Abbottabad Bin Laden Raid

[Muji.Iqbal]

Yes, Iraq war was illegal. I agree with you on this part.
It is painful to see how a magnificent country is reduced to its current meaningless state. But it would be better to ask Iraqi people - what they have to say about Iraq in its current form.

Al-Qaeda Network activities were not difficult to uncover but Afghan Taliban under Mullah Omar were too close to Al-Qaeda Network to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US to be trialed in American courts. Mullah Omar's offer was to put Osama Bin Laden on trial in a 3rd country but US did not find this offer satisfactory. US had cautioned Afghan Taliban that Al-Qaeda Network is bad news even before 9/11 but Afghan Taliban were indifferent to these statements.

Now Afghan Taliban understand better - after US decided to take matters into its hands.

United Nations allows US to take action against a terrorist organization that is seeking to harm Americans in UN Resolution 1373. In fact, language of this resolution allows any country to do so.

Thank you for your honest and fair response. See I know there are sensible people in this world.

Yes USA is not bad all the time, but in recent history they have not been honest.

 

[LeGenD]

Thank you for your honest and fair response. See I know there are sensible people in this world.

Yes USA is not bad all the time, but in recent history they have not been honest.

You're welcome, bro.

Glad to converse with you.

 

[HGV]

United Nations allows US to take action against a terrorist organization that is seeking to harm Americans in UN Resolution 1373. In fact, language of this resolution allows any country to do so.

This is a lie. Nothing in UNSCR 1373 allows any country to violate the sovereignty of another nation in contravention to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Nothing in UNSCR 1373 even refers to Americans specifically (except to condemn the 9/11 attacks in the preamble).

 

[ziaulislam]

Faujeets love diverting the topic away from the main issue.

Notice how Faujeets can't explain why and how American helicopters were allowed to fly 150 kilometres into Pakistani airspace, engage in a 45 minute gun battle down the road from the Pakistan Military Academy during which one of the helicopters were shot down, then proceeded to fly back to Afghanistan without the Pakistan military command even being alerted.

Not one PAF jet was scrambled.

See Faujeets like to try and divert attention away from the actual debate.

Whether or not Bin Laden was there or not there still puts the Pakistan military into question.

1. If he wasn't there, why did the Pakistan military not shoot down the American helicopters once they violated our air space? Why didn't the Pakistan government refute American claims?

2. If he was there, why was he being housed just meters away from PMA? If Pakistan claims to be a member of the American War on Terror then why wasn't he given to the Americans?

Either way you lose Faujeet



Unfortunately not everyone understands the concept of quality vs quantity.

GHQ bots think writing paragraphs of English means they're smart.

Reality :
View attachment 945507

He was there and military didn't want to hand over and kept feeding false intelligence
Once Americans knew and told army we are coming they didn't and couldn't respond and allowed it to happen and pretended ignorance

Pakistan was always playing double game with only goal being

Be it Ben laden or fake intelligence regarding to drone attacks or Afghan war

Like any mercenary organization the goal is always profit

PS
THE ABOVE IS AMERICAN POINT VIEW
COULDN'T FIND ANY PAKISTANI POINT OF VIEW

 

[LeGenD]

This is a lie. Nothing in UNSCR 1373 allows any country to violate the sovereignty of another nation in contravention to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Nothing in UNSCR 1373 even refers to Americans specifically (except to condemn the 9/11 attacks in the preamble).

From UN Resolution 1373:

Reaffirming also its unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks which took place in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001, and expressing its determination to prevent all such acts,

How US could prevent attacks on its assets and individuals by not taking action against Al-Qaeda Network?

UN Resolution 1373 builds upon a number of earlier UN Resolutions:

On 12 September 2001, in Resolution 1368, the UN Security Council strongly condemned the terrorist attacks against the US but stopped short of authorising the use of force.Instead, the Council expressed 'its readiness to take all necessary steps', thus implicitly encouraging the US to seek authorisation once its military plans were complete.

It was reported that the US, at this point, decided not to return to the Council to secure that authorisation. Perhaps it was concerned that other members might seek to impose a time limit on the mandate, or only authorise such force as was necessary to capture Osama Bin Laden. But it seems that the US may then have changed its mind. On 28 September2001, in Resolution 1373, the Council adopted language that could be argued to constitute an almost unlimited mandate to use force.

The language was buried among a number of provisions concerning the freezing of terrorist assets. When those are separated out, the key passage reads:

'The Security Council....'
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations....'
2. Decides also that all States shall: ...'
(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including...

Terrorism, The use of Force and International Law After 11 September | International & Comparative Law Quarterly | Cambridge Core

Terrorism, The use of Force and International Law After 11 September - Volume 51 Issue 2

www.cambridge.org

UN Resolution 1383 builds further on the issue.

Resolution 1386 (2001) /

digitallibrary.un.org

UN Resolution 1373 also calls upon all states to not support terrorist organizations:

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

Multiple clauses in fact.

Pakistan needs to learn a lesson from this saga.
Do not assume that a superpower has unlimited patience for those who provide safe havens to terrorist organizations.

 

[HGV]

From UN Resolution 1373:

Reaffirming also its unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks whichtook place in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001,and expressing its determination to prevent all such acts,

How US could prevent attacks on its assets and individuals by not taking action against Al-Qaeda Network?

That section in the preamble just provides context for the resolution and does not expressly refer to Al-Qaeda. The rest of the Resolution goes on to explain precisely what steps the UNSC members envisaged ought to be taken (e.g. information exchange). None of those include giving states the right to violate the sovereignty of other states, which would violate a core principle of the UN enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which I encourage you to read.

UN Resolution 1373 builds upon a number of earlier UN Resolutions:

On 12 September 2001, in Resolution 1368, the UN Security Council strongly condemned the terrorist attacks against the US but stopped short of authorising the use of force.Instead, the Council expressed 'its readiness to take all necessary steps', thus implicitly encouraging the US to seek authorisation once its military plans were complete.

The inference is that author's alone, but even so does not substantiate your claim.

It was reported that the US, at this point, decided not to return to the Council to secure that authorisation.

I think this rests my case. Even this author concedes that UNSCR 1368 "stopped short of authorising the use of force" and that the US did not return to the UNSC to "secure that authorisation".

On 28 September2001, in Resolution 1373, the Council adopted language that could be argued to constitute an almost unlimited mandate to use force.

I refer you to reference 7 of the same article you cite:

"A passage in the Namibia Advisory Opinion ((1971) ICJ Reports 15, 53) provides one of the very few authoritative guides to the interpretation of Security Council resolutions: ‘The language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed … having regard to the terms of the resolution to be interpreted, the discussions leading to it, the Charter provisions invoked and, in general, all circumstances that might assist in determining the legal consequences …’. The context of Resolution 1373 and the kinds of ‘steps’ identified all suggest an interpretation that does not include a Chapter VII authorisation for the use of force."

UN Resolution 1373 also calls upon all states to not support terrorist organizations:

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

Multiple clauses in fact.

Indeed. But totally irrelevant to your original assertion that UNSCR 1373 authorised the US to invade other countries at will to protect Americans from terrorists (completely false and ignorant of international law).

 

[Sayfullah]

Yes, Iraq war was illegal. I agree with you on this part.
It is painful to see how a magnificent country is reduced to its current meaningless state. But it would be better to ask Iraqi people - what they have to say about Iraq in its current form.

Al-Qaeda Network activities were not difficult to uncover but Afghan Taliban under Mullah Omar were too close to Al-Qaeda Network to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US to be trialed in American courts. Mullah Omar's offer was to put Osama Bin Laden on trial in a 3rd country but US did not find this offer satisfactory. US had cautioned Afghan Taliban that Al-Qaeda Network is bad news even before 9/11 but Afghan Taliban were indifferent to these statements.

Now Afghan Taliban understand better - after US decided to take matters into its hands.

United Nations allows US to take action against a terrorist organization that is seeking to harm Americans in UN Resolution 1373. In fact, language of this resolution allows any country to do so.

UN (American proxy) allows US (biggest terrorist group) to illegally invade a country to “take action” against another terrorist group?

It proves “might is right”.

Speaking about war, there’s strategic targets which help the country with its existence and indirectly its war fighting capability. Economic hubs are targets in all out wars. Same way Americans destroy economic capabilities of regimes or countries it fights. Also, collateral is inevitable in war. But it’s only called collateral in third world countries but terrorism in first world countries. Anyways this is a messy topic. It isn’t to debate with you. Just found it interesting.

 

[HGV]

UN (American proxy) allows US (biggest terrorist group) to illegally invade a country to “take action” against another terrorist group?

That did not happen. Kindly read the last few posts clarifying what actually happened.

 

[LeGenD]

That section in the preamble just provides context for the resolution and does not expressly refer to Al-Qaeda. The rest of the Resolution goes on to explain precisely what steps the UNSC members envisaged ought to be taken (e.g. information exchange). None of those include giving states the right to violate the sovereignty of other states, which would violate a core principle of the UN enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which I encourage you to read.


The inference is that author's alone, but even so does not substantiate your claim.


I think this rests my case. Even this author concedes that UNSCR 1368 "stopped short of authorising the use of force" and that the US did not return to the UNSC to "secure that authorisation".


I refer you to reference 7 of the same article you cite:

"A passage in the Namibia Advisory Opinion ((1971) ICJ Reports 15, 53) provides one of the very few authoritative guides to the interpretation of Security Council resolutions: ‘The language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed … having regard to the terms of the resolution to be interpreted, the discussions leading to it, the Charter provisions invoked and, in general, all circumstances that might assist in determining the legal consequences …’. The context of Resolution 1373 and the kinds of ‘steps’ identified all suggest an interpretation that does not include a Chapter VII authorisation for the use of force."


Indeed. But totally irrelevant to your original assertion that UNSCR 1373 authorised the US to invade other countries at will to protect Americans from terrorists (completely false and ignorant of international law).

UN acknowledge the right of a country to self-defense in Article 51. This right is re-stated in the UN Resolution 1373.

UN also encourage a country to report its measures taken under self-defense. US informed the UN Security Council in 2001 that it is taking military action against Al-Qaeda Network in Afghanistan due to its involvement in 9/11. In view of this disclosure, UN approved the need to create ISAF in Afghanistan in the UN Resolution 1386.

Therefore.

 

[kingQamaR]

Yes, Iraq war was illegal. I agree with you on this part.
It is painful to see how a magnificent country is reduced to its current meaningless state. But it would be better to ask Iraqi people - what they have to say about Iraq in its current form.

Al-Qaeda Network activities were not difficult to uncover but Afghan Taliban under Mullah Omar were too close to Al-Qaeda Network to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US to be trialed in American courts. Mullah Omar's offer was to put Osama Bin Laden on trial in a 3rd country but US did not find this offer satisfactory. US had cautioned Afghan Taliban that Al-Qaeda Network is bad news even before 9/11 but Afghan Taliban were indifferent to these statements.

Now Afghan Taliban understand better - after US decided to take matters into its hands.

United Nations allows US to take action against a terrorist organization that is seeking to harm Americans in UN Resolution 1373. In fact, language of this resolution allows any country to do so.

The people who did it are still walking around in the Saudi Arabia free as birds Al Qaeda membership consisted of Muslims from different countries and were strongly supported by Saudi Arabian and gulf monarchs . 13th of the 19th hijackers were Saudis nationals? Was US best friend and ally in Middle East aka isreal. Bin ladan himself was Saudi Arabian and he was stupidly protected by the Taliban of an ancient tribal code called Pashtunwali protection of your guest at all cost was their undoing seen by the west supporting Osama and Al Qaeda giving them a safe haven. That was not true , taliban were village people who did not understand how the modern world functioned and laws. I wish US had given Taliban offer a strong consideration might have saved hundred and thousands of innocent deaths.

 

[HGV]

UN acknowledge the right of a country to self-defense in Article 51. This right is re-stated in the UN Resolution 1373.

Stating the obvious, yes, doesn't change anything.

In view of this disclosure, UN approved the need to create ISAF in Afghanistan in the UN Resolution 1383.

Show me where UNSCR 1383 "approved the need to create ISAF in Afghanistan"

ISAF was endorsed in UNSCR 1386 not 1383 and was created months after the US invasion of Afghanistan, so it cannot have (and did not) approved the US invasion of Afghanistan itself.

 

[LeGenD]

Stating the obvious, yes, doesn't change anything.

Show me where UNSCR 1383 "approved the need to create ISAF in Afghanistan"

ISAF was endorsed in UNSCR 1386 not 1383 and was created months after the US invasion of Afghanistan, so it cannot have (and did not) approved the US invasion of Afghanistan itself.

Typing error.

UN Resolution 1383 approved the need to create interim Afghan setup.

UN Resolution 1386 approved the need to create ISAF in Afghanistan.

UN was kept in the loop while US took action against Al-Qaeda Network in the region. Nobody opposed the move.

 

[HGV]

Typing error.

UN Resolution 1383 approved the need to create interim Afghan setup.

Un Resolution 1386 approved the need to create ISAF in Afghanistan.

And neither of those are relevant to your claim that UNSCR 1373 authorised the US to invade other countries at will to protect Americans from terrorists

UN was kept in the loop while US took action against Al-Qaeda Network in the region. Nobody opposed the move.

Nobody has to oppose it to make it illegal. Your own source states that UNSCR 1368 "stopped short of authorising the use of force" and that the US did not return to the UNSC to "secure that authorisation". Everything else is obfuscation

 

[LeGenD]

And neither of those are relevant to your claim that UNSCR 1373 authorised the US to invade other countries at will to protect Americans from terrorists


Nobody has to oppose it to make it illegal. Your own source states that UNSCR 1368 "stopped short of authorising the use of force" and that the US did not return to the UNSC to "secure that authorisation". Everything else is obfuscation

UN Resolution 1368 is not all-encompassing. Understand this much.

UN is welcome to declare Osama Bin Laden a human rights champion. But many are glad that this coward is dispatched to hell along with his followers - these people are responsible for deaths of thousands of innocents around the world. US made the right call and did many a favor.

UN needs to strive for the betterment of mankind, not make excuses for terrorists.

 

[fatman17]

Claims made
1. Bin Laden was held captive since 2006; Saudi Arabia financed his stay in Abbottabad

2. An ISI intel officer walked into the US Embassy in 2010 and exposed his location. In return he was given $25 Million Dollars and his entire family was relocated to the United States.

3. Pakistan knew about the raid and worked in tandem with the Americans.

4. Obama backstabed Kayani and ended up taking credit for the entire raid. Initially it was going to be a joint operation for the public media news circle.

Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh published an explosive piece in 2015 claiming much of what the Obama administration said about the attack was wrong.

Hersh claims at the time of the U.S. raid bin Laden had been held as a prisoner by Pakistani intelligence since 2006. Top Pakistani military leaders knew about the operation and provided key assistance.

Contrary to U.S. claims that it located bin Laden by tracking his courier, a former Pakistani intelligence officer identified bin Laden’s whereabouts in return for the bulk of a $25 million U.S. bounty.

Questions are also raised about whether bin Laden was actually buried at sea, as the U.S. claimed. Hersh says instead the Navy SEALs threw parts of bin Laden’s body into the Hindu Kush mountains from their helicopter.

- YouTube

ÐивÑÑÑÑÑ Ð²Ñдео, ÑлÑÑайÑе ÑлÑÐ±Ð»ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¼ÑзикÑ, заванÑажÑйÑе оÑигÑналÑний конÑÐµÐ½Ñ Ñ Ð´ÑлÑÑÑÑÑ Ð²ÑÑм Ñим Ñз дÑÑзÑми, ÑÑм'ÑÑ Ð¹ ÑÑлим ÑвÑÑом на YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Point 2 is true. There were many rogue ISI officers who helped the USA. I've also heard that the Seal team helos were refuelled at a location near tarbela SSG base.