US to sign historic deal with Taliban, Trump announces, beginning end of US war in Afghanistan and w

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not a single one of the hijackers were Afghans.

Picky, picky, picky.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, but the ones who hid the man responsible were.

The Taliban:

1. very likely did not know what Osama bin Laden was planning;
   *
2. were not at all involved in what Osama bin Laden was planning;
   *
3. had nothing to do with the execution of what Osama bin Laden had planned;
   *
   and
   *
4. despite the fact that the US and Afghanistan had no extradition treaty between them, actually offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US if the US made a request for his extradition and complied with the norms of international law with respect to that request.

The US government was NOT prepared to comply with the norms of international law with respect to extradition and demanded that the Taliban turn Osama bin Laden over to it based purely on a demand that the Taliban (which the US government did not even acknowledge as the government of Afghanistan) do so.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thanks you for letting me know.

They all trained or traveled to Afghanistan. We need to make sure no training/recruitment camps reopen after we leave.

You mean just like the US did in the Kurdish Autonomous Region?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So you are sending your kid back to Afghanistan to continue the fight right.. Or do you just expect other families to bear that burden.

I have 4 rotations to Afghanistan. How many more should my family have to put up with.

That's a very good question and I have no idea how long you should be "over there".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If they set up terrorist camps and start training folks to attack us, then yes, we should intervene.

And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack _[fill in the blank with the name of a country OTHER THAN the United States of America]_"?

 

[ClaraD]

So you are sending your kid back to Afghanistan to continue the fight right.. Or do you just expect other families to bear that burden.

I have 4 rotations to Afghanistan. How many more should my family have to put up with.

he is 100% disabled...I have no say nor does he. I seriously doubt you are doing any rotations if you did not know that a 100% disabled combat vet cannot be sent back into action. Also, just like my son you VOLUNTEERED for that situation and you can always not re enlist any time you no longer want to be sent to Afghanistan.

 

[ClaraD]

The Taliban:

1. very likely did not know what Osama bin Laden was planning;
   *
2. were not at all involved in what Osama bin Laden was planning;
   *
3. had nothing to do with the execution of what Osama bin Laden had planned;
   *
   and
   *
4. despite the fact that the US and Afghanistan had no extradition treaty between them, actually offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US if the US made a request for his extradition and complied with the norms of international law with respect to that request.

The US government was NOT prepared to comply with the norms of international law with respect to extradition and demanded that the Taliban turn Osama bin Laden over to it based purely on a demand that the Taliban (which the US government did not even acknowledge as the government of Afghanistan) do so.

sorry, but I remember them specifically knowing he was responsible for the attack and still refusing to hand him over.

We won't hand over bin Laden, say defiant Taliban - Telegraph

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

sorry, but I remember them specifically knowing he was responsible for the attack and still refusing to hand him over.

We won't hand over bin Laden, say defiant Taliban - Telegraph

When you stop reading before you get to the

"The Americans should show control, conduct an investigation and show us proof before they attack. The United Nations and Organisation of Islamic Conference should also investigate," he said.
​

bit in the article, you really do get a slightly misleading impression of what the Taliban actually offered.

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty".
[SOURCE "Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over "]

The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, Taliban’s last foreign minister, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview that his government had made several proposals to the United States to present the al-Qaeda leader, considered the mastermind of the 2001 attacks, for trial for his involvement in plots targeting US facilities during the 1990s.

"Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC]," Muttawakil said.
[SOURCE "Taliban 'offered bin Laden trial before 9/11'"]

U.S. government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and recently posted on the website of the George Washington University National Security Archive shed some additional light on talks with the Taliban prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including with regard to the repeated Taliban offers to hand over Osama bin Laden, and the role of Pakistan before and after the attacks.
[SOURCE "Newly Disclosed Documents Shed More Light on Early Taliban Offers, Pakistan Role"]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law.

The offer came as the United States massed forces in southwest Asia for a possible strike against Afghanistan if the Taliban refuse to surrender bin Laden. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer and repeated U.S. demands that bin Laden be turned over unconditionally.
[SOURCE "U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden"]

Afghanistan's ruling Taliban said Sunday that militant fugitive Osama bin Laden could be handed to a neutral country for trial if the United States provided sufficient evidence. Maulvi Abdul Kabir, number two in the Taliban, urged the United States to remember the days when Afghanistan and the United States were allied in a holy war against Soviet occupation -- and to hold talks.

However, he declined to specify which country could be acceptable as a site for the trial of bin Laden. "We can't identify the country unless we are given the evidence against Osama," he said.

Washington lost little time in rejecting the offer, which appeared to edge slightly away from earlier demands that any trial be held in an Islamic country. White House spokeswoman Anne Womack reiterated that talks were out of the question. "The president has made it clear there will be no negotiations," she said in Washington.
[SOURCE "U.S. Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over to Third Party"]
​

and there are lots of others along the same line (which, obviously, you do NOT "remember").

 

[eman623]

You mean just like the US did in the Kurdish Autonomous Region?

And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack _[fill in the blank with the name of a country OTHER THAN the United States of America]_"?

Uh, context?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Uh, context?

1. "You mean just like the US did in the Kurdish Autonomous Region?"
   
   
   

   • The only al-Qa'eda training camps in Iraq were in the Kurdish Autonomous Region. The Kurdish Autonomous Region was protected from being attacked (by anyone) by the US government. The Kurds made no attempts to attack the al-Qa'eda training camps that were in the Kurdish Autonomous Region. The Kurds were supported by the US government. That means that the US government was protecting al-Qa'eda training camps from being attacked AND that the US government was supporting the Kurds who were not doing anything to eliminate the al-Qa'eda training camps.
   *
2. And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack _[fill in the blank with the name of a country OTHER THAN the United States of America]_"?
   
   
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Canada, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack the UK, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Germany, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Russia, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack China, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Japan, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Syria, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Israel, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack South Africa, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Argentina, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Cuba, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack Switzerland, BUT NOT the United States of America"?

   *
   

   • And what would your position be if they "set up terrorist camps and started training folks to attack ...

​

 

[eman623]

1. "You mean just like the US did in the Kurdish Autonomous Region?"

1. 
   
   A little more context, please. What camp are you referring to? Do you have a link?
   
   And I am still not sure what your point is. There shouldn't be any terrorist training camps anywhere training people to launch terrorist attacks in any countries. If we allowed one to exist in Kurdish territory, then that was wrong.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A little more context, please. What camp are you referring to? Do you have a link?

Feel free to start with

• "Al-Qaida running new terror camp, say Kurds"

*

• "Al-Qaeda Kurdish Battalions"

*

• "The Link Between Iraq and Al Qaeda?"

*

and go on from there.

And I am still not sure what your point is.

My point is that the US government has absolutely no objections to terrorists and/or terrorism as long as they are "OUR terrorists" and "the terrorism is for OUR benefit".

There shouldn't be any terrorist training camps anywhere training people to launch terrorist attacks in any countries.

Agreed, but there are a whole lot of things that shouldn't be.

If we allowed one to exist in Kurdish territory, then that was wrong.

Are you saying that something that the government of the United States of America did is "wrong"????

Do you have your suitcase packed so that you are ready to go off to the camps?

 

[eman623]

Feel free to start with

• "Al-Qaida running new terror camp, say Kurds"

*

• "Al-Qaeda Kurdish Battalions"

*

• "The Link Between Iraq and Al Qaeda?"

*

and go on from there.

I don't see where the US government was protecting any of those camps. In the first link, there's mention of a Kurdish camp in 2002. We eventually invaded Iraq a year later and presumably shut it down. No mention of us protecting it.

The Wikipedia and ABC links do not even mention camps in Kurdish areas.

Seems like you're just being a curmedgeon and throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't see where the US government was protecting any of those camps. In the first link, there's mention of a Kurdish camp in 2002. We eventually invaded Iraq a year later and presumably shut it down. No mention of us protecting it.

The Wikipedia and ABC links do not even mention camps in Kurdish areas.

Seems like you're just being a curmedgeon and throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick.

I said "and go on from there". Feel free not to if you so chose.

 

[eman623]

I said "and go on from there". Feel free not to if you so chose.

LOL. Back up your own claims, if you can.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

LOL. Back up your own claims, if you can.

Try [h=3]Al-Qaeda's Armies - Washington Institute[/h]
and go on from there.

 

[eman623]

Try [h=3]Al-Qaeda's Armies - Washington Institute[/h]
and go on from there.

Sorry, I'm not going to read through a 200+ page book to look for something that may or may not be there. You lost your credibility the last time when you threw up a wall of irrelevant links.

If you can point me to a particular page to back up your claim that the US government set up or was protecting al-Qaeda in the Kurdish Autonomous Region, then do so. Otherwise, admit you were just blowing smoke and we're done.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sorry, I'm not going to read through a 200+ page book to look for something that may or may not be there.

I didn't think that you would be interested in reading anything that didn't conform to your established opinion.

You lost your credibility the last time when you threw up a wall of irrelevant links.

Links that you don't actually bother to read (and think about [and follow up on]) are very easy to label as "irrelevant".

If you can point me to a particular page to back up your claim that the US government set up or was protecting al-Qaeda in the Kurdish Autonomous Region, then do so.

The US government was protecting the KAR, the US government was protecting the Kurds, the Kurds were allowing al-Qa'eda (and others of like ilk) to conduct training camps in the KAR.

Obviously, since the US government was only protecting those who were protecting al-Qa'eda, that means that the US government was NOT protecting al-Qa'eda (as far as you are concerned). Of course, since the Taliban was only protecting al-Qa'eda and didn't actually attack the US themselves that same logic would mean that the US had absolutely no cause to attack Afghanistan.

Otherwise, admit you were just blowing smoke and we're done.

I am more than willing to admit that you are not prepared to look at any evidence that does not conform to your preconceived ideas.

 

[eman623]

I am more than willing to admit that you are not prepared to look at any evidence that does not conform to your preconceived ideas.

Present some and we'll see. Not buried in a 200 page book.

Given your past record in this conversation, I'm not holding my breath. You either offer off-topic links that don't back up your claim, or you expect me to do your work for you.

 

[cpwill]

You should be aware that "The Taliban" (in Afghanistan) is NOT, and never has been, on the US government list of terrorist organizations.

The Haqqani Network definitely is, and is more thoroughly interwoven in the Taliban than the local AQ affiliate. Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of that terrorist organization, is the Taliban deputy Emir.

Keeping the Taliban off that list may have legally allowed us to pretend we weren't negotiating with terrorists, but it is a pretense.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Haqqani Network definitely is, and is more thoroughly interwoven in the Taliban than the local AQ affiliate. Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of that terrorist organization, is the Taliban deputy Emir.

Keeping the Taliban off that list may have legally allowed us to pretend we weren't negotiating with terrorists, but it is a pretense.

Pretense or not, the FACT is that "The Taliban" (simpliciter) has NEVER been declared to be a terrorist organization by the US government.

PS - It is NOT "illegal" for the US government to "negotiate with terrorists" - only "people" are forbidden from having dealings with "terrorists".

 

[Plasmaball]

Thanks you for letting me know.

They all trained or traveled to Afghanistan. We need to make sure no training/recruitment camps reopen after we leave.

They also trained in florida....so....when we taking that down?