Pakistan helped Iraq in defeating IS, says Iraqi envoy

[Malik Alashter]

Americans are pounding them day and night and this is why Iraqi forces (in Iraq) and YPG (in Syria) have been able to make advances on the ground.

You're miserably wrong.

To be honest, even I am not sure how these militant factions became so powerful that they could challenge professional armies in the battlefield and last so long in-spite of heavy pounding.

Because they have been trained well in jordan and turkey to fair well against syrians and iraqis to last the bleeding of both countries as long as possible.

Dear Iraqi official, don't paint bulls eye on our heads. You received help, keep quite.

What help beside the training of some sf please
by the way thanks for that indeed.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Geneva , i talk about that with a better member Gambit in same thread , do read my previous post to take reference from ..



Just because you are humiliated and have no answer you turned to Aid given by US ? that shows your credibility , you can do better than this ..
trust me the feeling is mutual when it comes to trusting US, in fact no one trust US when it comes truth or fabrications .. TTP and ISIS is growing right under the nose of US in Afghanistan , US funded FSA and Al Nusra in Syria against Asshead , US Funded Mehdi Army in Iraq lead by Muqtadar ( A Shia Fighter ) do you want me to go on ?
what we know that when Pakistan push TTP back to Afghanistan after operations like Rahe Rast , Rahe Nijat , it was US who abandon the posts along Afghan border give all the freedom it require for TTP leaders to settle down, but i guess Freedom is what US is known for is it ? even if it means freedom for Terrorist

You really thing any believe Congress except for half wit Americans who think Global warming is Chinese Hoax LOL Good luck with that buddy ..



What prove you want? and ask yourself can you be satisfied with any prove i or anyone else give you ? i doubt that, your mind is already set on something and you wont change no matter what, US intention is very clear in this region even accepted by Americans themselves , but of course When US attack an Allied forces its a mistake, how many Times US forces attack Allies ? you want to google it
Libya, Iraq , Somalia , Syria and Afghanistan ? Iraq and their WMD's , arming Shia against the Sunni and when those rebels goes out of hand , so lets label them terrorist and take them out ..
Estimated figures can be wrong or right .. even if your 12K figures are right still worse than 3000 innocent who died in a Terror attack, what you will call those 12K dead Afghans ? Collateral damage ? what happen to Attack on Syrian Army , US and Pakistan Army has get into Clashes on Afghan border , Civilian dead in Iraq Assault , Yemen Raid ? all this a mistake ?

it may disappear but people's ignorant can't disappear even with time , Good luck with that.


and i am still waiting you to address the questions i raised , if you cant do that than please avoid quoting me, i rather debate with Gambit .

Ignorance is a bliss my friend ..

To answer Your questions:

If You engage in a propaganda war claiming US human rights violations without cause,
or significantly exaggerating any violations, You support terrorism.

The 12,000 dead contains a significant number of Talibans.
Civilians killed when Talibans are attacked are COLLATERAL DAMAGE, and no war crime.
Civilians killed because Afghanis supplies false information to get rid of opponents in feuds,
or similar reasons are MISTAKES.
It is only a War Crime to attack a target which is known to be purely civilian.
Attacks on targets which are known to be purely civilian may still be mistakes due
to breakdown in communication or misunderstandings.

You compare this to the intentional killing of the passengers of the 9/11 planes,
and the civilians in the World Trade Center. That is yet another action to support
terrorists in the propaganda war.

Beeing against the death penalty and criticizing countries still engaged in medieval punishment
methods does not constitute support of terrorism.

When You accuse the US to support terrorists financially without proof,
You are supporting terrorists in the propaganda war.

The Geneva Convention require Switzerland to not harbour troops of an warring party.
The Balochi leaders in Switzerland are not troops, and can stay.
OBL has been shown participating in the training, firing assault rifles.

USA is known to have given token support to FSA when Assads atrocities became apparent.
To compare that with the support the US can give is ridiculous.
No evidence has ever been presented showing support from the the US to Al Nusra.
The US attacked Muqtada al Sadrs Shia forces multiple times. They are not on friendly terms.
The Mehdi Army get their funding from Iran.

Beeing for the government of the dictator Saddam Hussein, shows Your evil mind.
All your arguments on legality falls flat on the floor when You support his illegal government.

You also show your absolute ignorance in all matters of the Geneva Convention
and You spread all kinds of fake news.
No "Great Mind" at work.

 

[fitpOsitive]

What help beside the training of some sf please

Read all posts in this thread then come back to me.

 

[YeBeWarned]

To answer Your questions:

If You engage in a propaganda war claiming US human rights violations without cause,
or significantly exaggerating any violations, You support terrorism.

The 12,000 dead contains a significant number of Talibans.
Civilians killed when Talibans are attacked are COLLATERAL DAMAGE, and no war crime.
Civilians killed because Afghanis supplies false information to get rid of opponents in feuds,
or similar reasons are MISTAKES.
It is only a War Crime to attack a target which is known to be purely civilian.
Attacks on targets which are known to be purely civilian may still be mistakes due
to breakdown in communication or misunderstandings.

oh so when you do it , its a mis-information and mistake when others do it , its a crime ?
not a single thing you confronted by any sources of logic, just

How many AQ leader Pakistan took out ? and how many US took out with help of Pakistani Intelligence ?

You compare this to the intentional killing of the passengers of the 9/11 planes,
and the civilians in the World Trade Center. That is yet another action to support
terrorists in the propaganda war.

you sounds like a boring recording , repeating same thing without any logic, i see you take lessons from Zarvan here

Beeing against the death penalty and criticizing countries still engaged in medieval punishment
methods does not constitute support of terrorism.

Hanging is Medieval way of Punishment ? @Hell hound @The Sandman @django we have Genius here
and as far as i remember Germany did not suggest us more Civilized or modern way of Eliminating Terrorist ? hanging is Medieval but blowing them into pieces by Cluster bombs and all dangerous sort of bombs is humane ?

When You accuse the US to support terrorists financially without proof,
You are supporting terrorists in the propaganda war.

I don't see anyone supporting any propaganda ? you don't know anything about the topic and yet you are bragging on this thread , tell me or deny my claim that US Army did not Supply arms and support to Mehdi Army in Iraq against the Sunni's and later they ( mehdi Army ) turn against the US so US and this army has massive fire fight which ends in negotiations .. please deny this claim with sources Mr all knowing

The Geneva Convention require Switzerland to not harbour troops of an warring party.
The Balochi leaders in Switzerland are not troops, and can stay.
OBL has been shown participating in the training, firing assault rifles.

you are funny guy

USA is known to have given token support to FSA when Assads atrocities became apparent.
To compare that with the support the US can give is ridiculous.
No evidence has ever been presented showing support from the the US to Al Nusra.
The US attacked Muqtada al Sadrs Shia forces multiple times. They are not on friendly terms.
The Mehdi Army get their funding from Iran.

haha you are indeed ignorant , FSA has numerous times claim to receive Arms from US , by Air drops .. come on dude stop embarrassing yourself here more than you already did ..
What Evidence you want anyway ? Inventory Receipts and bills ? is there any prove that USA support the Mujhadeen in Afghan Jihad ? hahaha
I want you to watch a BBC Documentary on Iraq WAR, The General stationed there accepted to support Mehdi Army which slaughter Sunni's in Iraq in certain Areas, when Muqtadar al Sadr turn against the US , they cordoned off the City he was holding and a battle rages .. Learn kid you have all the time to learn here

Beeing for the government of the dictator Saddam Hussein, shows Your evil mind.
All your arguments on legality falls flat on the floor when You support his illegal government.

so ? Trump stolen the Election , CIA and US authorities accepted Russian Involvement in rigging the election from Hilary , so the US govt is not legitimate too, so should other countries Attack US and disband the govt and plant their own person ? all i see is you are humiliated here and for face saving you are jumping from one topic to another ..

You also show your absolute ignorance in all matters of the Geneva Convention
and You spread all kinds of fake news.
No "Great Mind" at work.

Oh boy, now i understand where you are coming from
We got a Republican here
enjoy your stay here and learn, cause its never to late to learn

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

oh so when you do it , its a mis-information and mistake when others do it , its a crime ?
not a single thing you confronted by any sources of logic, just

How many AQ leader Pakistan took out ? and how many US took out with help of Pakistani Intelligence ?



you sounds like a boring recording , repeating same thing without any logic, i see you take lessons from Zarvan here



Hanging is Medieval way of Punishment ? @Hell hound @The Sandman @django we have Genius here
and as far as i remember Germany did not suggest us more Civilized or modern way of Eliminating Terrorist ? hanging is Medieval but blowing them into pieces by Cluster bombs and all dangerous sort of bombs is humane ?



I don't see anyone supporting any propaganda ? you don't know anything about the topic and yet you are bragging on this thread , tell me or deny my claim that US Army did not Supply arms and support to Mehdi Army in Iraq against the Sunni's and later they ( mehdi Army ) turn against the US so US and this army has massive fire fight which ends in negotiations .. please deny this claim with sources Mr all knowing



you are funny guy



haha you are indeed ignorant , FSA has numerous times claim to receive Arms from US , by Air drops .. come on dude stop embarrassing yourself here more than you already did ..
What Evidence you want anyway ? Inventory Receipts and bills ? is there any prove that USA support the Mujhadeen in Afghan Jihad ? hahaha
I want you to watch a BBC Documentary on Iraq WAR, The General stationed there accepted to support Mehdi Army which slaughter Sunni's in Iraq in certain Areas, when Muqtadar al Sadr turn against the US , they cordoned off the City he was holding and a battle rages .. Learn kid you have all the time to learn here



so ? Trump stolen the Election , CIA and US authorities accepted Russian Involvement in rigging the election from Hilary , so the US govt is not legitimate too, so should other countries Attack US and disband the govt and plant their own person ? all i see is you are humiliated here and for face saving you are jumping from one topic to another ..



Oh boy, now i understand where you are coming from
We got a Republican here
enjoy your stay here and learn, cause its never to late to learn

When someone is intentionally attacking a target which is known to be purely civilian,
it is a war crime. If a military target is attacked, and civilians are killed, it is not war crime.
You fail to understand that civilians are legally killed in large numbers during war.

The number of Taliban leaders taken out by Pakistan is of little value in this discussion.
Noone has questioned that Pakistan has fought with terrorists.
What is questioned, is if Pakistan has done so consistently.
If the US and Pakistan has agreed to strike a target, has Pakistani politicians then criticized the US afterwards...
Pakistan is accused for playing boths sides, and members here often make claims and boast
about Pakistan "winning" against the US.

The alternative to execution is jail time, that is quite obvious.

It is quite official that the US has provided support to the FSA, and noone is denying it.
It is also well known that it was tiny compared to the support given to the Afghani Mujahedin.
Your dishonest method of argument is to indicate that anyone is denying it.

"A BBC Documentary on the Iraq War" is not really a valid source unless You identify it.

You are the one jumping from subject to subject. Now You involve the US election,
disregarding the fact that there is no republican party in Sweden and we do not vote in the US election, not to mention that the Trump support is nil over here,
Previously you brought up Global Warming and Somalia, as well as the US funding this and that.

The basics is however that you are clueless about International Law
and do not know the difference between a legal and an illegal act.

 

[LeGenD]

Bro that's exactly what people for centuries have said and thought about so many powerful empires like Egyptian, Roman, Byzantine, Muslim, Ottoman, Mongol, Mughal, British people used to say the same exact words for Wehrmacht (yes it's me who's saying this for Wehrmacht) and RED army where are they now?

Bro,

There might be people who feared these great Empires but some refused to be intimidated; history is filled with examples of people and/or civilizations who challenged these great Empires in the battlefield and otherwise. Ancient times were not R&D driven and lesser societies were able to establish formidable armies of their own from time-to-time.

Nonetheless, your argument has merit: history is filled with examples of rise (and) fall of great civilizations and this pattern contains valuable lessons for modern-era states:

1. Some slowly drifted away from supremacy due to internal factors in large part such as gradual decline in their social order, erosion of nationality and incessant power struggles [internal decay in short]. Examples include Egyptian*, Macedonian, Roman, Ottoman and Han Dynasty and Yuan Dynasty.

2. Some drifted away from supremacy due to combination of natural threats (and) internal decay. Examples include Mayan and Amazon River civilizations.

*Egyptian Empire managed to cope with numerous natural threats but not internal decay.

3. Some collapsed due to pressures of "great wars." Examples include Carthage, Babylonian, Persian, British, French, Spanish and USSR**.

**USSR not only failed to cope with pressures of (multi-spectrum) Cold War with the NATO bloc but also drifted away from its founding principles.

NOTE: I do not count Mongols as a great civilization because they were mostly well-organized barbarian forces who settled in distant places across the known world and end-up creating different societies. Examples include Timurid Empire in the Middle East and Yuan Dynasty in China.

I agree with your argument that modern-era states are not immune to failure. Ancient realities are just as relevant today as they were in the past; a powerful state destroying a lesser state in a prolonged conflict; a powerful state risking loss of its supremacy due to internal decay in large part, pressures of conflict with a powerful enemy, or combination of multiple factors. Humans (and their creations) are not infallible in the end.

USA is also a human creation. Though its strengths are numerous; it is not an all-powerful entity and does not have infallible judgement.

My point was in regards to realities of USA in recent history (and) current times. I cannot predict its future.

1) It hasn't seen an army which can truly challenge it

Bro,

I do not get this statement. Shall we assume an (hypothetical) army or a (real-world) army that can truly challenge American army (in its existing form) in the battlefield?

Take a good look at forces that modern-era Americans [now USA] have challenged in the battlefield:-

http://www.historycentral.com/wars.html
https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf (PDF format)

1. US fought for its independence from the mighty British Empire (during its zenith) and eventually succeeded in this mission (1775 - 1812). How many former "colonies" of British Empire can make a similar claim?

2. US soundly defeated the neighboring Mexican Empire in a war (1846 - 1848) and annexed 7 states from it. This Mexican Empire was a major geopolitical rival of US during the era of Industrial Revolution.

3. US fully recovered from a bloody civil war (1861 - 1865) in a span of 40 years and soundly defeated the mighty Spanish Empire in a war (1898 - 1902) in order to ensure its supremacy across Americas; the same Spanish Empire that challenged Ottoman and British Empires for supremacy for centuries. Historians credit this victory for propelling US into the realm of supremacy.

NOTE: Many people assume that US became a superpower in the aftermath of WW-II but this not true. US became a superpower after routing the Spanish Empire from the Americas during the start of 19th century. By the time of WW-II, US was a well-established Industrial, economic and military giant whose support could be a game-changer for a regional player across the world.

4. US fought the Imperial Japanese in the Pacific and the Nazi Wehrmacht in Europe during WW-II and defeated both forces in the battlefield. They were coping with other opponents just fine until US entered the picture.

5. US saved South Korea from annexation at the hands of North Korea (1950 - 1953). In those years, North Korea was much stronger than South Korea and its war-machine was one of the finest in the region.

Learn more:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-day-north-korea-defeated-the-us-army-16094
http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war

6. US saved Kuwait from annexation at the hands of Iraq (1991). Back then, Iraq was a battle-hardened and dominant player in the Middle East and its conventional war-machine ranked 4th in size and capability internationally.

Learn more:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-06/news/mn-359_1_north-korea
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/agency/army.htm
https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/iraq88-93.pdf (PDF format)

---

My point is that the aforementioned SIX were formidable opponents (of USA) in their own right and their defeats cannot be (and should not be) dismissed as lack of strength on their part; USA was simply better and more capable.

Today, some gloat that "we are not Iraq" in discussions but they somehow fail to grasp the reality that they are strong (in regional context) but much like Iraq next to strengths of USA.

2) Yes it has technological advantage over rest of the world but it doesn't mean there are aren't armies/countries who can't counter it (Russia and China can) so let's not over glorify them mate their army is also made up of humans not robots time will come when US will go/brought down just like the names mentioned above but "when" and by "whom" is the main question.

Bro,

1. Russia has predominantly nuclear deterrence.
2. China has both nuclear and economic deterrence.

None stand a chance against US in the battlefield otherwise.

Consider following assessments:-

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-russia-air-war-syria-2017-6
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/

You get the picture from that.

American war-machine (in its existing form) is incredibly resourceful; much more-so than the usual sophisticated "weapons" we see on TV. It is a potent combination of human resource, most advanced weapons and most comprehensive networks across space, land and sea that collectively translate into unparalleled situational awareness, mobility and reach across the globe.

Just dig into USSTRATCOM and you will understand.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the battlefields that will tell you much about American war-machine because these states are already close to being irrelevant and US is hardly into power projection there. These are "political conflicts" in large part. Those who assert that US is experiencing defeat in these regions - do not see the big picture. US invaded Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden and eradicate his network and US invaded Iraq to kill Saddam Hussein and eradicate Ba'ath party; both objectives met. Now, US is looking forward to transform these states into functioning democracies with relevant experiments and this might take time to bear fruit but do-able. However, these are strictly political objectives. If the objective was to exterminate: US would have wiped both Iraq and Afghanistan from existence in a blink of an eye - it can (make no mistake about it).

And evolution of American war-machine is continuous, to ensure its dominance in years to come. Credit goes to incredibly powerful institutions and R&D based education and Industrial base within USA.

Have a look:

Relatively better assessment in this link: http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/researchanddevelopmentstatisticsrds.htm

---

China is on the right track with huge investment in its R&D programs and developing powerful institutions. If any state can challenge US in the future - it is China.

Contrary to the popular belief, Russia is in decline in all spheres. The way things are moving ahead, Russia also risks loosing its nuclear MAD with US at some point in the future. American ABM advances are considerable and have already reached the point of intercepting ICBM in space; these capabilities will only grow in the future.

Think about the situation 50 years from now. R&D is the key to progress in all spheres of technology and capability in modern times but Russia is terribly lacking in this area. Don't let its fancy toys fool you - they aren't as capable as fanboys like to tout in different communities. And toys are not everything.

P.S before anyone thinks no i am not that typical guy who lives in fantasy world of "Muslims destroying us and israel" i am just stating what history has tells us someone will finish off US just like before with every empire than someone will finish off that empire and the cycle will continue till the judgement day.

@Arsalan @django @Hell hound @Desert Fox @Nilgiri

Bro,

I do not disagree with your point-of-view about fallibility of modern-era states, even super-strong ones like USA. However, there is no guarantee that failures will occur in the ways we predict.

What if China fail in the near future? Let us not assume that China is not vulnerable and/or its current status-quo of leadership in the SUPPLY aspect of consumer goods will continue for indefinite period. The situation might change considerably in the future as various states intend to shift to eco-friendly Industrial practices and there are also environmental realities and human-resource based vulnerabilities to consider. Global Warming phenomenon coupled with emissions from all those factories and ambitious projects like Three Gorges Dam, are having an impact on Chinese environmental conditions to great extent and a huge chunk of Chinese populace is aging.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/chinas-twilight-years/480768/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...a-rudong-town-frontline-looming-ageing-crisis
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/where-will-climate-change-impact-china-most/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahs...ion-accelerating-climate-change/#76941f2a37ef
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-32006972

Virtually every state is on a rough ride in coming years and it is hard to predict which will collapse earlier than the other; struggles are seemingly endless for all states.

One can easily argue that the challenges USA have been through during the course of its history - might have collapsed many states in its place. Ever thought about this? Even the incredibly devastating civil war (1861 - 1865) was not sufficient to end USA which is nothing short of a miracle. Undoubtedly, USA has proven to be an incredibly resilient state.

---

As hinted above, USA is super-strong due to a number of factors.

1. American leaders have worked hard to build quality institutions over the course of years that continue to deliver (as intended).
2. American leaders have worked hard to curb (racial and ethnic) divide within the increasingly multi-ethnic society over the course of years. Abraham Lincoln took the first step towards this end.
3. 51 states are united in their cause and struggles to propel US forward or rescue it from a major crises.
4. American geography.
5. R&D driven education and Industrial programs.
6. Massive economy.
7. US continues to attract talent from across the world due to its quality institutions and ability to create new jobs from time-to-time.
8. Separation of religion from state (this ensures that a single doctrine won't determine the course of American nationality) and institutions will keep the multi-ethnic society together.

Food for thought:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...-worlds-unchallenged-superpower/#5b522bcd5b6e
https://worldview.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahs...he-u-s-as-the-worlds-superpower/#252268d9234d

Now, US is [also] vulnerable to pressures of natural threats, prolonged conflicts and societal problems; nothing can be taken for granted. Man-made institutions are not infallible and no state is all-powerful.

Surely, nothing lasts forever. Mankind (on the whole) face the prospects of extinction at some point.

Thanks for your input by the way; it generated an interesting conversation.

You're miserably wrong.

Google "Operation Inherent Resolve."

You think Iraq is capable of tackling the menace of ISIS on its own in its present state? You are fooling yourself, my friend.

Because they have been trained well in jordan and turkey to fair well against syrians and iraqis to last the bleeding of both countries as long as possible.

Right.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

You're miserably wrong.


Because they have been trained well in jordan and turkey to fair well against syrians and iraqis to last the bleeding of both countries as long as possible.


What help beside the training of some sf please
by the way thanks for that indeed.

the thread was about surprising assistance of the Pakistan to Iraq in its fight against a death cult. given that this same death cult is supported or tolerated by KSA . such deed might not go unpunished.
there is a complete silence from KSA . are they fuming with anger over it?
they would rather see Israelis bombing Syria, Lebanon and shooting Palestinians and the cannibals from the death cult butcher the people of Iraq and Syria.


Pakistan has no sovereign foreign policy and has no financial independence hence it has to bow down to the countries like UAE, Qatar and KSA. this is the real tragedy

Then you can blame it on the UN since it was all the nuclear powers who agreed to what make up the initials 'WMD'.

There is no 'morphing' of any thing here. When Iraq was pursuing its nuclear weapons program, the only way to assure that one's indigenous nuclear weapons work is to have a test detonation. That need is still true today despite all the talk about computer simulation. So if the initials 'WMD' means functional weapons, then the entire Iraq WMD inspection and enforcement program was at best unsanctioned and at worst illegal by the UN's own standards. Remember, Pakistan's and India's own nuclear weapons were developed in secrecy precisely because of the fact that the initials 'WMD' means more than just functional devices.

I get you
by the way we the Pakistanis are hardly in position to question your motives when we ourselves have no say over the matter.
the real tragedy is that we cant even celebrate and admit openly that we played our part in the win against ISIS.
this revelation wont go down well with the Saudis who would prefer long lines of female sex slaves marching to Raqqa and men of all faiths being beheaded or shot in the head.

while we quietly celebrate a word of appreciation from Iraq we know too well that KSA wont hesitate for a moment and accuse us (lesser men of non Arab origin) of the same charges as Qatar.

 

[Malik Alashter]

Google "Operation Inherent Resolve."

You think Iraq is capable of tackling the menace of ISIS on its own in its present state? You are fooling yourself, my friend.

If you think the US support is what really defeated isis you're brain washed.
The US helped us yes but it's not as you might think

Iraqis in the first place accepted that support because they just can't refuse

remember the US want to have a share of that victory on isis.

Mosul liberated by the blood of the thousands of Iraqis not the few sorties of the f-16s

Indeed we appreciate every help from any nation in the fighting against the Neanderthal invasion.

 

[Nilgiri]

Bro that's exactly what people for centuries have said and thought about so many powerful empires like Egyptian, Roman, Byzantine, Muslim, Ottoman, Mongol, Mughal, British people used to say the same exact words for Wehrmacht (yes it's me who's saying this for Wehrmacht) and RED army where are they now? the thing is atm US army is without a doubt is extremely powerful and the reasons for that is:
1) It hasn't seen an army which can truly challenge it

2) Yes it has technological advantage over rest of the world but it doesn't mean there are aren't armies/countries who can't counter it (Russia and China can) so let's not over glorify them mate their army is also made up of humans not robots time will come when US will go/brought down just like the names mentioned above but "when" and by "whom" is the main question.

P.S before anyone thinks no i am not that typical guy who lives in fantasy world of "Muslims destroying us and israel" i am just stating what history has tells us someone will finish off US just like before with every empire than someone will finish off that empire and the cycle will continue till the judgement day.

@Arsalan @django @Hell hound @Desert Fox @Nilgiri

I agree overall for sure. But US is a hyperpower now and for forseeable future. Russia, China and any other contenders simply do not have the same power projection in raw and soft power terms....esp if you look at the total base of acquisition of this that US has had in 20th century and this century thus far.

 

[Psychic]

Source for negotiation: Check out Musharraf's Memoirs.
He was personally discussing with Mullah Omar, together with a Saudi prince after the
Embassy attacks, before 9/11.
They demanded that OBL was evicted.
Mullah Omars response: He insulted the Prince.

We have helped refugees from Chile after the Coup, so no there are no exceptions.
European actions in Libya and Bosnia was partly a result of the people of Europe putting pressure on governments.
They were dragging their feet especially in Bosnia, but Madeleine Albright, beeing a victim
af Nazi repression saw to that they did the right thing.

It was claimed by @gambit that negotiations were carried out for over a decade.

History is filled with warnings that at the time were nothing more than speculations but then became prescient after the fact. Care to study one such example -- WW II ?

I do not care to study since there was no comparison of Iraq with Germany.
What you are saying is that you "felt" threatened. Now others also feel threatened of your country would you apply the same logic in that case or not?
There is a difference between a pre-emptive strike and when you are paranoid. What Israel did in 67 or when it destroyed reactors of Iraq and Syria is pre emptive strike, what the US did was something else.

You must be joking... You cannot see how you contradicted yourself ? How can the Taliban demand for evidence if there were no negotiations ?

You claimed that the negotiations were carried out for over a decade, see that post which I quoted. I do not know how they could be carried out for over a decade since Taliban were not even in power for a decade.
Do read properly before quoting.

And speaking of wise warnings, did anyone in the Taliban warned Mullah Omar about Osama bin Laden's private war against US and those consequences ? Why is it that only US is burdened with being warned and no one else is ?

He had a lot else to worry about then someone's private war which at that time was nothing more than some embasssy attack or some boat attack(No Hindsight, an excuse applicable in your case but not in others'). Do try to put yourself in the shoes of others before hammering them. Taliban were neither involved in those attacks nor did they at any time endorse those attacks, they had their hands full. The Taliban had no global ambitions unlike the AQ, they still don't. What the US invasion did was that it united the Taliban and the AQ along with a dozen other groups.

All the Taliban had to do was evict Osama bin Laden. Omar did not have to LITERALLY hand bin Laden over, as in handcuffed and transferred in the dead of night like how the movies would have done it. Just evict Osama bin Laden, shut down Al Qaeda's bases as our satellites can monitor and confirmed, and let US know where/when that eviction took place. We can do the rest.

So please stop trying to make excuses for the failure and mistake of the Taliban in underestimating what Osama bin Laden would do -- 9/11 -- and our responses -- invade Afghanistan. If we wanted regime change, we could have done it without the need to use Osama bin Laden. There were plenty of reasons other than bin Laden. People often charged that we do 'regime change' just because we do not like someone. We could have done that to the Taliban as well. God and everybody know how atrocious the Taliban are.

So if I give the excuses by pointing out the flimsy condition of Afghanistan at the time Taliban took over, then it is an excuse but when you justify bombing the crap out of Iraq, you are not making any excuse.
Try to look in the mirror for once, aren't you doing exactly the same thing which you are accusing me of doing?
The Taliban did not have any clue what AQ was doing or what it was upto. The AQ wanted the US to attack Afghanistan and it lured her into that country. You just did what the AQ wanted.

BTW I talked about "what Iraq could do". Do read properly before quoting.

And speaking of wise warnings, did anyone in the Taliban warned Mullah Omar about Osama bin Laden's private war against US and those consequences ? Why is it that only US is burdened with being warned and no one else is ?

Since you are not willing to believe that Mullah Omer was ready to take action against Bin Laden after negotiations with General Mehmood, the then ISI chief, I am not going to debate on this any further.

He was personally discussing with Mullah Omar, together with a Saudi prince after the
Embassy attacks, before 9/11.
They demanded that OBL was evicted.
Mullah Omars response: He insulted the Prince.

After 9/11, what the other poster claimed was that they were carried out over a decade.
And Musharraf never personally talked to Mullah Omar. General Mehmood talked to him in Kandahar and yes Omar got angry and that is not the complete truth either. Later, Mahmood met Shura in Kabul where the Shura conceeded to his demands. The report on progress was conveyed duly to the US embassy in Islamabad however a few days later, the bombing started.

 

[gambit]

I didn't say OBL work for CIA or US, i just say he was one of the foot soldier in Afghan Jihad backed and controlled by USA ..

The problem with this argument is that it allows you an avenue of escape when you find you cannot support your previous argument. If you know that Osama bin Laden was just another fighter, then what was the point of bringing it up in the first place ? The US did not controlled all Afghan fighters, no matter where they came from, in Afghanistan. You generalized and when the details contradicted you, you ran away. People bring up Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan out of the (wrong) need to associate him with US, and then we supposedly 'betrayed' him. That was all you did. That was all you know how to do. And you were wrong.

UN recognize a Entity based on border, and how a country been recognized without a proper functioning govt ? and even if they did why on earth someone who does not care for UN actually care Geneva Conventions or its Articles ?

Whether a country have a functional central government or not -- is not the point.

The point is THE LAND which is wrongly used by one side to wage war. There are plenty of examples TODAY that supports that Geneva Convention allowance of retaliation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Liberian_Civil_War
https://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/66

ECOWAS was involved when a civil war threatened regional stability. Belligerents were using neutral neighboring countries to wage their civil wars. Those countries were too weak to eject those who trespassed borders. So ECOWAS formed a military corps to intervened and secured stability.

Simple truth: If A and B have a war against each other, then leave country C alone.

If A uses C's territory to support that war, then B have the right to retaliate against C. Invade the land of C if necessary.

...you already know USA , Russia or NATO no one gives Hoot for Geneva Conventions when bombing their enemies ..

I cannot speak for Russia, but I believe that the US and NATO tries our best to adhere to the Geneva Convention. Not perfect but our methods of warfare reflects restraints.

the problem with you example is that Individual country has not Will not power to attack other country, India is shouting about Azad Kashmir been used for Terror camps but never dared to attack because of Geneva ? Nah brah, they don't attack us because they know what will happen in retaliation ..

But that does not mean India do not have the right to retaliate.

you are comparing a Miscreants Organization or Non State actors to Legal Immigrants , you really think its a valid argument brother ?

Yes, it is a valid argument. Does not matter if the immigrant is legal or illegal. If a person uses a country as a base to wage a war, that country is vulnerable to both legal and physical retaliation.

think it that, way US has ISIS fighters who times to times attack US citizens, there were European citizen fighting in Syria and Iraq attack Asshead and Russian forces , so Russia has right to attack European countries ? who's these non State actors citizen belong ? if US logic is applied on all countries given them enough fire power, the world would end in blink of an eye ..

You have to give the host country time to correct the situation.

Say that ISIS uses Germany to recruit and train terrorists and that eventually those ISIS fighters committed acts of terrorism in other countries. In theory, other countries have the right retaliate against Germany. But the problem here is that Germany is a proven responsible country. The government and people maybe ignorant of ISIS cells in their country, but that does not equate to being friendly to ISIS and willfully allowed ISIS to live in Germany. Other countries must allow Germans to do their own investigation and defeat ISIS in their own country. Once it is proven that Germany is making an earnest effort and progress is visible, the right to retaliate against Germany diminishes.

The problem for you is that you are not making any effort to learn about this issue on your own. You are relying solely on me and my arguments for your education. You did not know about the Geneva Convention on the rights and duties of neutral powers as I have provided the DIRECT source to you. But instead of expanding on that initial education you continues to try to make our war in Afghanistan illegitimate by way of your ignorance and misunderstanding of a complex legal issue.

and so USA invaded and Destroy Afghanistan become the cause deaths of half a million Afghans in cross fire ? your really think its Fair ??

Blame it on the Taliban. It may not be fair, but why is the fairness burden rests only upon US ?

I get it...The Taliban are Muslims, therefore, you are obligated to defend your fellow Muslims no matter how wrong they are.

Of course we don't, have you attack Russia when you and the world know they interfere in your Presidential Elections ? you really think US and Russia has no Spy networks in their countries operating ? and time to time these spies got caught , no one attack why ? because the consequences of Attacking US and Russia is not equal to Attack a powerless country like Afghanistan , US can get away with anything because they are powerful and so they bully powerless countries .. that's how it looks like

Russia did nothing to affect our recent election. Sure they tried, but they affected nothing. But even if they tried, that does not constitute a good cause for war. The fact that you tried to make that argument tells me you know nothing about causes for war and and any justifications for wars.

Of course that treaty allow prisoner exchange , but this means if you don't have a extradition treaty that means you can harbor any terrorist in the world, and they are above the reach of any international law, and that is what US did , they know Afghanistan is weak and can not retaliate and no other regional power has Backing them so US attack and get away with all Human rights violations over there .. isn't that true ?

Am not talking about prisoner exchange. Looks like you have a reading comprehension problem.

My point was that the Taliban demand for evidences of bin Laden's terrorism was absurd. We want the Taliban to hand bin Laden over -- yes. But that does not mean the Taliban have to do literally that. All they had to do was eject bin Laden out of Afghanistan, shut down Al Qaeda camps, and let US know when/where those actions took place. We can verify on our own and pursue bin Laden at our leisure. If that was done, there would have been no US war in Afghanistan.

I say this kindly...

Your English is weak and am not saying this to be mean, but you are debating a complex philosophical and legal issue where precise language is important. Further, it is evident that you have not done any independent study of the Geneva Convention on your own. The ECOWAS example is evident of your intellectual laziness. I can bring more examples of such intervention into neutral countries during a war.

If you believe that the US war in Afghanistan was illegal, then you are wrong.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It was claimed by @gambit that negotiations were carried out for over a decade.

...



So if I give the excuses by pointing out the flimsy condition of Afghanistan at the time Taliban took over, then it is an excuse but when you justify bombing the crap out of Iraq, you are not making any excuse.
Try to look in the mirror for once, aren't you doing exactly the same thing which you are accusing me of doing?
The Taliban did not have any clue what AQ was doing or what it was upto. The AQ wanted the US to attack Afghanistan and it lured her into that country. You just did what the AQ wanted.

BTW I talked about "what Iraq could do". Do read properly before quoting.


Since you are not willing to believe that Mullah Omer was ready to take action against Bin Laden after negotiations with General Mehmood, the then ISI chief, I am not going to debate on this any further.

After 9/11, what the other poster claimed was that they were carried out over a decade.
And Musharraf never personally talked to Mullah Omar. General Mehmood talked to him in Kandahar and yes Omar got angry and that is not the complete truth either. Later, Mahmood met Shura in Kabul where the Shura conceeded to his demands. The report on progress was conveyed duly to the US embassy in Islamabad however a few days later, the bombing started.

Here is an extract from "In Line of Fire - A Memoir" by Musharraf.
It discusses the meeting between Pakistan, KSA and Mullah Omar.
As You can see, the meeting occured three months after June 1998, or September 1998.
It did not occur after 9/11.
Mullah Omar was warned that he harboured OBL and Al Qaeda.
He did NOTHING for THREE YEARS.

That is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, where You shall in most cases intern
a combatant immediately.

Whether it was a decade or three years has no impact on the legality of the US Invasion.
That he may or may not have agreed to hand over OBL a few days does not change
the fact that at the time of the 9/11 attacks he was an ally of OBL and have
to accept the consequences.
He certainly did not inform the world about handing over OBL.
That would have made the news, and I am sure that I would have remembered that.

Mullah Omar was stupid, and Afghanistan is suffering from this single decision.
All the deaths in Afghanistan are thus his responsibility.

 

[Desert Fox]

Bro that's exactly what people for centuries have said and thought about so many powerful empires like Egyptian, Roman, Byzantine, Muslim, Ottoman, Mongol, Mughal, British people used to say the same exact words for Wehrmacht (yes it's me who's saying this for Wehrmacht) and RED army where are they now? the thing is atm US army is without a doubt is extremely powerful and the reasons for that is:
1) It hasn't seen an army which can truly challenge it

2) Yes it has technological advantage over rest of the world but it doesn't mean there are aren't armies/countries who can't counter it (Russia and China can) so let's not over glorify them mate their army is also made up of humans not robots time will come when US will go/brought down just like the names mentioned above but "when" and by "whom" is the main question.

P.S before anyone thinks no i am not that typical guy who lives in fantasy world of "Muslims destroying us and israel" i am just stating what history has tells us someone will finish off US just like before with every empire than someone will finish off that empire and the cycle will continue till the judgement day.

@Arsalan @django @Hell hound @Desert Fox @Nilgiri

Exactly! Every empire has its golden era.

But who will fill the void should the US collapse? And will these other powers be more brutal or more benevolent? That I'm afraid should be our biggest concern.

The US is a Western power, very much like the British empire. And just like it it embodies two distinct aspects; a semetic one (Jewish) and a European one. The former aspect manifests itself in the form of self-destructive wars in the middle East and the resulting instability which only benefits a certain country in that region at the expense of American and Western interests. The latter aspect (European) manifests itself in the form of the altruistic force-for-good on the global stage which is unparalleled in human history in terms of its humanitarian work.

No other nation in history or even today comes close to the tradition of Britain and now the USA in regard to the second aspect. And sure, I have my criticism of the US as well, but if we look closely most of the negative influence originates from a certain ethnic group's disproportionate political, cultural and financial influence.

One of the major criticisms Muslims have for the US (& the West in general) is that it's extremely supportive of Israel and is its leading ally on the world stage. But the Chinese and the Russians are no different, but rather they are less vocal about it and only pay lip service to Muslim countries while maintaining and further advancing their relations with Israel. China is one of Israel's major business partners. They even purchased American military secrets from Israel.

The Chinese, besides Israel and Iran of course, benefited the most from the American invasion of Iraq.

The Chinese might vote in favor of a UN resolution to punish Israel but only with the confidence that the US will veto it and thus they themselves will maintain a favorable image within the Muslim world while continuing to have strong business ties with global Zionism. For the Chinese only business matters. They don't care who they're dealing with as long as they're getting the best deals.

With that being said, what all of our main concern should be is if the US collapses, will that not bring an end to the uniquely Western tradition of global altruism and thus perhaps usher in another dark age much like what came after the collapse of the Roman empire?

@Nilgiri @Psychic

 

[gambit]

I do not care to study since there was no comparison of Iraq with Germany.

No surprise there.

What you are saying is that you "felt" threatened. Now others also feel threatened of your country would you apply the same logic in that case or not?

Yes, I would. For as long as I have been on this forum, NEVER have I deny any country the right to feel threatened by US. They want to attack US out of that fear ? Go ahead.

There is a difference between a pre-emptive strike and when you are paranoid. What Israel did in 67 or when it destroyed reactors of Iraq and Syria is pre emptive strike, what the US did was something else.

All countries are paranoid. No country could afford not to be.

You claimed that the negotiations were carried out for over a decade, see that post which I quoted. I do not know how they could be carried out for over a decade since Taliban were not even in power for a decade.

The first Al Qaeda WTC attack was the underground garage bomb truck in 1993. Then came Sept 11, 2001. That is 8 yrs passed. What do you think we have been doing all those yrs ?

The Taliban finally gained majority control of Afghanistan in 1996, but the Taliban was already in prominence before that.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan

The movement attracted popular support in the initial post-Soviet era by promising to impose stability and rule of law after four years of conflict (1992–1996) among rival mujahideen groups.

The US negotiated with anyone in Afghanistan who could and would do what we want regarding Al Qaeda in general and Osama bin Laden in particular. Plenty of books have been written about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, either directly about or Al Qaeda figured prominently. Probably the definitive biography of the Taliban is 'Taliban' by Ahmed Rashid, which I have in my little home library.

Would you like me to cite Chapter 1 on the origin yr of when the Taliban, as a movement and a group, gain such a prominence that pretty much anyone who want anything to do with Afghanistan must deal with the Taliban ?

Would you like me to cite Chapter 10 where Osama bin Laden established an Al Qaeda base in 1989 ?

Do read properly before quoting.

I probably read more than you do.

Taliban were neither involved in those attacks nor did they at any time endorse those attacks, they had their hands full.

It does not matter. The fact that Afghanistan was used by Al Qaeda, whether the Taliban was involved or even knew or not, is the only relevant thing here. The fact that we petitioned the Taliban regarding Al Qaeda is evident that we nominally respect the international order. Whoever is in charge, would you help US about Osama bin Laden ?

The Taliban had no global ambitions unlike the AQ, they still don't. What the US invasion did was that it united the Taliban and the AQ along with a dozen other groups.

So what ? Does that mean we were supposed to do nothing after 9/11 ?

In less than 100 days, we lay waste to the Taliban as an effective governing body of Afghanistan. But we waited a decade and it took an attack on US to compel US to act militarily.

The Taliban did not have any clue what AQ was doing or what it was upto.

That is bullshit and everyone knew it then and know it now. You will NEVER convince anyone of that. If there are any ISI readers out there, they are laughing hysterically.

 

[YeBeWarned]

The problem with this argument is that it allows you an avenue of escape when you find you cannot support your previous argument. If you know that Osama bin Laden was just another fighter, then what was the point of bringing it up in the first place ? The US did not controlled all Afghan fighters, no matter where they came from, in Afghanistan. You generalized and when the details contradicted you, you ran away. People bring up Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan out of the (wrong) need to associate him with US, and then we supposedly 'betrayed' him. That was all you did. That was all you know how to do. And you were wrong.

I didn't know you have hard time in understanding basic English, US fund and support Afghan Jihad which later come back bite US as AQ, the tactics trained by CIA to Mujahdeen is what AQ used against their enemies ..
https://newsone.com/1205745/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/
if you want to go that way, let me prove me you wrong ..

Whether a country have a functional central government or not -- is not the point.

The point is THE LAND which is wrongly used by one side to wage war. There are plenty of examples TODAY that supports that Geneva Convention allowance of retaliation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Liberian_Civil_War
https://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/66

ECOWAS was involved when a civil war threatened regional stability. Belligerents were using neutral neighboring countries to wage their civil wars. Those countries were too weak to eject those who trespassed borders. So ECOWAS formed a military corps to intervened and secured stability.

Simple truth: If A and B have a war against each other, then leave country C alone.

If A uses C's territory to support that war, then B have the right to retaliate against C. Invade the land of C if necessary.

lets agree to that this part, even though idea of a lawless country that has no functioning govt you expect them to follow Geneva Convention ? i bet 80% of the Afghani's won't even know what these Geneva is ..

I cannot speak for Russia, but I believe that the US and NATO tries our best to adhere to the Geneva Convention. Not perfect but our methods of warfare reflects restraints.

yeah I guess so, but these hundreds of dead may disagree with you..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...dren-mosul-offensive-latest-war-a7771146.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...s-iraq-syria-civilian-casualties.html?mcubz=1
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/world/middleeast/syria-airstrikes-civilians.html?mcubz=1
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...llegedly-kills-56-civilians-in-northern-syria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing
https://ccrjustice.org/home/blog/20...er-remembering-amiriyah-shelter-massacre-iraq

But that does not mean India do not have the right to retaliate.

so it is what my point is, the power give you all right to triumph any law or put the Geneva conventions in to trash bin .. US has powerful army so they attack Afghanistan or Iraq, They have no Power to Attack China or Russia so they use diplomacy ..

Yes, it is a valid argument. Does not matter if the immigrant is legal or illegal. If a person uses a country as a base to wage a war, that country is vulnerable to both legal and physical retaliation.

but OBL was not a Afghani citizen, and if US did not even recognize Taliban Govt than why do they actually take their word to protect OBL and not hand him over ? US Attack on Afghanistan is shady, i am not saying US must not do anything , the invasion was right but you have to agree that many many civilians died from both sides .. and so you cant just say all were killed by Taliban , just because a Soldier wears a uniform and kill a innocent Civilian on purpose does not make him a HERO .. he is equally a terrorist as a Taliban .

You have to give the host country time to correct the situation.

Say that ISIS uses Germany to recruit and train terrorists and that eventually those ISIS fighters committed acts of terrorism in other countries. In theory, other countries have the right retaliate against Germany. But the problem here is that Germany is a proven responsible country. The government and people maybe ignorant of ISIS cells in their country, but that does not equate to being friendly to ISIS and willfully allowed ISIS to live in Germany. Other countries must allow Germans to do their own investigation and defeat ISIS in their own country. Once it is proven that Germany is making an earnest effort and progress is visible, the right to retaliate against Germany diminishes.

The problem for you is that you are not making any effort to learn about this issue on your own. You are relying solely on me and my arguments for your education. You did not know about the Geneva Convention on the rights and duties of neutral powers as I have provided the DIRECT source to you. But instead of expanding on that initial education you continues to try to make our war in Afghanistan illegitimate by way of your ignorance and misunderstanding of a complex legal issue.

But isn't that the same case with Afghanistan ? how many Afghani civilians may have known OBL is hiding in Afghanistan and Taliban refused to give him away ? there was no Official Govt that means there was no Official entity to negotiate with Americans. America attack Afghanistan to take OBL and those who support him but what was the crime of that Innocent Afghan who make his life earning and got bombed either by US or Taliban ?

I am putting my effort to learn that is why i am having a debate with you, i did read Geneva conventions but of course i have not remember every point, i am just using Simple Logic that Mostly American give to justify all these wars , than why i am not fair to use same logic to European countries , which help ISIS fighters went in and out to Fight in other countries ..

Blame it on the Taliban. It may not be fair, but why is the fairness burden rests only upon US ?

I get it...The Taliban are Muslims, therefore, you are obligated to defend your fellow Muslims no matter how wrong they are.

I blame all parties involved , Taliban , AQ and American's .. there is no burden that alone Taliban is responsible neither American alone to be blamed .. but my point is that i wont expect anything better or follow Humanity rules from Taliban or AQ but if US act like mad cow , triumph everyone in their path , doesn't care for civilians death's than its also to be blamed and a crime against Human/civilians .

and for the second statement , i didn't expect this from you .. you are suppose to be professional .. just because i counter your arguments does not make me Taliban support, come on dude stop acting like a newbie here .. if you follow my Posts i openly hate Taliban ,ISIS and all their kinds .. I many times Praise US drones to target TTP or AQ leader but what my standing is on innocent civilians death does not make me a Taliban lover, if that was the case , there are so many people ( not just Muslims ) who blame US for war crimes so all are Taliban lover ? Stop acting like a Retarded person .. and just because you are A American you are Obliged to support American, no matter what sort of disgusting crimes they did against Humanity

Russia did nothing to affect our recent election. Sure they tried, but they affected nothing. But even if they tried, that does not constitute a good cause for war. The fact that you tried to make that argument tells me you know nothing about causes for war and and any justifications for wars.

You say , you retaliate those countries who send spies , I say Russian hijack your election as claimed by American sources than why its not a Valid reason to Attack Russian but Valid reason to Attack Afghanistan ? do you even read your own post man ??
do you want me to post sources how Russian hijack your election ? and that wont be Taliban or Pakistani sources ..

Am not talking about prisoner exchange. Looks like you have a reading comprehension problem.

My point was that the Taliban demand for evidences of bin Laden's terrorism was absurd. We want the Taliban to hand bin Laden over -- yes. But that does not mean the Taliban have to do literally that. All they had to do was eject bin Laden out of Afghanistan, shut down Al Qaeda camps, and let US know when/where those actions took place. We can verify on our own and pursue bin Laden at our leisure. If that was done, there would have been no US war in Afghanistan.

Maybe i have Comprehension problem but i do understand simple Logic Americans give to invade other countries . You are on one occasion saying that we ( Americans ) need all sort of Valid prove to act against someone who is in US hiding or taking shelter which harm other country or its civilians , but on the other hand you are saying Taliban asking for Prove against OBL was absurd ? by looking at US history , even i would ask for valid prove cause you Designated people as Terrorist without giving a valid Prove ( Hafiz Saeed ) is example for it, just to milk India you follow their wishes to designate people terrorists ..

Taliban might have miscalculated the American intentions , but US has all the might to take OBL in Afghanistan without even put a single boot on ground, you have a network of Intelligence there, you have Bases in Pakistan can be used to locate and target OBL .. ?Invasion can be avoided and also US can take out AQ .. but that is a different debate .

Your English is weak and am not saying this to be mean, but you are debating a complex philosophical and legal issue where precise language is important. Further, it is evident that you have not done any independent study of the Geneva Convention on your own. The ECOWAS example is evident of your intellectual laziness. I can bring more examples of such intervention into neutral countries during a war.

If you believe that the US war in Afghanistan was illegal, then you are wrong.

I don't believe US war in Afghanistan is wrong , but i believe US indiscriminate bombing Civilians and calling it Collateral Damage or mistake is wrong ..

P.S i am here to learn, hopefully from this debate i will learn new things and my English and comprehension will get better