Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No Afghan national or Taliban rulers were involved in the fateful event of 9/11 that saw the TwinTowers tumbled, nevertheless, the indigent Afghan nation became the target of American retaliatory wrath - mighty American war machinery unleashed in the manner not seen since the Vietnam War. One may point here that the alleged mastermind of 9/11 Osama bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan and it provided the rational for the US attack. However, the argument loses much of it force when one considers that the Taliban government twice, in 1998 and 2001, offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden to an independent tribunal instead of the United States. It was a reasonable offer, given the fact that the US did not recognize the Taliban government, and there was no extradition treaty existed.
When Osama was accused of involved in the 1998 embassy attack in Tanzania and Kenya , German and British media reported that Taliban offered to deport him. German television, ZDF, quoted the Afghanistan foreign minister, Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil, as saying: "You can have him (Osama) whenever you are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him." After the 9/11 attack in 2001, according to Prince Turki al-Faisal, head of Saudi foreign intelligence at the time, the Taliban government again agreed to extradite Osama to a neutral country for trial.
By offering to hand over Osama to a neutral country for trial for his alleged involvement in the embassy and 9/11 attacks, Taliban government became absolved of any breach of its state responsibility to take reasonable measure to prevent its territory from being used to launch attacks against other states.
Had the U.S. accepted Afghanistan's offer in 1998 to extradite Osama, not only the death and misery that the war brought to Afghanistan could have been averted but the tragic incident of 9/11 itself may have not happened - presuming that Osama and his men were indeed the culprits behind that attack.
Quote:
U.S. had a regime change plan against the Taliban government months before the 9/11 incident. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani foreign secretary, told BBC that senior American officials told him in mid-July of the pending U.S. military action to oust Taliban.The 9/11 attacks only served as a convenient excuse to do what the U.S. was already intent on doing--attacking Afghanistan.
The prime objective of the war on Afghanistan, as declared, was to capture Osama bin Laden, the man allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. A week after the attacks, President Bush said he wanted Osama "dead or alive" and described his capture as a national priority. In pursuit to capture one accused man, U.S. B-52 bombers carpet bombed Afghanistan, an impoverished country with no aerial defense, killing and maiming countless innocent people and causing untold suffering and destruction, and yet after eight years and $228 billion, the invasion failed to achieve its ostensible raison d'etre for attack - capture Osama Bin Laden. To this day, the man remains as elusive as ever, despite the billion-dollar, multi-force, multinational, state-of-the-art search - the most extensive and expensive manhunt in history.
As the Afghan war began, Afghanis, naturally, began to resist the American invasion. In the process, they were captured and became prisoners. As the U.S. invasion itself was immoral and criminal, the U.S. treatment of Afghans captured while resisting invasion callously betrays every norms of human rights and violates every code of laws of war protecting prisoners of war. U.S. found that according the status of prisoners of war would restrain their troops in their treatment of the Afghani prisoners. Conveniently, therefore, U.S. declared them as "illegal combatants". Essentially, every expert of laws of war acknowledged that Afghans had a legal right to resist with arms and respond to the occupation and if captured while fighting must be given the status of prisoners of war. U.S. position that they are persons who could be prosecuted and punished for murder and other crimes under the U.S. laws for their participation in an armed conflict was rejected almost universally.
Viewed from any angle, the U.S. war in Afghanistan could only be seen as a tragic exercise in futile destruction and display of naked arrogance. The eight year of bloodshed has not produced any desirable result either for the U.S. or for Afghanistan, and further continuation and intensification of the war would only bring further death and destruction.
Bill Clinton was the biggest threat to national security since the spread of biological weapons. Bill Clinton consistently put his own personal priorities (stifling the Monica-gate investigation) over the priority of stamping out radical Islam that was growing right under his nose. This has been noted repeatedly by numerous sources, specifically autobiographies of his own political appointees. Most notably, Louis Freeh, former Clinton FBI Director, notes many times how Clinton put a halt to his numerous terror-related investigations in favor of political expediency. Osama Bin Laden was in the crosshairs numerous times, but Bill Clinton would not pull the trigger. Those who champion Bill Clinton simply do not know the facts.
This clearly shows us that the U.S. wanted to set up a puppet government that benifit them in the long run.
Right...........................
Nice revisionist history. Of course, you forgot about the negotiations with the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. The Taliban insisted they did not know where he was.
That would mean that bin Laden would be tried in a court. The burden of proof would be with the prosecution. That would mean various items of evidence and an investigation - something the US would not want.
Bill Clinton was the biggest threat to national security since the spread of biological weapons. Bill Clinton consistently put his own personal priorities (stifling the Monica-gate investigation) over the priority of stamping out radical Islam that was growing right under his nose. This has been noted repeatedly by numerous sources, specifically autobiographies of his own political appointees. Most notably, Louis Freeh, former Clinton FBI Director, notes many times how Clinton put a halt to his numerous terror-related investigations in favor of political expediency. Osama Bin Laden was in the crosshairs numerous times, but Bill Clinton would not pull the trigger. Those who champion Bill Clinton simply do not know the facts.
I always get a kick out of reading the "About" area of groups like RAWA and especially the history of the Soviet occupation on RAWA. They have gained to the point that they have about 2 paragraphs about US occupation.
Bin-Laden could have been snatched right out of Kuwait in 1999. Our hands were tied because our president was busy planning his Wag The Dog scheme.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
