Because the US government wanted to be able to persecute bin Laden, yet the Afghan government (which has had a history of protecting him the the past) would only extradite bin Laden to a country where he could be tried under Sharia law. It is completely reasonable that the American government would feel that they have a right to try bin Laden according to its own laws after the destruction unleashed by his attacks.
Freudian slip?
Bin Laden has never been charged with a crime. Just sayin’.
I wouldn’t release someone staying as my guest without some proof they had done wrong. That’s a cultural difference between that part of the world and this part of the world. If someone in that part of the world accepts you as a guest, the norm is that they are responsible for your well being, until such time as you choose to leave them. They cannot force you to go, and they cannot deny you anything a guest would normally expect, like food, shelter and protection. In the west, there are no such concepts for the responsibility of a host because we all defer to the state as our master.
While we might not like the primitivism and tribalism of these folks, they know a lot more about practical anarchy than we do.
Nor has he ever been brought to trial nor has he been arrested, generally a criminal is charged with crimes either upon being arrested, or once they are brought to trial. But really, this is an irrelevant point, since it is common knowledge that bin Laden is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
There was plenty of proof that bin Laden was a terrorist by October, 2001. Denying that is nonsensical. He even claimed responsibility, is not a confession evidence enough for extradition?
They did not just take in bin Laden as a guest, they also happened to protect him even when it was blatant that the man was a terrorist. They not only defended him after he orchestrated the bombings of United States embassies in 1998, but also after he had been responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in October, 2000.
When my guest is using my protection to wage a campaign of terrorism, it is a moral imperative for me to show him the door.
In the West, we rightfully believe that harboring a terrorist is immoral.
And they sure have given criminals, and terrorists safe-haven while launching a war based on Sharia law against any influence that they do not agree with. Talk about knowing what anarchy is.
Are you accusing me of something? I hope not.
No he first denied responsbility http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html
Only much later after the US was already in Afghanistan did he laugh and say “Hahaha I WAS behind the attacks afterall fools!!!”. This cartoonish supervillany is just too much. Why with all the actions the CIA takes and all the money the US spends is it such a crazy idea that any events of him claiming responsiblity is doctored and nonsense?
Seems like in the West- we believe that if you don’t agree with us, you must die. And while we are destroying your houses, we’ll tell you its for your own good.
So you’re saying that the Afghanis started this offensive against the United States first? That the United States government was just minding its own business- and NEVER got involved in the affairs of the middle east until one day those evil afghans decided that they have to destroy the United States? Sorry for the Ad-hominem but are you out of your mind? The Afghan tribal law which is mixed in with Sharia law is pretty ridiculous to me myself as someone of Pakistani and middle eastern descent. But it doesn’t call for the destruction of all other countries around the world- this isn’t the Legion of Doom.
Schiff is talking about tactical operations on specific pre-determined strategic locations not ground invasions and prolonged occupations of foreign nations. The neoconservative position was essentially to export democracy, export capitalism, he didn’t say any of that here. He’s just not totally doveish. Which I like.
I’d vote for Schiff for President if I could.
He’s talking about killing people who haven’t done anything. How would we react if another country decided to have some tactical operations on specific pre-determined strategic locations in the United States and kill a whole bunch of people who’re working in a facility because they believe we present an imminent threat. Would we be fine with that and sit back and say 'Hey its cool as long as theres no ground invasions".
Why is the idea of killing humans so easy and simple? Its not a damn video game they are people with their own lives, hopes, dreams, ambitions- and to snuff them out so simply just because you’re scared- especially when they live thousands of miles away and can barely provide themselves with basic necessities let alone invest in an ICBM- its just evil.
Yet also classic Al Qaeda style, especially now.
Because it is completely congruent with all the evidence.
And how does that make harboring a terrorist moral?
Absolutely not, you seem to have not understood my extremely clear statement. The “war” that the Taliban waged was against Western influence in their own nation (e.g. closing cinemas and forcing the nation to abide by Sharia law). As a result, claiming that they knew what anarchy is, depending on your view of what anarchy really is, either ironic, or absurd.
This explains why the terrorist attacks have been done, but it does not make them morally permissible.
Yeah, ok, except for the part where he said “we ask to have our inspectors go over there first and confirm whether or not there’s a real threat and if they say no then we blow them up.” It’s not as if they don’t get a chance to prove they’re not doing anything wrong first. I don’t see what the problem is.
Oh come on man- just the idea of believing in an organization called “Al-Qaeda” is ridiculous. Its just a name the US uses to invade any country it wants- the militants in Somalia for example are constantly “linked” to Al-Qaeda- an accusation they always deny.
Which evidence in particular makes you feel so strongly that it was bin-laden?
It doesn’t- but we harbor mass murderers all the time- so at least admit that the West is full of hypocrisy.
But it also explains how terrorist attacks can be stopped.
So if Iran wanted to send inspectors into Israel or the United States and confirm if theres a real threat or not- and they are denied, you’d be perfectly fine if bombs start being dropped? Or is it only brown countries they are subject to scrutiny.
yeap and the spiral blame game of immoral u.s. and immoral terrorist will go on forever until somebody actually stands for peace.
They know we have bombs. Everyone knows we have bombs. Israel isn’t going to use nukes on anyone even if they have nukes (which they probably don’t.) Iran is a different story (and probably will have nukes soon) and so needs to be treated as different. What do you mean by brown countries?
Do you really think its a spiral blame game? No middle eastern country has ever invaded the united states or provided funding to overthrow a president or any nonsense like that. Its blatantly obvious who’s the aggressor and who has the capability to end it all- the most powerful military in the history of the world.
Auctionguy, are you perchance…middle eastern or of middle eastern descent? Just wondering.
So, your only justification of Afghanistan’s policy is a tu quoque fallacy?
The past cannot be undone, and we must live in a world where the past unjustices of the American government have been done. Nevertheless, it does not morally permit the actions of the very real organization known as Al Qaeda.
What makes you think israel isn’t going to use nukes on anyone? They kill plenty of civilians, flatten villages, engage in invasion and occupation. Iran hasn’t done anything at all of that scale. How could they possibly be more dangerous? how does that make sense? Why is iran a different story? When I said brown countries- I was takin a jab at the fact that only countries like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan- etc are scolded for their nuclear ambitions.
Standing of the peace does not mean that bin Laden should not be put on trial Standing for peace necessitates that bin Laden be put on trial, and that work be done in order to undo the past injustices of American foreign policy in the Middle East so that justice may be done for all parties.
Why are you talking as if the unjustices of the American government are done and a part of the past? Its still going on RIGHT NOW as we speak. The only reason any organizations exist at all to fight americans is because of our current and ever-lasting foreign policy of death and occupation. We’ve never showed any interest in ending it, rather we are expanding it at the moment. So of course terrorist attacks will continue.
I mean I’m a Jew and I’m biased, I know that. But I don’t think Israel is going to do anything to anyone who doesn’t provoke them. Palestinians provoke the Israelis and then they get hurt. The Jews are always subject to this impossible double standard. If they do anything right, it’s because they’re evil Jews and if they do anything people might consider wrong, it proves they’re evil Jews. I think the way Israel has handled the Palestinian problem has been beyond careful. My aunt just went there recently and told me that Palestinians are being allowed to come into the cities and work and be part of the society. Even though there’s always the risk that one of them is carrying a bomb and is going to walk into a synagogue or a barber shop and blow everyone up. So I don’t think Israel is going to do anything to Iran. I don’t even think they have nukes. But Iran might and Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel rhetoric is disturbing and troublesome. If the Iranians don’t have any weapons then they shouldn’t have a problem with the US going in and taking a look. Right? What’s the problem with that?