they say ignorance is blessing in some cases.
If your house guest made it clear that he is a dealer of illegal hallucinogenic substances, from manufacturing to sales, retail and wholesale, and if you and the neighborhood knows about it, then you are legally liable and guilty of his illegal business even if you had no hand in his business. The Taliban was the ruling authority in Afghanistan and the regime can be as friendly or as neutral or as hostile to the US as they want. But hostility does not always translate to 'armed conflict' as long as the Taliban abide by accepted international understanding of inter-state relations...
Yes...We accept that understanding.
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda considered themselves 'belligerents' against the US. Article 2 through 5 places DUAL and EQUAL moral burdens on the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Taliban, if they wish to keep Afghanistan's neutral status, they must NOT allow al-Qaeda to recruit and train al-Qaeda affiliated combatants on Afghanistan's soil. Likewise, if al-Qaeda respect the Taliban's desire to maintain Afghanistan's neutrality, even if the two are friendly and hostile to the US, al-Qaeda would NOT recruit and train its affiliated combatants on Afghan soil. This is common sense.
Travelers crossing the neutral country to offer their services to a belligerent party does not involve said neutral country in the conflict. In other words, Article 5 does not apply to said neutral country regarding Article 6. Did this happened? No, because al-Qaeda established recruitment and training centers INSIDE Afghanistan with the Taliban's consent. This rendered the Taliban an active belligerent in the conflict.
Since al-Qaeda established recruitment and training centers inside Afghanistan's borders with the Taliban's consent, Article 7 and 8 are negated hence invalid protections for Afghanistan.
We know this did not happened. Were there US military recruiting and training centers inside Afghanistan? The Taliban clearly favored al-Qaeda and their recruiting and training centers inside Afghanistan made the Taliban an active belligerent in this conflict.
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda did not entered Afghanistan by force and compelled the Taliban under the gun to allow Afghanistan to be used as a war base against the US in this conflict. The Taliban consented and therefore made Afghanistan an active belligerent in this conflict.
US foreign policies are custom tailored vis-a-vis inter-states relations. Only states can challenge states and how states resolves their differences are equally custom tailored. So if you support the notion that al-Qaeda's challenges to US policies are legitimate, you might as well declare your allegiance to al-Qaeda right here and now on this forum.
New Recruit
and yet US policy towards the Muslim world is informed by the notion that the US must respond to a organization now consisting of less than 300 individuals - your position lacks internal cohesion (and for this no amount of fiber will serve as prescription) because it's ideological premise is found wanting.
Who authorized al-Qaeda to attack US, on US soil and against US interests overseas, over many years? Islam?
We have every right to reject that offer. The fact that Osama bin Laden is Mullah Omar's brother-in-law means nothing to you?
Wrong. An act of terrorism falls under the broader definition of 'war' and 'armed conflict'.
More logical arguments and less rhetorics, please.
Whether the US view its country and people as 'exceptional' is irrelevant. No different than how each muslim country view its people as 'exceptional'. But the formula of 'us' versus 'them' is nothing new when a country has war declared upon it.
Tut..tut...A wee bit sensitive, ya think? I do not care if you are 'nervy' enough to challenge US. But I would care if you take up arms against US. I have been to the ME and know full well how different the muslims are from US and I do not care how you think about US.
How do you know al-Qaeda is 'less than 300 individuals'? Anyway...Regardless of how many are there, al-Qaeda is a global franchise that any muslim can claim affiliation and they must be sheltered somewhere, even among the muslim community in the US.
Yes, perhaps we should be. But that does not absolve US the responsibility of exacting retribution for a country that harbored a belligerent against US.
I did not. I said we could do a better job.
If the Taliban is ready to negotiate and if in said negotiation, the Taliban agree not to support Osama bin Laden, then the US is amenable to negotiation. The retribution is done when we removed them from power and install another leadership more friendly to US.
No...The Taliban do not have such right. Remember...We did nothing to Afghanistan before 9/11. You can criticize US for neglecting Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal but that does not confer any 'right' to any retribution. If anything, the Taliban should thank US for leaving Afghanistan open for them to take over.
Such resolutions usually contains something reciprocal, ya think? Israel as an ally is beneficial to US in ways different than other countries are. You muslims want US to throw Israel towards another Holocaust? Give US something in return.
It was great and educational in that I see nothing over there of value that I want to have in my country. As an American, I was already despised. As an Asian-American I was despised ten-fold. Thanks.
New Recruit
You do not answer my question at all. The United Nation DID NOT authorized US and British onslaught over Afghanistan on October 7th 2001. No body authorized Al-Qaeda to attack US soil and other US interest overseas as well. So the US and British acted just like the Al-Qaeda.
Yeah.. you may call it a right to reject an offer. I know the answer would be like this. Because, it is the US who still don't have the hard evidence about the perpetrators...
Hmm... Thanks for the correction.
