary words to ingratiate themselves with those countries neutral or otherwise not intimately involved.

If 'ingratiation' was something the Taliban regime wanted to do, it would have done so numerous times before the 9/11 attacks, by stopping the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha's for example.

The mere fact that the terrorists received bread, salt, materiel, and shelter from the Taliban made them our enemies as well. You sleep with the dogs, you get fleas. And a target on your back.

The issue I have with your argument is that it assumes the Taliban were aware of Al Qaeda's 9/11 plans and still provided AQ support. If the Taliban were not aware of AQ's plans then holding them accountable for the actions of AQ is illogical.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

NE,
We, as declared by AM are already enemies.

Who is this 'We', and when did I declare this 'We' an enemy?

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

The fundamental flaw i see with this discussion is ...

One is expected to negotiate with those (or their hosts) that just bombed you !

This isn't some small bomb attack that occurred in a crowded market place, but three missiles aimed at your defense establishment, where your govt sits and a signature office block.

The charge is the US did not try hard enough to negotiate.

The fundamental flaw with your position is that you assume that:

(a) The Taliban knowingly assisted AQ in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks
(b) The Taliban did not directly assist AQ in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks but had knowledge of it and did not do anything to prevent it

Nothing we know so far supports either of those two contentions.