• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Afghan President Rejects U.S. Apology Over Killings

VanceMack said:
Dang...these guys are going to piss off all those democrats who claim the 'real' war was with Afghanistan and not Iraq.

So...apparently...the Taliban government of Afghanistan allowing Al Qaida to freely operate within its borders and plan terrorist attacks is okie dokie.
Click to expand...

Then you admit it was al-quaeda and not the Taliban?
 
It's already been established that U.S. forces can be sloppy, or at worst malicious:



We know it's not true of everyone, but it happens. Karzai has every business, as the leader of Afghanistan, to denounce the killing of civilians. Why he is being resented for that is beyond me. NATO is there to stop insurgents and help with reconstruction. Mistakes are costly and sloppiness is unacceptable.
 
VanceMack said:
Dang...these guys are going to piss off all those democrats who claim the 'real' war was with Afghanistan and not Iraq.

So...apparently...the Taliban government of Afghanistan allowing Al Qaida to freely operate within its borders and plan terrorist attacks is okie dokie.
Click to expand...

If we use that logic, we would've invaded Saudia Arabia and Iran. Probably Turkey too since they helped protect and hide Yasin al Qadi, one of al-Qaeda's and Osama bin Laden's chief financiers.

CNN.com - World shock over U.S. attacks - September 11, 2001

In Islamabad, Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, said: "We want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain and we hope that the courts find justice."

In Kabul, Afghanistan, Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakel, the foreign minister of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban government, told the Arab television network Al Jazeera, "We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it."
 
Degreez said:
I'm saying our government stated the suspects behind the 9/11 attacks was not the Taliban. All hijackers were at least part Arabic, with aboslutely no Afghani descent. The funding for the attacks did not come from anywhere within Afghanistan. The 9/11 Commission Report stated that their is no evidence that any foreign government or government official supplied any funding. Yet we invaded two sovereign nations in response to the attacks. It doesn't take a genius to realize how moronic that is.
Click to expand...

You are correct, my earlier statement was incorrect. That was my mistake. That said, change my analogy to haboring and protecting and it remains the same. Their country of origin is far, far less relevant on who to take action against than other factors. The leader of the group that perpetrated the attack and his main base of operations at that time was Afghanistan. The Afghanistan government refused to assist in extraditing him or allowing US action against him, instead harboring and protecting him and his network. Now, they're absolutely free to do that. They are a sovereign country. However, in doing so they become co-conspirators in his actions and are subject to similar consequences.

Whether or not you agree with the Iraq War is off topic and irrelevant to the talk of Afghanistan specifically. They harbored and protected the leader and organization that perpetrated the attacks on not just our civilian population but on our military institution as well. Exactly what should we have done instead? When they said "no, we'll not turn him over" just kind of shrug and walk away?

Its pretty easy to state you denounce something, actions speak FAR louder however.

Seriously, if you have issues with invading of Afghanistan...that's fine. But to attempt to equate the fact some of the 9/11 hijackers were of Saudi descent and thus that reason alone makes SA a better target than Afghanistan as the original person implied is ridiculous. Some of them having been born in SA is not significantly more important at to where/how the U.S. should've reacted than the location of the leader/organization of the attacks and the country harboring said people.
 
Last edited:
SE102 said:
Then you admit it was al-quaeda and not the Taliban?
Click to expand...

Admit? Sure...I 'admit' it. I expressed it. I have never claimed otherwise. Neither did Bush when he cited his reason for ousting the taliban as the Afgan government and for that matter, neither have all the liberals that have stated they supported the war against the Taliban led Afghanistan government. From day one it was stated that Al Qaida planned and was responsible for the event and the Afghanistan government ruled by the Taliban was aiding and abetting and therefore fresposnble. You act like 'admitting' that is some massive new revelation. Where the **** have you been? Hell...thats the reason so many democrats have claimed that Afghanistan was the 'real' enemy and thsat we shouldnt have taken our sights of Aghanistan and then focused on Iraq. SURELY you know that. If not...ask a few liberals that claim support for the war against Afghanistan.
 
Degreez said:
If we use that logic, we would've invaded Saudia Arabia and Iran. Probably Turkey too since they helped protect and hide Yasin al Qadi, one of al-Qaeda's and Osama bin Laden's chief financiers.

CNN.com - World shock over U.S. attacks - September 11, 2001

In Islamabad, Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, said: "We want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain and we hope that the courts find justice."

In Kabul, Afghanistan, Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakel, the foreign minister of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban government, told the Arab television network Al Jazeera, "We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it."
Click to expand...

The logic stated was that the Bin laden led AlQaida terrorist organization was responsible for the attack on 9-11, and that the Taliban led government of Aghanistan was aiding and abetting the terrorist organization. Dont like that logic...take it up with all the Liberals that support the war against Afghanistan.
 
Degreez said:
Yes, it's in several newspapers. They responded to mortar fire without making sure where exactly it was coming from and who they were targeting.
Click to expand...

If you're getting the 'facts' from newspapers then you don't know exactly what happened. According to what I've read they were responding to rocket attacks, not mortar fire. How exactly this tradegy happed has yet to be determined. I don't believe much of what is printed in newspapers or reported on these days when it comes to Afghanistan.

The US and NATO are not sprinkling bombs all over Afghanistan with no reguard to civilians.


Degreez said:
Great deflection. Fallacious reasoning does not bode well here.
Click to expand...

No deflection. It puts civilian deaths in Afghanistan into perspective. There is serious doubt that the "65 civilians" claimed killed by Afghan's were in fact civilians and not jihadis.

Last week, in a different part of Kunar province, residents and the Afghan government claimed that a coalition operation had left 65 civilians dead. The coalition says that only insurgents were killed in that incident.
Read more: U.S.-led coalition admits it killed 9 Afghan boys in error - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com



Any outrage by Afghan's or Karzai over this incident? Large protests perhaps? No!?! I didn't think so. This was 3 days ago.

Afghan bomb kills 12 civilians
A Taliban-style Roadside Bomb tore through a car in eastern Afghanistan's Paktika province on Sunday, killing 12 civilians and wounding five others, the provincial administration said.

The dead included five Children, two women and five men.
http://politifi.com/news/Afghan-bomb-kills-12-civilians-1698143.html
 
Degreez said:
Yet we invaded two sovereign nations in response to the attacks. It doesn't take a genius to realize how moronic that is.
Click to expand...

This is just flat wrong.

Afghanistan was not a "sovereign nation" in 2001 and hadn't been for some years.

We did not liberate Iraq because of 9/11.

Where do you get this stuff from? Newspapers?
 
This information was issued jointly by the UN and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commissions.

The U.N. mission in Afghanistan put the number of civilians killed in 2010 at 2,777, a 15% increase over the previous year. About three-quarters of those deaths were caused by insurgents, the report said.

Most of the civilian casualties were capriciously random in nature, with hundreds of people dying in suicide attacks or roadside bombings. But the report also noted an ominous trend: a doubling of assassinations of government officials, tribal elders and similarly prominent figures. These targeted killings are viewed as an unambiguous warning by insurgents against cooperating with the administration of President Hamid Karzai or with the Western military force.

As it did in the previous year, the report charted a drop in the proportion of deaths caused by the Western military, this time of 26%.
Afghan civilian deaths: 2010 deadliest year for Afghan civilians - latimes.com
 
Ron Mars said:
If you're getting the 'facts' from newspapers then you don't know exactly what happened. According to what I've read they were responding to rocket attacks, not mortar fire. How exactly this tradegy happed has yet to be determined. I don't believe much of what is printed in newspapers or reported on these days when it comes to Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
It's called reporting, and that's what you go by with current events. If you have a problem with credibility, this has been on Associated Press and Reuters. I know what happened based on the reporting of the situation. You are ignorant of the situation because you choose to ignore the reporting of a current event and instead formulate your own opinion on what happens. Which do you think is more accurate?
Ron Mars said:
The US and NATO are not sprinkling bombs all over Afghanistan with no reguard to civilians.
Click to expand...
I never said they were? You have A LOT to learn if this is how you intend on carrying a civil debate.

Ron Mars said:
No deflection. It puts civilian deaths in Afghanistan into perspective. There is serious doubt that the "65 civilians" claimed killed by Afghan's were in fact civilians and not jihadis.
Click to expand...
It is a deflection and a false analogy, which makes it an informal fallacy -- an argument whose premise is entirely faulty. Comparing civilian deaths between a total war situation and multiple countries with a counter insurgency that uses assymetric warfare is completely asinine.

Ron Mars said:
Last week, in a different part of Kunar province, residents and the Afghan government claimed that a coalition operation had left 65 civilians dead. The coalition says that only insurgents were killed in that incident.
Read more: U.S.-led coalition admits it killed 9 Afghan boys in error - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought you don't trust news reports on events that are currently happening?
 
Ron Mars said:
This is just flat wrong.

Afghanistan was not a "sovereign nation" in 2001 and hadn't been for some years.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. Civil war does not eliminate a nation's sovereignty by any means.
Ron Mars said:
We did not liberate Iraq because of 9/11.

Where do you get this stuff from? Newspapers?
Click to expand...
LOL at the use of the term liberate. We supported their dictator and armed him when it suited us. Then we deposed of him under false pretenses and when it suited our interests in the region. We are nothing short of hypocrites.
 
VanceMack said:
The logic stated was that the Bin laden led AlQaida terrorist organization was responsible for the attack on 9-11, and that the Taliban led government of Aghanistan was aiding and abetting the terrorist organization. Dont like that logic...take it up with all the Liberals that support the war against Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

And according to OUR GOVERNMENT, the Taliban were not aiding the Al-Qaeda organization at all. Providing a safe haven is not a violation of any international treaty. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Palestinan Authority have all done it multiple times and yet we have not invaded any of them. Instead, we have given them billions of dollars with a giant percentage being smuggled to insurgents.
 
Degreez said:
It's called reporting, and that's what you go by with current events.
Click to expand...

Except when those "reporting" the 'news' have no more idea what actually happened than you do.

Degreez said:
I never said they were?
Click to expand...

without making sure where exactly it was coming from and who they were targeting

Sure you did.

Degreez said:
It is a deflection and a false analogy, which makes it an informal fallacy -- an argument whose premise is entirely faulty. Comparing civilian deaths between a total war situation and multiple countries with a counter insurgency that uses assymetric warfare is completely asinine.
Click to expand...

We are talking about civilian casualties as a result of liberating a nation by force. It's absolutely relevant.

If you don't like history poking it's nose around the corner to place things into perspective then too bad.


Degreez said:
Wait, I thought you don't trust news reports on events that are currently happening?
Click to expand...

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.

Nice try.
 
Degreez said:
Yes, it was. Civil war does not eliminate a nation's sovereignty by any means.
Click to expand...

Complete and total BS. There was no sovereign government in Afghanistan in 2001 and there hadn't been for some years.

Degreez said:
LOL at the use of the term liberate. We supported their dictator and armed him when it suited us. Then we deposed of him under false pretenses and when it suited our interests in the region. We are nothing short of hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Then you need to brush up on the meaning of liberation.

We armed Saddam? Deposed under false pretenses?

We did not arm Saddam and as far as WMD is concerned, the ISG is a treasure trove of information regarding Saddam's WMD programs.

Again, nice try.

BTW, where have you been for the last few decades? A lot has happened and you seem to be completely unaware of it.
 
Degreez said:
Providing a safe haven is not a violation of any international treaty. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Palestinan Authority have all done it multiple times and yet we have not invaded any of them.
Click to expand...

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..."

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.
 
Ron Mars said:
Except when those "reporting" the 'news' have no more idea what actually happened than you do.
Click to expand...
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.

Ron Mars said:
without making sure where exactly it was coming from and who they were targeting

Sure you did.
Click to expand...
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.

Ron Mars said:
We are talking about civilian casualties as a result of liberating a nation by force. It's absolutely relevant.
Click to expand...

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.

Ron Mars said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
donsutherland1 said:
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..."
Click to expand...
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?
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Degreez said:
Hence why I said international treaty.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Degreez said:
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.
Click to expand...

Until an official report is released only those involved know exactly what happened. We'll have to wait.

Degreez said:
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.
Click to expand...

The US and NATO are two of the very few reliable sources of information about Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Treaties are a narrow part of international law.
Click to expand...
...

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.

donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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).

donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ron Mars said:
Until an official report is released only those involved know exactly what happened. We'll have to wait.
Click to expand...
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. :roll: Do you see how asinine your reasoning is?

Ron Mars said:
The US and NATO are two of the very few reliable sources of information about Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Official US documents from WikiLeaks contradict that sentiment. The US and NATO are not impartial.
 
Degreez said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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”?

Degreez said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


Degreez said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?

Degreez said:
Official US documents from WikiLeaks contradict that sentiment. The US and NATO are not impartial.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

 
Kane said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pardon me while I gag.:toilet:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom