6 ms·

>(I still don't get exactly what the point of Afghanistan or Iraq was, even accepting the blunt "oil" that is sometimes given out). Are you serious? At least o

>(I still don't get exactly what the point of Afghanistan or Iraq was, even accepting the blunt "oil" that is sometimes given out). Are you serious? At least on the Afghanistan one? The war in Afghanistan began because the Taliban refused to extradite Osama Bin Laden (and several other terrorist, but Osama was the biggest one), it's pretty straightforward.

hobs 3y ago
No, the taliban did not refuse to do that - Bush refused to take him * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te... * https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482&page=1
- macintux 3y ago
  That was a highly-conditional offer, that I suspect the U.S. administration felt was designed to give the Taliban and bin Laden breathing room to escape/hide/whatever their next move would have been.
  - hobs 3y ago
    Well thankfully we put a stop to that and immediately brought an end to the conflict and captured Osama without billions of dollars and a potential war!
    - twixfel 3y ago
      Yeah if only the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden to North Korea, then I'm sure justice would have been served.
- lolinder 3y ago
  In those links, the Taliban wasn't offering to hand Bin Laden over to the US, they were offering to hand him over to a third country that would never hand him over to the US. We can argue about whether Bush should have agreed to that offer, but it's a far cry from "refusing to take him": > Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US. > "If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added. > But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.
- bnralt 3y ago
  From the first link: > In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". > The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US. > Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over".
ecommerceguy 3y ago
What country was Osama bin Laden found in?
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  What does where Osama was killed a decade later have to do with where he was operating out of in 2001?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    Odd. I do not remember US meting out the same type of punishment to Saudi Arabia.
    - HideousKojima 3y ago
      Bin Laden hadn't lived in Saudi Arabia since 1991? If you're referring to the fact that the relatively newly declassified parts of the 9/11 commission report suggest that several powerful members of the Saudi government and royal family were involved in the attacks, then I agree with you that we should have (and still should) insist that the Saudis extradite those involved and take strong military action against the Saudis if they don't. But I don't see how this makes our attack on Afghanistan for refusing to extradite Bin Laden unjustified, it just makes us inconsistent.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
        << it just makes us inconsistent. It is the kind of inconsistency that makes some people die and some live. One would hope it is avoided to avoid confusion and miscalculations on all sides. << Bin Laden hadn't lived in Saudi Arabia since 1991? Was Pakistan bombed in 2011 then? I understand what you are saying, but it does not make it look any better. << If you're referring to the fact I was not. I am merely connecting some obvious dots. << But I don't see how this makes our attack on Afghanistan for refusing to extradite Bin Laden unjustified, Hmm. Even the word extradite is obfuscating what happened, but that is beside the point. Lets adjust this conversation a little as 'justified' is a little loaded. Everyone thinks they are justified in doing whatever they are doing. edit: In fact, there are a few wars happening right now, where people feel very justified. Lets have a more fun conversation. Do you think it ( attacking Afghanistan ) over 9/11 ( whether the cause was just or not ) was a good idea for long-term US survival? This is not a bait. I am really curious about your thought process.
roenxi 3y ago
I'm sure you're saying that from a place of honesty, but you clearly aren't speking for the people who actually make these decisions: 1. When the US actually wanted to get Bin Laden in a country that wouldn't extradite him, they sent a special ops team to Pakistan. They violated Pakistan's sovereignty a little bit and then everyone moved on. So the idea that they needed to launch a full invasion of Afghanistan is just silly and the people who sent the army knew that. They had to have had ulterior motives, or sending the military was so incompetent there would have been a very public purge of the US military leadership. 2. If we're saying the US military is a magic button to override the legal system in another country (which, fair enough, it is) then what is the issue with what Russia is doing? Their interests in Ukraine are more legitimate than the US not feeling like negotiating or due process for Bin Laden & friends. Of course if the US had spent a bit more time doing things legally, the planners would have had time to point out that a full scale invasion was counterproductive, and I think it is less obvious that Russia would have found something similar; I don't see how they could have dealt with what the US state department seems to be doing without an army. But hey, I'm not a diplomatic corps, maybe they could have come up with something. And if I look at the wiki article [0], we see "The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the US would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks". Maybe 2-5 years of negotiating and some actual evidence would have been justified? The US must have had evidence against al-Q, because otherwise they couldn't have known who was responsible. if they'd negotiated to send him to Pakistan where the SEAL team is comfortable operating then they could have short circuited a lot of death, wasted time and wasted money. I know you didn't say anything about the Russian invasion, but this is sort of my angle here - the actions in Afghanistan show that this sort of thing is a bit of a non-event as far as international politics goes. It is only a big deal because the US is making it one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#War_on_terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#War_on_terror

hobs 3y ago

No, the taliban did not refuse to do that - Bush refused to take him * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te... * https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482&page=1

macintux 3y ago
That was a highly-conditional offer, that I suspect the U.S. administration felt was designed to give the Taliban and bin Laden breathing room to escape/hide/whatever their next move would have been.
- hobs 3y ago
  Well thankfully we put a stop to that and immediately brought an end to the conflict and captured Osama without billions of dollars and a potential war!
  - twixfel 3y ago
    Yeah if only the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden to North Korea, then I'm sure justice would have been served.
lolinder 3y ago
In those links, the Taliban wasn't offering to hand Bin Laden over to the US, they were offering to hand him over to a third country that would never hand him over to the US. We can argue about whether Bush should have agreed to that offer, but it's a far cry from "refusing to take him": > Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US. > "If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added. > But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.
bnralt 3y ago
From the first link: > In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". > The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US. > Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over".

ecommerceguy 3y ago

What country was Osama bin Laden found in?

HideousKojima 3y ago
What does where Osama was killed a decade later have to do with where he was operating out of in 2001?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Odd. I do not remember US meting out the same type of punishment to Saudi Arabia.
  - HideousKojima 3y ago
    Bin Laden hadn't lived in Saudi Arabia since 1991? If you're referring to the fact that the relatively newly declassified parts of the 9/11 commission report suggest that several powerful members of the Saudi government and royal family were involved in the attacks, then I agree with you that we should have (and still should) insist that the Saudis extradite those involved and take strong military action against the Saudis if they don't. But I don't see how this makes our attack on Afghanistan for refusing to extradite Bin Laden unjustified, it just makes us inconsistent.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      << it just makes us inconsistent. It is the kind of inconsistency that makes some people die and some live. One would hope it is avoided to avoid confusion and miscalculations on all sides. << Bin Laden hadn't lived in Saudi Arabia since 1991? Was Pakistan bombed in 2011 then? I understand what you are saying, but it does not make it look any better. << If you're referring to the fact I was not. I am merely connecting some obvious dots. << But I don't see how this makes our attack on Afghanistan for refusing to extradite Bin Laden unjustified, Hmm. Even the word extradite is obfuscating what happened, but that is beside the point. Lets adjust this conversation a little as 'justified' is a little loaded. Everyone thinks they are justified in doing whatever they are doing. edit: In fact, there are a few wars happening right now, where people feel very justified. Lets have a more fun conversation. Do you think it ( attacking Afghanistan ) over 9/11 ( whether the cause was just or not ) was a good idea for long-term US survival? This is not a bait. I am really curious about your thought process.

roenxi 3y ago

I'm sure you're saying that from a place of honesty, but you clearly aren't speking for the people who actually make these decisions: 1. When the US actually wanted to get Bin Laden in a country that wouldn't extradite him, they sent a special ops team to Pakistan. They violated Pakistan's sovereignty a little bit and then everyone moved on. So the idea that they needed to launch a full invasion of Afghanistan is just silly and the people who sent the army knew that. They had to have had ulterior motives, or sending the military was so incompetent there would have been a very public purge of the US military leadership. 2. If we're saying the US military is a magic button to override the legal system in another country (which, fair enough, it is) then what is the issue with what Russia is doing? Their interests in Ukraine are more legitimate than the US not feeling like negotiating or due process for Bin Laden & friends. Of course if the US had spent a bit more time doing things legally, the planners would have had time to point out that a full scale invasion was counterproductive, and I think it is less obvious that Russia would have found something similar; I don't see how they could have dealt with what the US state department seems to be doing without an army. But hey, I'm not a diplomatic corps, maybe they could have come up with something. And if I look at the wiki article [0], we see "The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the US would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks". Maybe 2-5 years of negotiating and some actual evidence would have been justified? The US must have had evidence against al-Q, because otherwise they couldn't have known who was responsible. if they'd negotiated to send him to Pakistan where the SEAL team is comfortable operating then they could have short circuited a lot of death, wasted time and wasted money. I know you didn't say anything about the Russian invasion, but this is sort of my angle here - the actions in Afghanistan show that this sort of thing is a bit of a non-event as far as international politics goes. It is only a big deal because the US is making it one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#War_on_terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#War_on_terror