Because it no longer matters, the Taliban would be unwilling to extradite bin Laden to the United States for trial, which is a justified American demand. If the Taliban is not willing to extradite bin Laden to the court of the American government’s choosing, there is no point giving them the evidence. Spin it however you want, but that is a basic fact.
Speak for thyself, you have yet to give a single scrap of evidence supporting:
LOLOLOLOLOL. laminustacitus the philosopher is just another clueless amerikan nationalist…
Conjecture.
Would you be OK with the U.S. government handing you over to another government just because they demand it?
All knowledge in foreign policy is a conjecture. But, we must act on the best forecasts possible.
You cannot equivocate an innocent civilian with a Jihadist of the caliber of bin Laden, while it may be a useful rhetorical tool, its a mere fallacy.
the same Taliban who get millions of dollars from the u.s. currently
who is we ?
Non sequitur.
“We” is a moral imperative, a royal we meant to emphasize the fact that all must do as I suggest.
they are the enemy or they are not the enemy for you; more contradictions from the Big Lie
Non sequitur. That has no influence on whether the American invasion of Afghanistan was morally permissible.
And you can quantify that how? Oh wait, you mean it’s OK to cause hundreds of thousands of people to suffer and die on a whim. And you think they are the terrorists? Just sad.
How does the u.s. invade what it pays/supports?
edit: and that goes for before and after/current
I thought “we” was a pronoun not a moral imperative. Anyway, now you are saying that “all” - which I take it, means every single human on the planet(?) - must follow your particular views on so called ‘foreign policy’?
That’s…interesting.
Taliban Reneges On Offer To Extradite Bin Laden
Tuesday, April 03, 2001
Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban militia will not extradite suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to any country, including one that would try him under Islamic law, a Taliban spokesperson was quoted as saying yesterday (Associated Press/, 3 Apr).
This contradicts what another Taliban representative said last month in Washington. Afghan envoy Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, who was in the United States trying to negotiate relief of UN sanctions on Afghanistan, said the Taliban had offered to extradite bin Laden for trial in any Islamic country (, 22 Mar).
However, Taliban Foreign Ministry spokesperson Faiz Ahmed Faiz yesterday was quoted by Pakistan’s newspaper as saying, “Delivering Osama to a third country would just pave the way for the United States to arrest him, and no one should expect the Afghan government to do this.”
The United Nations imposed sanctions on Afghanistan in 1999 and stepped up the measures last December to pressure the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, who is accused of planning the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (AP/).
“Osama is in difficulty, and we have provided him with protection,” Faiz said. “He is our guest” (Kathy Gannon, AP, 2 Apr).
Meanwhile, bin Laden sent a letter to the Taliban, objecting to restrictions the militia has placed on him. “It is surprising that the United States is free to do whatever it feels like and I have been placed under restrictions,” he wrote in a letter to Mullah Mohamed Omar, the Taliban’s supreme leader (Ismail Khan, Karachi , 3 Apr).
Please note the date of this report. This was months prior to 9/11. The U.S. also tried to get bin Laden extradited from Sudan in the mid to late 90s.
Thanks for fixing that K.C.
Sorry, didn’t notice the quote tag was incorrect. Fixed.
The Bush Doctrine was established to tie nations to the people who committed acts of terror. Essentially, Bush made an ultimatum that “you are either for us or against us” (us being the U.S.). This really goes way beyond what any country had done before. The U.S. took advantage of the hospitality of a regime it didn’t really like anyway and exploited the situation. They invaded Afghanistan to go after terrorists, but then decided to “democratize” a foreign nation - if you really could call Afghanistan a nation at that time given the state of the country. The effort to get the terrorists was botched, and the nation-building that Bush had campaigned against had suddenly become the new mission.
Military action doesn’t require the same evidence that’s required in a court of law. There’s also the matter of jurisdiction. U.S. law doesn’t apply in foreign nations. Now it is proper for any military action to have justification (most notably in terms of self defense). I really can’t see how even the events of 9/11 could justify the invasion of another country without proof that said country was involved. Since the U.S. did not declare war against Afghanistan, there’s no justification for occupation.
The correct course of action is to leave Afghanistan and take any people who wish to leave that may be caught up in the aftermath as the warlords take over.
Non sequitur, it has no bearing on whether invading Afghanistan was morally permissible.
yes, in your mind attacking and paying the enemy at the same time doesn’t matter before or during the war. as the Big Lie is a contradiction and thus anybody that buys it, sells it/Big Lie.
Well, personally I don’t believe strict adherence will succeed either. It won’t people or their ideas that lead us to a free society, it will be technology. The Internet has done more for liberty than Rothbard, Mises, Rockwell and all the rest combined as far as I’m concerned. We could all be socialists and the Internet would still usher us into a new age of freedom and liberty, with complete disregard to our wishes to the contrary.
So that’s why I think, while it may be ideal to be strictly consistent, it is irrelevant either way, and therefore am fond of the approach that spreads the word of liberty most rapidly. I’m probably misguided in this particular instance though. Schiff has been doing a damn good job already, he’s probably only going to mess it up if he gets elected.