4 ms·

> You forgot the Irak war and Afghanistan and the fake WMDs Stop lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together. I see this everywhere and it's tiresome. It's either ou

> You forgot the Irak war and Afghanistan and the fake WMDs Stop lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together. I see this everywhere and it's tiresome. It's either outright lying or people who weren't old enough to make memories when these things happened. Afghanistan harbored Osama. They refused to give him up. NATO invaded the country to get him. It was justifed. The fake WMDs were in Iraq (or not, since they were fake). Only the US, UK, Australia, and Poland invaded Iraq. Literally all the other "Western" countries were very strongly opposed and refused to participate. It was an unjust war.

churchill 2y ago
The Taliban very openly offered Osama up, provided he'd be granted transit to a 3rd-party nation where he'd get a free trial.
- triceratops 2y ago
  That's not how extradition works, even for a common criminal. They knew that would never be acceptable, which is why they offered it.
- wing-_-nuts 2y ago
  I'm sorry this is revisionist history. The Taliban offered to try him in an Islamic court of law, under the very same government that had offered him sanctuary while he trained terrorists. This was not a good faith offer. To be frank, they f'd around and found out.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    For what it's worth, the version of events that Wikipedia offers is much closer to what the commenter said than what you're saying: Muhammad Umar told Pakistan that he would be willing to turn bin Laden over to a third country, but the US refused, demanding a direct handover. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan#Diplomatic_and_political_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afgh...
    - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
      You're conveniently leaving out the fact that his council recommended he expel Bin Laden and AQ , and he refused. >On 21 September, Muhammad Umar rejected both Bush's demands and the advice of the council, again denying that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Again, some lunatic from your country just attacks the world's strongest military power, killing ~ 3,000 people, and you refuse? The Taliban deserve exactly what they got. The only mistake we made in Afghanistan was trying to build a 'nation' out of a geographic collection of hill tribes. We should have locked down the porous Afghan border and let SF and northern alliance troops declare open season. As it stands we didn't so much 'lose' the Afghan war as lose interest in imposing democracy on a people that had no desire for it.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Actually I conveniently linked to the section within the article so you could find it.
ignoramous 2y ago
> Afghanistan harbored Osama. They refused to give him up. NATO invaded the country to get him. It was justified. Strange that the NATO did not invade Pakistan, then?
- triceratops 2y ago
  He was in Afghanistan when they invaded. Even the Taliban admitted he was in the country. He fled to Pakistan later. And the US did in fact capture him using military force inside Pakistan. I really don't understand how this question can come up, honestly. This is 1 + 1 = 2 stuff.
  - ignoramous 2y ago
    > This is 1 + 1 = 2 stuff Strange they didn't have to kill 40k+ civilians in Pakistan to capture him, like in Afghanistan. Which would have been totally justified, like GP claims. So, why not?
rdm_blackhole 2y ago
> Stop lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together. I see this everywhere and it's tiresome. It's either outright lying or people who weren't old enough to make memories when these things happened. They were both illegal wars that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians for no reason other than getting 1 guy. There were many ways to get him if your government really wanted to. On a side note, it's pretty bold of you to assume I wasn't around when these wars happened. > Afghanistan harbored Osama. They refused to give him up. NATO invaded the country to get him. It was justified. Oh I see, is that how you justify a war? Let's flip the script here. Ukraine harbors Zelensky as he is deemed a criminal by the Kremlin. Ukraine refuse to give him up. The war in Ukraine is justified. Do you see the problem with your argument here? If it's good enough for the west to invade a foreign, sovereign country in order to get 1 man, then it should be good enough for anyone else. You can't have double standards. > Literally all the other "Western" countries were very strongly opposed and refused to participate. The opposition from the other countries was a show. Nobody kicked the US out of the SWIFT payment system, nor were any sanctions places on the US. > It was an unjust war. The fact that you can't bring yourself to say that it was an illegal war is very telling. Using an euphemism here is rather bold if you ask me.

churchill 2y ago

The Taliban very openly offered Osama up, provided he'd be granted transit to a 3rd-party nation where he'd get a free trial.

triceratops 2y ago
That's not how extradition works, even for a common criminal. They knew that would never be acceptable, which is why they offered it.
wing-_-nuts 2y ago
I'm sorry this is revisionist history. The Taliban offered to try him in an Islamic court of law, under the very same government that had offered him sanctuary while he trained terrorists. This was not a good faith offer. To be frank, they f'd around and found out.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  For what it's worth, the version of events that Wikipedia offers is much closer to what the commenter said than what you're saying: Muhammad Umar told Pakistan that he would be willing to turn bin Laden over to a third country, but the US refused, demanding a direct handover. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan#Diplomatic_and_political_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afgh...
  - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
    You're conveniently leaving out the fact that his council recommended he expel Bin Laden and AQ , and he refused. >On 21 September, Muhammad Umar rejected both Bush's demands and the advice of the council, again denying that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Again, some lunatic from your country just attacks the world's strongest military power, killing ~ 3,000 people, and you refuse? The Taliban deserve exactly what they got. The only mistake we made in Afghanistan was trying to build a 'nation' out of a geographic collection of hill tribes. We should have locked down the porous Afghan border and let SF and northern alliance troops declare open season. As it stands we didn't so much 'lose' the Afghan war as lose interest in imposing democracy on a people that had no desire for it.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Actually I conveniently linked to the section within the article so you could find it.

ignoramous 2y ago

> Afghanistan harbored Osama. They refused to give him up. NATO invaded the country to get him. It was justified. Strange that the NATO did not invade Pakistan, then?

triceratops 2y ago
He was in Afghanistan when they invaded. Even the Taliban admitted he was in the country. He fled to Pakistan later. And the US did in fact capture him using military force inside Pakistan. I really don't understand how this question can come up, honestly. This is 1 + 1 = 2 stuff.
- ignoramous 2y ago
  > This is 1 + 1 = 2 stuff Strange they didn't have to kill 40k+ civilians in Pakistan to capture him, like in Afghanistan. Which would have been totally justified, like GP claims. So, why not?

rdm_blackhole 2y ago

> Stop lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together. I see this everywhere and it's tiresome. It's either outright lying or people who weren't old enough to make memories when these things happened. They were both illegal wars that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians for no reason other than getting 1 guy. There were many ways to get him if your government really wanted to. On a side note, it's pretty bold of you to assume I wasn't around when these wars happened. > Afghanistan harbored Osama. They refused to give him up. NATO invaded the country to get him. It was justified. Oh I see, is that how you justify a war? Let's flip the script here. Ukraine harbors Zelensky as he is deemed a criminal by the Kremlin. Ukraine refuse to give him up. The war in Ukraine is justified. Do you see the problem with your argument here? If it's good enough for the west to invade a foreign, sovereign country in order to get 1 man, then it should be good enough for anyone else. You can't have double standards. > Literally all the other "Western" countries were very strongly opposed and refused to participate. The opposition from the other countries was a show. Nobody kicked the US out of the SWIFT payment system, nor were any sanctions places on the US. > It was an unjust war. The fact that you can't bring yourself to say that it was an illegal war is very telling. Using an euphemism here is rather bold if you ask me.