|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2007 : 01:49:40 [Permalink]
|
| Who do you think decides when you get offended? Is it someone else? Is it something that is automatic? |
We are going off topic here, but I would say it's a response to a stimulus and thus could be considered automatic. For the sake of resuming (commencing?) the discussion about crime vs military action, would you accept that answer?| Do you get offended about things that you don't know about? |
I wouldn't think so. Do you?
If I don't know about it, how can it offend me?| Do you get offended by something "offensive" that you misinterpret as non-offensive? |
Again, I wouldn't think so. Do you? |
If it seems inoffensive to me, how can it offend me?Why do you insist that somebody has to decide? Do you have perfect control over your emotions? If so, I pity you. You are missing out on a vital portion of the human condition. |
You're telling me at once that it is automatic, and that it isn't. Offense is based on your perception. If you decide to change your perception, then you are no longer offended. It is not the thing that offends you, it is your perception, which can be "consciously" changed. No, that does not mean that one never gets offended. It just means that it is not something that someone else does. You are doing it, based on your beliefs about yourself and your universe. It may be automatic in the respect that our perceptions are not (and maybe cannot) always be rational, but it is not automatic in the respect that our perceptions have the potential to be rational. Have you not ever decided not to be offended?
Please provide an example of something that is unquestionably a crime, but is not punished. |
| Just because someone does not get arrested does not mean that they did not commit crimes. |
That's true. Do you really think I believe that all criminals are arrested? |
There is your example
Who drops bombs on neighborhoods? |
The article in your link does not cite the bombing of an entire city. It does, however, mention the city of Fallujah, which was the scene of two battles. Your article describes some of the horrible things that result from the realities of war.
|
Do you still say that neighborhoods don't get bombed? I didn't say the military condones it, but they don't do much about it, and we all know about "collateral" damage enough to say that neighborhoods get bombed, and while it is not officially condoned, everyone knows it will happen when a war is started. Not every bomb is a smart bomb.
When you rob a liquor store and the owner has a heart attack, you are responsible for his death. If you accidentally shoot him, you are even more responsible. When you start a war, simply to conquer, then you are the worst of criminals, as that action will inevitably cause deaths. It is murder. It is intentional.
I also did not say that every military action is a violation of international law. I don't know that. nor again, do I particularly care about the law of the conquerors. I am just mentioning the law to show that they use it when it's convenient, and ignore it when it's not. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/19/2007 02:12:25 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 02:10:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Gorgo
Again, you won't answer my question about decisions to be offended... |
I don't agree with your un-admitted premise that one cannot be offended with making a conscious decision.
|
Do you make an unconscious decision? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 04:15:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Am I guilty of criminal behavior for having paid my taxes which support the Iraq war?
|
Well, we are coerced into paying taxes, but why is it really all that different from funding any criminal enterprise?
|
As to not paying taxes, taxes do a lot of good things. I could symbolically not pay a percentage of my taxes, but that would just mean that they would probably do less of what I want them to with my money, not less of what I don't want them to. I state it to help me see why it is or isn't a rationalization. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 04:18:53 [Permalink]
|
| I know that I skipped some things that were asked. One of them had something to do with someone being invited in to attack the people of Afghanistan. If I invite al quaeda in to bomb New York, would that be okay? Was that the only thing missing on 9/11, is that some American citizen didn't invite them to bomb New York? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 13:29:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
You're telling me at once that it is automatic, and that it isn't. Offense is based on your perception. If you decide to change your perception, then you are no longer offended. It is not the thing that offends you, it is your perception, which can be "consciously" changed. No, that does not mean that one never gets offended. It just means that it is not something that someone else does. You are doing it, based on your beliefs about yourself and your universe. It may be automatic in the respect that our perceptions are not (and maybe cannot) always be rational, but it is not automatic in the respect that our perceptions have the potential to be rational. Have you not ever decided not to be offended? |
I must not be explaining myself well enough. Would you be content to drop this subject until I find a better way to make you understand my point?| Please provide an example of something that is unquestionably a crime, but is not punished. |
| Just because someone does not get arrested does not mean that they did not commit crimes. |
That's true. Do you really think I believe that all criminals are arrested? |
There is your example |
I may have to ask you to drop this one, too. Let me try one more time, though.
I don't see an example here. I understand people can commit crimes without ever getting caught; however, if everybody knows without question (may we even say "beyond a reasonable doubt?") somebody commits a crime, that person will get arrested and convicted. I would like some example otherwise, because I can't think of one offhand.| Do you still say that neighborhoods don't get bombed? I didn't say the military condones it, but they don't do much about it, and we all know about "collateral" damage enough to say that neighborhoods get bombed, and while it is not officially condoned, everyone knows it will happen when a war is started. Not every bomb is a smart bomb. |
If a residential target is unavoidable, the military attempts to extricate all civilians prior to the assault. Of course the US military actively tries not to kill civilians, since it would cause undue strain and doubt among the servicemen and -women doing the killing, and since any word of that would rally popular opinion against it's actions, leading to an unsupportable military operation. You have not provided any evidence that "they don't do much about it." To my knowledge, dumb bombs are not used in residential areas for the reasons I cited above. Do you have any example otherwise?| When you rob a liquor store and the owner has a heart attack, you are responsible for his death. If you accidentally shoot him, you are even more responsible. When you start a war, simply to conquer, then you are the worst of criminals, as that action will inevitably cause deaths. It is murder. It is intentional. |
That is true. Do you see a parallel between one of your examples and US military operations in the Middle East? Which example of yours is applicable?| I also did not say that every military action is a violation of international law. I don't know that. nor again, do I particularly care about the law of the conquerors. I am just mentioning the law to show that they use it when it's convenient, and ignore it when it's not. |
If you don't care about the law, why do you continue to insist the war is illegal?
I now understand you don't think every military action is illegal; however, you have failed to clarify which ones are illegal and which law is broken by them.
Your position would be far more defensible if you could do one of the following actions:
1) Show me a law that is violated.
2) Change your position to say the war is morally wrong, regardless of legality.Originally posted by Gorgo
Do you make an unconscious decision? |
That is an excellent question, and one that should be discussed in a seperate thread.| As to not paying taxes, taxes do a lot of good things. I could symbolically not pay a percentage of my taxes, but that would just mean that they would probably do less of what I want them to with my money, not less of what I don't want them to. I state it to help me see why it is or isn't a rationalization. |
That is an excellent point, but now raises the following questions:
If the US military action in the Middle East is illegal or immoral (and I'm not saying it is), how far does culpability extend?
Are all Servicemen and -women at fault for supporting the regime, directly or indirectly?
Are all citizens at fault for paying taxes? I would say no, for very similar reasons as Gorgo's, above.
Are all politicians at fault for allowing this to happen and continue?
Are only the military leaders, or the grunts who pull the triggers or drop the bombs at fault?
Are only the political leaders who caused and endorsed these operations at fault? |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 13:39:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I know that I skipped some things that were asked. One of them had something to do with someone being invited in to attack the people of Afghanistan. If I invite al quaeda in to bomb New York, would that be okay? Was that the only thing missing on 9/11, is that some American citizen didn't invite them to bomb New York? |
This is both a strawman and a false analogy.
Strawman: Nowhere did I say that people were invited to "attack the people of Afghanistan." Are you deliberately misinterpreting me, or am I just having trouble explaining myself?
False analogy: As far as I know the Afghanistan government, through diplomatic channels, invited the US military into their country to assist with police action of tracking down the criminals who bombed some buildings on US soil. Do you see how this is different from "some American citizen ... invit[ing] them [Al Quaeda] to bomb New York?" |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 16:29:17 [Permalink]
|
Boron10:
As far as I know the Afghanistan government, through diplomatic channels, invited the US military into their country to assist with police action of tracking down the criminals who bombed some buildings on US soil. |
Since the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, or at least of 85% of Afghanistan, I don't think it can be reasonably argued that the government of Afghanistan invited us in. The northern alliance may have invited us in but they only controlled from 5% to 15% of the country.
source wiki:
| Shortly afterward, on October 7, 2001, the United States, aided by the United Kingdom, Canada, and supported by a coalition of other countries including several from the NATO alliance, initiated military actions in Afghanistan, code named Operation Enduring Freedom, and bombed Taliban and Al Qaeda related camps.[116][117] The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks, and disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.[118] On October 14 the Taliban offered to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Ladens involvement in 9/11.[119] The U.S. rejected this offer as an insufficient public relations ploy and continued military operations. |
While we may have not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, it was they whom we tried to negotiate with.
As despicable as the Taliban are, it is pure politics to use the invitation of a tiny minority government to justify a police action over the rest of the country.
Having said that, screw the Taliban. In my opinion we had it right in Afghanistan, even if the legality of the invitation is highly questionable. Unfortunately, we dropped the ball, when we had the backing of the UN and most other countries, and didn't finish the job because our idiot president, under the persuasion of neo-con strategists who have been wrong about everything, wanted Iraq even more.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 17:28:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Since the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, or at least of 85% of Afghanistan, I don't think it can be reasonably argued that the government of Afghanistan invited us in. The northern alliance may have invited us in but they only controlled from 5% to 15% of the country. |
I stand corrected. Thank you.While we may have not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, it was they whom we tried to negotiate with.
As despicable as the Taliban are, it is pure politics to use the invitation of a tiny minority government to justify a police action over the rest of the country. |
I guess I need to review the history of this. The implications of this information could be somewhat condemning of US actions in Afghanistan.| Having said that, screw the Taliban. In my opinion we had it right in Afghanistan, even if the legality of the invitation is highly questionable. |
I do remember kvetching about the Taliban in the late 1990s, but I don't know if they were evil enough to give us the moral high ground. I need to check the facts to see if we had the right to conduct military operations in that country.| Unfortunately, we dropped the ball, when we had the backing of the UN and most other countries, and didn't finish the job because our idiot president, under the persuasion of neo-con strategists who have been wrong about everything, wanted Iraq even more. |
Well, one argument could be made that the recent overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime was the culmination of the first Gulf War. Iraq failed to comply with the UN's terms, claimed to have WMDs, and refused to allow UN weapons inspectors to check. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 18:20:18 [Permalink]
|
Boron10:
Well, one argument could be made that the recent overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime was the culmination of the first Gulf War. Iraq failed to comply with the UN's terms, claimed to have WMDs, and refused to allow UN weapons inspectors to check. |
That is the argument, but it's weak.
Rationale for the Iraq War
| U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[7] This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[9] |
| After the election of George W. Bush as U.S. President in 2000, the U.S. moved towards a more active policy of “regime change” in Iraq. The Republican Party's campaign platform in the 2000 election called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein, and key Bush advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld's Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, were longstanding advocates of invading Iraq, and contributed to a September 2000 report from the Project for the New American Century that argued for using an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..."[11] After leaving the administration, former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq was planned since the inauguration and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion. [12] |
| Despite the Bush Administration's consistent assertion that Iraqi weapons programs justified an invasion, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz later cast doubt on the Administration's conviction behind this rationale, saying in a May 2003 interview: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction - because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." |
It's important to understand that Bush and company was looking for a reason to invade Iraq well before they, errrm, came up with one. They needed a way to sell the idea.
| On 8 November 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441, giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" including unrestricted inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Saddam Hussein accepted the resolution on 13 November and inspectors returned to Iraq under the direction of UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Between that time and the time of the invasion, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[28] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weap |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 19:03:40 [Permalink]
|
I don't see an example here. I understand people can commit crimes without ever getting caught; however, if everybody knows without question (may we even say "beyond a reasonable doubt?") somebody commits a crime, that person will get arrested and convicted. |
I didn't say that everyone knows without question. Obviously you are a subset of everyone, and you don't know. I said that there is no question. There is no grey area here.
There are a lot of reasons that people don't get arrested. There is no reason to cite examples other than George Bush or Bill Clinton or most of the presidents. If Congress impeached George Bush for his crimes, they'd have to deal wth Bill Clinton for attacking Yugoslavia, and Sudan and Iraq. They'd have to question their own support of criminal activities.
If a residential target is unavoidable, the military attempts to extricate all civilians prior to the assault. Of course the US military actively tries not to kill civilians,
|
In war, it is inevitable that civilians will be killed. And why stop with worrying about civilians? If I come to your house and you are armed, and you try to defend yourself, and I kill you, is it okay because you're an armed combatant? It is a violation of international law, and the Constitution of the U.S. to attack other countries. Killing people who would defend themselves is no better than killing people who have no way to defend themselves.
I've shown you what laws have been violated.
more later |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/19/2007 19:06:47 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 00:30:22 [Permalink]
|
"We" tried to negotiate Kil? You mean, "We" tried not to negotiate:
On September 20th 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.13 The US rejected the offer. On October 1st, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters “we are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems.”14 Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied, “There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time.”15
On the same day, Tony Blair, in his speech to the Labour party conference, ridiculed the idea that we could “look for a diplomatic solution”. “There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime. … I say to the Taliban: surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. It's your choice.”16 Well, they had just tried to exercise that choice, but George Bush had rejected it.
Of course, neither Bush nor Blair had any reason to trust the Taliban or Saddam Hussein: these people were, after all, negotiating under duress. But neither did they have any need to trust them. In both cases they could have presented their opponents with a deadline for meeting the concessions they had offered. Nor could the allies argue that the offers were not worth considering because they were inadequate: both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were attempting to open negotiations, not to close them: there appeared to be plenty of scope for bargaining. In other words, peaceful resolutions were rejected before they were attempted. What this means is that even if all the other legal tests for these wars had been met (they had not), both would still have been waged in defiance of international law. The charter of the United Nations specifies that “the parties to any dispute … shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation.”17
None of this matters to the enthusiasts for war. That these conflicts were unjust and illegal, that they killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians, is irrelevant, as long as their aims were met. So the hawks should ponder this. Had a peaceful resolution of these disputes been attempted, Osama bin Laden might now be in custody, Iraq might be a pliant and largely peaceful nation finding its own way to democracy, and the prevailing sentiment within the Muslim world might be sympathy for the United States, rather than anger and resentment. Now who are the dreamers and the useful idiots, and who the pragmatists?
www.monbiot.com
|
| Having said that, screw the Taliban. |
And screw human lives, and screw international law, and screw any chance of the U.S. using that moment in history to change their conquering ways and actually do something to increase peace and prosperity. Screw any chance of building an international body which has the interests of the people of the world in mind, rather than just the interests of the conquerors. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/20/2007 00:34:05 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 00:44:58 [Permalink]
|
The use of cluster munitions in populated areas caused more civilian casualties than any other factor in the coalition´s conduct of major military operations in March and April, Human Rights Watch said. U.S. and British forces used almost 13,000 cluster munitions, containing nearly 2 million submunitions, that killed or wounded more than 1,000 civilians.
Meanwhile, 50 strikes on top Iraqi leaders failed to kill any of the intended targets, but instead killed dozens of civilians, the Human Rights Watch report revealed. The U.S. “decapitation” strategy relied on intercepts of senior Iraqi leaders´ satellite phone calls along with corroborating intelligence that proved inadequate. As a result, the U.S. military could only locate targets within a 100-meter radius – clearly inadequate precision in civilian neighborhoods.
“Coalition forces generally tried to avoid killing Iraqis who weren´t taking part in combat,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But the deaths of hundreds of civilians still could have been prevented.”
International humanitarian law, or the laws of war, does not outlaw all civilian casualties in wartime. But armed forces are obliged to take all feasible precautions for avoiding civilian losses, and to refrain from attacks that are indiscriminate or where the expected civilian harm exceeds the military gain. The term “casualty” refers to both dead and wounded. |
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/20/2007 03:07:20 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 03:02:01 [Permalink]
|
(Edited to add: mostly importantly they also don't have the power to do anything about it!)
|
They have a duty to disobey illegal orders, and it is illegal to attack other countries.
However, as I've stated before, there is no body with any power to help them do that, just as there is no international body with the power to arrest George Bush. These international bodies work only at the behest of the powerful. Milosevic, instead of Clinton and Clark, becomes the butcher of Belgrade. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 03:14:42 [Permalink]
|
Regarding international law, I quote the pdf I referenced earlier, called "Tearing Up the Rules"
prohibition against force in international law
This section summarizes the international consensus supporting the U.N. Charter's prohibition against the use, or threatened use, of force, and describes the two exceptions enumerated in the Charter.
The United Nations was created in a mood of popular outrage after the horrors of World War II. Its
central purpose was to serve as instrument for maintaining peace in order “to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to
mankind.”15 Leading jurists consider the U.N. Charter as the highest embodiment of international
law—codifying and superceding existing laws and customs.16
Under Article 1(1) of the Charter, the world organization's central purpose is “to bring about by
peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.”17
Similarly, Article 2(3) obligates member states to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means,”18 while Article 2(4) provides that:
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.19
It is beyond dispute that these provisions, and the Charter as a whole, impose a general prohibition on the use of force to resolve conflicts in international relations. The Security Council and General Assembly have consistently reaffirmed this legal principle.20 The prohibition against force is binding on all states not only through the Charter but as a peremptory norm in customary international law,21 so fundamental that “no derogation is permitted.”22 It is, in short, the cornerstone of the collective security system established by the U.N. to prevent any recurrence of the horrors of World War II.
Only two exceptions, specified in the Charter and supplemented by customary international law, permit the lawful use of force. First is the right of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack, under Article 51. Second is the specific authorization of force by the Security Council as a last resort to maintain international peace and security, under Chapter VII.
If the planned attack by the U.S. and U.K. against Iraq fails to meet the specific criteria set forth in these exceptions, or under principles of customary international law, then it will be an unlawful act of aggression—defined and condemned by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal as “the supreme international crime.”23 |
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 07:56:09 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo
"We" tried to negotiate Kil? You mean, "We" tried not to negotiate: |
War in Afghanistan
From May 1996, Osama bin Laden had been living in Afghanistan along with other members of al-Qaeda, operating terrorist training camps in a loose alliance with the Taliban.[14] Following the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa, the US military launched submarine-based cruise missiles at these camps with limited effect on their overall operations.
The UN Security Council had issued Resolutions 1267 and 1333 in 1999 and 2000 directed towards the Taliban which applied financial and military hardware sanctions to encourage them to turn over bin Laden for trial in the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998, and close terrorist training camps. |
And:
After the September 11, 2001, attacks, investigators rapidly accumulated evidence implicating Osama bin Laden. In a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged his and al-Qaeda's direct involvement in the 9-11 attacks…
On 20 September 2001, in an address to a joint session of Congress, U.S. President George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum[15] to the Taliban, to:
* deliver al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States
* release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens[16]
* protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan
* close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities"
* give the United States full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure
The Taliban refused to directly speak to Bush, stating that talking with a non-Muslim political leader would be an insult to Islam. But they made statements through their embassy in Pakistan: the Taliban rejected the ultimatum on September 21, 2001, saying there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. On September 22, 2001 the United Arab Emirates, and on the following day, Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law.[17] Pakistan is believed to have rejected the offer.
Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid its impending retaliation. President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as insincere. On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.[18] This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient. It was not until October 14, 2001, seven days after war had broken out, that the Taliban openly offered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if they were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.[19] |
The problem with all of the Taliban's offers is that in each case they made demands that either they wanted control over any trial of Bin Laden by way of insisting that he be tried under their Islamic Sharia law. Or they denied the evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime, including denying his ow |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Crime or Military Action
Topic Locked
