No need to salute those who are already burning in Hell

[Gurdari]

You don't believe it. You instead choose to believe something else, then turn right around and use a quote that supports my statement.

"I was told [by Mohabbat] that the Taliban had certain ideas about handing over bin Laden, not to the United States ..."

That the US was not interested in negotiating with the Taliban at the time is irrelevant. The fact that the Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over when the US demanded IS.

I think you are confusing two things:

That the Taliban giving up bin laden for prosecution - but not to the US - is the same as 'harboring' him.

The US in any case of extradition would offer evidence, no? I expect the US would not just hand over someone to another country without asking for the same. So making a 'demand' is great, but there are certain norms to follow, and asking louder and louder and then attacking is not one of them.

 

[Gurdari]

Gurdari

Interesting place you chose to debate OBL =Afghanistan... a thread about the Vietnam War!

But since you brought the subject up, let me use it in the context of the Vietnam War to show the logical inconsistency of so many members of the board.

It is a widely known fact that the main grievance Mohamed Atta had with the US is their support for Israel.

So, in one of the biggest ironies of History, it is undeniable that these individuals are helping foster democracy in Palestine with their terrorists attacks, even though they are the worst kind of islamic theocrats (Wahabists, Salafists etc...).

With each new attack, the world becomes more and more aware of the utter disfunctionality of the jewish racial dictatorship.

So why not support terrorists attacks against the US as a way to raise international awareness of the need to dismantle the jewish supremacist state?

Rationalizations of acts of aggression work both ways, people:

If it is OK for America to interfere in the vietnamese civil war to protect democracy in South Vietnam, destroying the country in the process, it is also OK for America to be on the receiving end of violence if the long term result is a democratic Palestine.

Do you think the destruction of the whole country was justified to preserve a free democratic society in South Vietnam?

If so what are you waiting for?

Let’s start supporting the bombing of America as a way to advance the cause of democracy in Palestine.

This kind of aberrant logical inconsistencies is the main reason I created the expression super patriotic american clown:

An individual who has one set of rules of conduct for the US and another for the rest of the world.

Absolute respect for US sovereignty and internal affairs and the law of the jungle ruling the rest of the world.

And the worst of all is that these individuals are not aware of their clownish condition and some of them decide to come into message boards and debate international politics and the result is something between tragic and pathetic.

I’d like to see a free, open society in Vietnam and Palestine but I don’t use my ideological orientation to rationalize the destruction of that asian country or the bombing of America.

Not sure - but I think in any case there should be one set of rules - maybe International law - and nations that disregard it should be considered unlawful. So any nation should expect treatment consistent with their observance of said law - like a person would under national law.

The problem comes when it is time to enforce the law. Some nations are a bit to tough for the international community to deal with.

 

[Gurdari]

What kind of parallel universe do you live in, Gurdari?

This is the second time we discuss your absurd stance on this issue, bro.

The Afghanistan War was one of the most legitimate casus belli in the history of humanity.

You have the posters who are always trying to justify all kinds of naked aggressions against countries America had/have laughable casus belli like Vietnam, Iraq and Iran and at the other extreme, you have Gurdari who seems to believe America has no right to react militarily under any circunstance no matter how solid the casus belli for war really is.

You need to wake up to the fact that you are the mirror image of the super patriotic american clowns who “contribute” to this message board, Gurdari!!

Thanks for the words in my mouth! Please lay out your casus belli.
I never said anyone had "no right to act militarily under any circumstance".

I just figured the war could have been avoided easily and OBL caught if a different approach was taken. If you were the Taliban, and the US demanded OBL, wouldn't you ask why the FBI has not charged him with 9/11 crimes? And if they have no evidence - he obviously committed other horrible crimes, that could have been offered as a reason to extradite - it boils down to "we're asking so do as we say or we'll bomb" instead of "here's why we want him, here's what he did. Let's have a trial".

 

[Gurdari]

I have to agree re Afghanistan. it was of the few times in recent history the US have done what is morally right with little or no benefit to themselves...

Well I am interested in the specifics if you have them... NATO charter is trumped by the UN and the manner in which the attack took place may not have been completely legal. Just having someone in your country is not enough to justify being attacked - as I am sure no one here would justify other countries bombing the US because the US didn't 'do as they were told' and is harboring a few terrorists as well. If that happened it would be a huge out cry, massive retaliation, etc. not "Well, I guess we deserved it".

 

[Dr Grump]

Well I am interested in the specifics if you have them... NATO charter is trumped by the UN and the manner in which the attack took place may not have been completely legal. Just having someone in your country is not enough to justify being attacked - as I am sure no one here would justify other countries bombing the US because the US didn't 'do as they were told' and is harboring a few terrorists as well. If that happened it would be a huge out cry, massive retaliation, etc. not "Well, I guess we deserved it".

Put simply? The Taliban were a group of misogynistic fuckwits who were not in power due to the will of the people. They rode roughshod over the lives of others because they were whackjobs. Just to make my point clear: I don't give a fuck about the UN, NATO or any international treaty. At it's most simple these guys were just a bunch of women-hating luddites who were only after one thing - the power over other people. Fuckwits the lot of them.....

 

[Gurdari]

Put simply? The Taliban were a group of misogynistic fuckwits who were not in power due to the will of the people. They rode roughshod over the lives of others because they were whackjobs. Just to make my point clear: I don't give a fuck about the UN, NATO or any international treaty. At it's most simple these guys were just a bunch of women-hating luddites who were only after one thing - the power over other people. Fuckwits the lot of them.....

Okay so that isn't a rebuttal... no sweat.

So the Taliban were exactly what you called them, agreed.
That does not equal a 'right' to bomb the country or overthrow the government (legally). Just like I can't throw a grenade into my neighbour's house just because he's a total ass who beats his wife for example.

As for your finishing point about not caring about international law/orgs/etc. that is great, people care about different things I suppose. It's good to know yourself. Of course having law and order helps if you like peace and security and stability and longevity. having International law helps with the same - on a larger scale (if it actually is allowed to work).
And lest we forget - those things you hate are used quite often to justify actions you seem to support...