gerbie | I don't get it

Current Mood: cynical
Current Music: Tori Amos live

I don't get it

It's probably me again, call me ignorant, call me stupid, but there are still a few things I don't get. The Americans are bombing for over a week now. They have hit a lot of strategic points of the Taliban. Don't get me wrong, I do not think the Taliban is a great organisation, but they were involved only sideways weren't they? Apart from that the Americans have managed to hit one of the last civilian areas in Kabul, a UN-quarter, a red cross store and a hospital. So are they co-operating in destructing the country? Like a decade and some years ago, when they were training the military leaders of the Taliban?

Another thing is that Bush won't stop until Bin Laden is taken. The other day I read a small article in which I was told that the Taliban, for the second time had offered to extradict Bin Laden, though not to the US. FOR THE SECOND TIME. I have been reading the papers reasonably well, seen the news most days, read LJ every day, but I haven't even heard the first time. So why do these bombings have to continue? Why does the US think they have the sole right to Bin Laden? Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to have him in an independent court, for instance the peace tribunal in The Hague? My personal opinion, which might not matter much, but I'll give it anyway, is that the chance on a fair trial in the US for Bin Laden are slim. Were I the Taliban, I'd say exactly the same. Guarantee a fair trial and we'll get him for you.

Funny detail: The US has never recognized the Taliban as the official government in Afghanistan. So who can they negotiate with, should this be an option?

I've lost it again.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I seem to recall Bush saying he didn't need evidence that bin Laden was guilty. He knew it. Apparently the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply if you are accused of doing something really, really bad. So no, Osama probably wouldn't get a fair trial here. But I think the U.S. thinks that if they let him go to a third party, one of two things will happen:

1) They might never find him again
2) They will lose serious face to the terrorists.

The U.S. has refused any attempts to negotiate on anything. It's all or nothing. A lot of this is just intimidation. The U.S. wants to show the terrorists that they mean business. I just don't think this is the best way to go about it.

At the moment they are not showing they mean business, they show the whole Islamic world that every prejudice about them is true. I just don't understand what the tought is. If the Taliban wants to get him in a court, somewhere outside the US, what's the importance of the bombings? Why are they afraid that he might get away with it in a fair trial? Is there any evidence, instead of just clues?

I don't know if they have evidence and aren't sharing it (in the interests of military security or something) or if they honestly don't have anything more than a good hunch. I do think the American government believes OBL wouldn't get a totally fair trial (to them, any trial that wouldn't deliver a guilty verdict would be unfair) or proper punishment if he was judged by another country.

Plus, I think it's a sovereignty issue. This was primarily an attack on America, so America should get to decide how to punish him. Again, this is not necessarily my thinking, but I believe this is what the government is thinking.

IS the government thinking? Or are they really just responding to public outcry? The Americans have always been big on justice, it was a victory for justice that OJ went free, even though nearly everybody was convinced that he did it. The same could be true with OBL. Judge him abroad and present the evidence. That's the only way to go about, without outrage in the rest of the world.

Oh, the government is thinking, that's for sure. Even though justice is a core American idea, bureucracy and ignoring the public are even more important. We have a long history of doing the opposite of public opinion. I doubt an impartial trial abroad was ever seriously considered.

Don't you think that the current flow of attacks on Afghanistan is a result of pressure by the people? I think they have considered, knowing full well that the Taliban won't negotiate with the US, as the US won't negotiate with Bin Laden, they chose not to go for that option, after the public outcry.

To an extent, I agree. If the U.S. would have done nothing, there would have been huge outcry. But at the same time, if they would have gone after OBL in a different way, Americans would feel pretty much like they do now. The government just felt like they had to do something.

I do think the U.S. was hoping (although probably not very optimistically) to avoid bombing Afghanistan. If the Taliban had agreed to the initial demands, our military wouldn't be there now. Of course, the chances of this happening were slim, but I think the U.S. would have accpeted this. It would have been odd, though. Imagine iuf we had bin Laden before the bombings started. There would be no military retaliation for Sept 11. The fact that they waited as long as they did is still amazing to me.

True, but how long will it take for the American people that this could be a next vietnam, or for the russian experts, a second Afghanistan. i.e. a war that will drag on, but can't be won.

Oh, I think that's obvious that's what's going to happen. I mean, how are you ever going to totally wipe out terrorism? Any malcontent with a decent chemical lab could be a terrorist. I would be curious to know what Bush's plans are for that. I know he's mentioned the possibility of a long, drawn-out war. I don't think anyone thinks this will be a repeat of the Gulf Conflict.

Though the similarities are there: both Iraq and the Taliban were beneficiaries from the US foreign policy for quite a bit, retrieving plenty of money and suddenly ended up on the wrong side and declared enemey number one...

You mentioned we've never recognized them as the official government. On the other hand, we've tried to negotiate with them before this happened. I can kinda understand the "we're not going to talk with terrorists" stance...on the other hand, I don't know why they're hiding the evidence.

I mean, we can show it to world leaders, but not the American public. Sure, you can say "we'll place sources of information at risk" but come on, like they DON'T know we're after them...

Could it be that the evidence is not as overwhelming as they make us believe. Could it be that they are only ideas, clues and thoughts of how it COULD have happened. Could it be that they realise that in a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, Bin Laden would end up a free man?

Is that why they try this way?

I totally agree...

The sad part is the American public has gone for this hook, line, and sinker. The media hasn't asked the questions and is accepting the answers given without checking them out. I find it frightening I've gotten more information from the British government (thank you Mr. Blair) about the evidence and proof, and some of it is compelling.

but think about this...could bin Laden get a fair trail in America? Could you find 12 American's that haven't heard about him? We don't want him alive (never have, never will get him that way)...too messy.

I think you are right with that last observation. The easy way is to kill him while they can. 12 Americans that haven't heard might be possible. But after that fit to be in a jury, no way! There is an international tribunal, with international recognised judges. Why can't the US go for that?

The US has a few reasons for not accepting the offer from the Taliban. Offering up bin Laden was not the only request that the US made. There are American aid workers held hostage right now in Afghanistan, they are accused of trying to spread Christianity. This is a crime punishable by death, the evidence against them is they were in possession of bibles. The US demanded their release as a condition also. Another demand was to turn over bin Laden's associates, they aren't agreeing to that either. If they were to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country or even to the US at this point it wouldn't solve anything, because he has already called for a Jihad and has plenty of associates to carry on.
BTW who is to say that bin Laden is still in Afghanistan? He could be anywhere by now. Also, the bombings and the war on terrorism isn't just about bin Laden, it won't stop there and frankly can't.
Didn't bin Laden basically admit responsiblity on his little video taped message? He certainly didn't deny it.

He hasn't denied it. Nor have I. Should everyone in the world deny? And yes, he could be anywhere, wildest rumours go around, he could be in several other countries, apparently has lost his beard in the meantime. Just the fact that he has stated that he supports whoever did it, doesn't mean he's responsible. There are millions out there who have said similar things, perhaps in more eufemisms, but still.

But if it isn't about Bin Laden, the bombings make even less sense. Just because a few Christian Americans are held, you bomb the hell out of an already depleted country? Can't be right. See the middle east. Respoding violence with violence is a perpetuum mobile, a never ending cycle of violence. It doesn't solve anything. Never.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't get it

Taliban

Re: Taliban

Re: Taliban

Re: Taliban

Re: Taliban

Re: Taliban

Re: Taliban

Re: Taliban

Re: Taliban

Re: Taliban

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

Here goes

Re: Here goes