The Awesome Obama Thread II

Then that's not too different from my position. Yes, there was some justification for going in. But it was foolish to allow ourselves to get bogged down.

Meanwhile, the good old USA not only gave harbor to members of bin Laden's team, it also trained them in how to fly those aircraft.

If by "historical fact" you mean " the convoluted shit you put together in your head", then yes, it is historical fact.But in reality, you know, the place where the rest of us live, you'd have to by-pass A WHOLE LOTTA SHIT to be able to pin this responsibility on the poor, pathetic nation Afghanistan. Mainly, you have to ignore the aid of Pakistan to the Taliban AND the actual historical fact that the hijackers (at least 15 of them) where Saudi citizens with no connection to Afghanistan.To say that we were attacked by Afghanistan via Al Qaeda, is like saying the US bombed Oklahoma City by way of Timothy McVeigh. Al Qaeda is a small group of militia members with no ties to any nation. We would be found guilty in international court. The cease fire violation claims are bullshit and we all know it. But it makes for a great smoke screen.The invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Afghansitan and the drone casualties makes this country (the land of Toby Keith) the terrorist nation, and not the under developed nation of Afghanistan.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Don't ever again presume to know what I'm going to say, my brain is working at a higher cognitive level than most due to my lifestyle and so it's impossible for you to do it. But, you're absolutely right in that I'd say exactly that.Terrorism is, in most, if not all...you know what, I'm going to say all cases...a response to the way America lives and exists. Frankly, and I agree, it's offensive.You don't think they also hate that we stuff our fat faces then ask for more magic medicine to cure us? They hate that our biggest problem is that we're over weight. Holy shit! they'd say, "How did you get like that? Can't you eat less and give some starving nation a little bit you greedy fucks?"But yeah, that's "Dark Oni". Another label given to try and mock the guy that makes the most sense around here.- OniTo Dronester:Sorry Dronester, I wasn't able to jump into this debate earlier and left you out there taking bullets from these fat little sheeps.I was away for two weeks kayaking the east coast of the US. Solo mission. Took me two weeks, and I'm happy to brag that an estimated 300,000 calories were burned during the trip. Enjoy your hiking trip, let us know how many calories you burn. I'm sure I did more though.

We didn't invade to "solve the problems of Afghanistan", but to attack an organization that had declared war on us.

Well, no. The US didn't "harbor" the 9/11 terrorists; the US was infiltrated by the 9/11 terrorists. Afghanistan, on the other hand, cooperated with bin Laden with full knowledge that he and his organization were jihadist soldiers. Mullah Omar actually reneged on a promise to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis and later fought extradition attempts after the 1998 embassy bombings because their cooperation had proved so fruitful. al-Qaeda provided training for their armies, provided fighters who assisted in the Mazar-e-Sharif massacre. The partnership was sealed in the old-fashioned way when one of bin Laden's sons married one of Mullah Omar's daughters. When Mullah Omar and the Taliban dynamited the precious Bamyan Buddhas, it was at bin Laden's request.NWR, did any of the 9/11 hijackers marry into the Bush family? No? Then I think you have to admit that there's a substantial difference in cooperation between paying money to take flight school classes under assumed identies at an open-enrollment community college, and providing support and money in exchange for training and military support as part of an arrangement sealed by marriage.You guys didn't know this stuff?

I don't have to ignore it, it's irrelevant. Who cares where the hijackers were from? Saudi Arabia didn't send them; Saudi Arabia was opposed to al-Qaeda and several times tried to have bin Laden extradited. Guess who it was that blocked the extradition? Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban. Kind of a favor to a relative, you see, since his daughter married bin Laden's son.Oh, right, that's just the "shit I'm making up."

For that, we should have gone in, attacked them, then got out. It should have been over in a few days, or a month at most.

And hopefully unannounced and unacknowledged.

You are ascribing intentions to the nation of Afghanistan, but you are unwilling to ascribe similar intentions to the USA.A more accurate assessment would be that there was no nation of Afghanistan, just a bunch of tribal groups.To be clear, I am not asserting that the USA aided and abetted bin Laden. I am saying that there is more evidence that USA did, than that Afghanistan did. And there is even more evidence that Pakistan is a terrorist state, even though we are counting them as allies.

Yes, that's exactly right. But now you've shifted positions from a critique of the causus belli of the war to a critique of its prosecution. That's certainly a more reasonable position, however.

Um, yes - because, manifestly, the Taliban under the rule of Mullah Omar had those intentions, but the state of Florida under Jeb Bush did not.Surely the notion of ascribing different intentions to completely different people who took completely different actions doesn't faze you. I'm sorry? Afghanistan has been a recognized and independent nation since 1919. And it's precisely the point that we didn't go over there to fight "a bunch of tribal groups", but the ruling coalition which had seized power by force of arms, called the "Taliban." And it was precisely the Taliban which harbored, aided, and abetted al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as I've demonstrated.You're just fundamentally wrong about the political situation in Afghanistan. Like I said, Jeb Bush didn't marry off one of his daughters to one of bin Laden's sons - but Mullah Omar of the Taliban did. Well, perhaps you'd like to consider presenting some of it.

But recognized by who? Do the tribal groups within Afghanistan which are fighting one another view each other at Afghanistani or as Tribe X and Tribe Y.Like Iraq, Afghanistan is a collection of people who don't really belong in one group contained in a geographic area that someone determined was a nation.

"Afghan" (or sometimes "Pashtun") is the word you're looking for, and no, it's not just a bunch of tribes in a valley. There's a coherent Afghani identity, a national currency, they've been ruled by a central authority since the 19th century, there's even a national dress. There's tribes, yes; but even here in the United States we have states, but your identity as a Californian or mine as a... Marylander? Marylandian? (I'm kind of new here)... don't mean that we're not both Americans.I just don't see how anyone can claim that there's not a coherent Afghani national identity. We didn't go there to fight one tribe or another, we went there to crush the Taliban, the ruling Afghan government which attacked us on 9/11 via al-Qaeda proxies.

More convoluted brain droppings.The clerics in Pakistan funded the Taliban and have provided them with plenty of fighters. The attackers were Saudi citizens. Where does Afghanistan show up as a supporter for Bin Laden, the attacks or financial backing?Bin Laden, following the attacks, was to be extradited to Pakistan, which the Taliban AND Bin Laden both agreed to do. But not only would his safety at that time not been guaranteed, Pakistan feared an embarrassing show of support by many Pakistani citizens for Bin Laden.Source: The Telegraph - Pakistan blocks bin Laden trial. This was in Oct. 2001, not a month after the attacks.There was no reason to really pin this on any country. But if any were to be accused, Pakistan had more ties to Bin Laden and the Taliban than Afghanistan.- Oni