Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53

Thread: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    Except when those "reporting" the 'news' have no more idea what actually happened than you do.
    Do you have any evidence any of the reports about what happened are entirely based on speculation? Otherwise, all you have is hearsay from a group that participated in the attack. That is not impartial. That is not credible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    without making sure where exactly it was coming from and who they were targeting

    Sure you did.
    So in this one instance about this particular event, you take one statement and attribute a hasty generalization to me. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. You truly need to learn how to engage in a civil debate. I never once insinuated that NATO forces are just dropping bombs all over Afghanistan with total disregard for what they hit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    We are talking about civilian casualties as a result of liberating a nation by force. It's absolutely relevant.
    And it is still a false analogy. World War II was total war. What's happening in Afghanistan is not. If you cannot see the difference and why your analogy is completely fallacious, then there is no hope discussing anything with someone who has to resort to faulty logic to attempt to prove a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    You can cancel the wait and take a breath.

    The article was pointing out that NATO disputes the claim by Afghan's that 65 'civilians' had been killed in Kunar province.

    The US military and NATO are the only credible sources of information in Afghanistan.
    LMAO. NATO is not impartial and anything they say happens in the region will always reek of bias. They have plenty to gain by twisting the truth. You consider that credible, LMAO.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Two quick things:

    1. Harboring terrorist organizations is, in fact, a violation of international law, at least as set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions. For example, UNSC Res. 1373, which followed the 2001 terrorist attacks declared, among other things, "all States shall... Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens" and "Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens..."
    Hence why I said international treaty. UN Security Council resolutions are joke, even when adopted under Chapter VII. Article 25 of the UN Charter states that all member states agree to carry out and implement the decisions of the Security Council. Therefore, every resolution is binding upon all members to carry out. Has every resolution been carried out by all member states to the UN? Has even 5% of all resolutions been implemented?
    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    2. At least as important as the first point, nations will act when their critical interests are threatened or attacked. The Taliban leadership was given an opportunity to hand over Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. The Taliban refused. Given that Al Qaeda launched the terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, there is no doubt whatsoever about the magnitude of the national interest involved.
    They actually said they would extradite him if the United States presented evidence of his involvement in 9/11. We refused that request.

    Even then, my initial contention still remains. Iran harbours terrorists. Yemen harbour(ed) terrorists. The Palestinian Authority has done the same. They all, except Iran, have elements of Al-Qaeda within their territory. Yet we have not invaded any of them for violating UNSCR 1373.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Hence why I said international treaty.
    Treaties are a narrow part of international law.

    They actually said they would extradite him if the United States presented evidence of his involvement in 9/11. We refused that request.
    No. The Taliban did not agree to extradite him. It stated that it would "consider" extraditing him based on the evidence. That was far too ambiguous and uncertain.

    Even then, my initial contention still remains. Iran harbours terrorists. Yemen harbour(ed) terrorists. The Palestinian Authority has done the same. They all, except Iran, have elements of Al-Qaeda within their territory. Yet we have not invaded any of them for violating UNSCR 1373.
    U.S. interests differ. That the Palestinian Authority or Yemen or others might harbor terrorists does not mean that the U.S. will automatically go to war. In the case of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Taliban were not only harboring a terrorist organization, they were doing so even after it launched attacks on U.S. soil. Critical U.S. interests were involved. Finally, the Al Qaeda infrastructure and presence in Afghanistan was far greater than it is in many other countries in which Al Qaeda has some personnel scattered about.

  4. #44
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Do you have any evidence any of the reports about what happened are entirely based on speculation? Otherwise, all you have is hearsay from a group that participated in the attack. That is not impartial. That is not credible.
    Until an official report is released only those involved know exactly what happened. We'll have to wait.

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    LMAO. NATO is not impartial and anything they say happens in the region will always reek of bias. They have plenty to gain by twisting the truth. You consider that credible, LMAO.
    The US and NATO are two of the very few reliable sources of information about Afghanistan.
    Last edited by Ron Mars; 03-11-11 at 05:22 PM.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Treaties are a narrow part of international law.
    ...

    Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as: (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, exchange of letters, etc.
    I think international conventions on say... the laws of armed conflict are a much bigger part of international law than... UN Security Council resolutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    No. The Taliban did not agree to extradite him. It stated that it would "consider" extraditing him based on the evidence. That was far too ambiguous and uncertain.
    "Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence."

    Those are the words of Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan at the time. If they could provide evidence of bin Laden's guilt, they would extradite him. The US ignored the request. There are no extradition treaties between the US and Afghanistan.
    Extradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.

    There are also numerous restrictions countries place when considering to extradite someone (ie - the EU extraditing someone wanted for a capital offense punishable by the death penalty).

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    U.S. interests differ. That the Palestinian Authority or Yemen or others might harbor terrorists does not mean that the U.S. will automatically go to war. In the case of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Taliban were not only harboring a terrorist organization, they were doing so even after it launched attacks on U.S. soil. Critical U.S. interests were involved. Finally, the Al Qaeda infrastructure and presence in Afghanistan was far greater than it is in many other countries in which Al Qaeda has some personnel scattered about.
    OK? Al Qaeda's infrastructure and presence was far greater in Pakistan than in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. We had no credible knowledge on bin Laden's exact location, he could have been in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Yet we did not invade Pakistan, even though criticl US interests were involved more heavily in that region.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    Until an official report is released only those involved know exactly what happened. We'll have to wait.
    Oh yeah, you're right... I guess when the Twin Towers were hit, no one could say absolutely that terrorists hi-jacked planes and flew them in there because the 9/11 Commission Report was not released. Do you see how asinine your reasoning is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    The US and NATO are two of the very few reliable sources of information about Afghanistan.
    Official US documents from WikiLeaks contradict that sentiment. The US and NATO are not impartial.

  7. #47
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    "Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence." Those are the words of Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan at the time.
    The evidence al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 is irrefutable.

    Did you really expect the US to take the word of a Taliban “ambassador”?

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    We had no credible knowledge on bin Laden's exact location, he could have been in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Yet we did not invade Pakistan, even though criticl US interests were involved more heavily in that region.
    We had very credible intelligence that OBL was in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan and escaped. The Pakistan President gave the US a great deal of help after 9/11 so there was no need to invade them.
    Pervez Musharraf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Oh yeah, you're right... I guess when the Twin Towers were hit, no one could say absolutely that terrorists hi-jacked planes and flew them in there because the 9/11 Commission Report was not released. Do you see how asinine your reasoning is?
    There was much that was reported about 9/11 that was inaccurate in the first weeks afterward. It took months to piece together exactly how it happened, who exactly was responsible, and who funded them and if more attacks were planned. OBL initially denied responsibility.

    News reports at the time claimed to know where he was and how he escaped. And yet to this day we still don't know that.

    It’s asinine for anyone to believe media reports about events like the killing of civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan shortly after they happen. The “reporting” rarely looks anything like the final official report. I learned that lesson in the 80’s. Haditha ring a bell?

    Hillary and 0bama apologized over the killing of around 20 civilians in Afghanistan a little over a year ago. The media went crazy with accusations just like they are today. It turned out the civilians were killed by jihadis. Remember that incident?

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Official US documents from WikiLeaks contradict that sentiment. The US and NATO are not impartial.
    I’m open to reading anything you have that proves NATO or CENTCOM is fabricating information in their press releases. So far, they have proven to be quite accurate.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  8. #48
    Professor
    Kane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    09-09-13 @ 09:13 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,661

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Yep. Both parties are imperialist, so when you turn on CNN and Cooper is talking about human rights in Iran, you know its just soylent cow pies!

    Funny how Cooper diesn't discuss human rights in Iraq and Af-Pak while the drones rain down on women and children.


  9. #49
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane View Post
    Yep. Both parties are imperialist, so when you turn on CNN and Cooper is talking about human rights in Iran, you know its just soylent cow pies!

    Funny how Cooper diesn't discuss human rights in Iraq and Af-Pak while the drones rain down on women and children.

    Cooper isn't discussing drones raining bombs on women and children because he knows the US and NATO are not doing that.

    He would loose all credibility if he did.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  10. #50
    Professor
    Kane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    09-09-13 @ 09:13 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,661

    Re: Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

    Pardon me while I gag.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •