Pakistan helped Iraq in defeating IS, says Iraqi envoy

[Muhammed45]

Iran have proven that they have closed eyes on activities of Indian Intelligence in their territory and also recruiting people from Pakistan to fight in Syria and Iraq and you think we will allow Iran to come in our area and roam freely.

Well, you are a Pakistani and will deny whole my views, ok
I'm done. Already off topic.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Put aside your obvious intent to cast a negative light on US...

Actually, the Geneva Convention grants that right.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp

Articles 2 thru 5 is the responsibility of a claimed neutral power. Failure to enforce any of them make that country vulnerable to counterattack by the offended belligerent.

So in the case of Afghanistan, we spent over a decade trying to negotiate with Mullah Omar about Osama bin Laden. Since Afghanistan not only failed to enforce Articles 2 thru 5 but actually encourages Al Qaeda to make basing in Afghanistan, we have the right to retaliate against Afghanistan the way we did after 9/11.

As for Pakistan's case, no, you do not have that right. Unless you can prove that the Baluch leaders are using Switzerland the same way that Afghanistan did for Al Qaeda.

Lets put this US thing aside ..

USA persuade OBL after the incident of 9/11, before he actually attack USA why you guys want him anyway ? and is it a bit odd that not very distant OBL was one of the foot fighter in Afghan Jihad which was run and controlled by US and allies ? so why US want OBL post 9/11 ( as you mentioned that US try to negotiate to get OBL ) and we all know that twin towers got hit in sept 2001, and US invaded the same year, which means few months ( if my memory works fine ) ..

now for Afghanistan to not follow the Geneva is it obvious ? Afghanistan was run by a Taliban govt which was not Accepted by the UN or any other country except few , than why you expect them to follow a Article ? are you saying that Americans did not know Afghanistan govt is not a legitimized Govt to begin with ? it was a law-less country run by Taliban and other parts controlled by War lords ?

OBL did not use Afghanistan to attack US , he use men from KSA and Egypt , and they might got training in Afghanistan but we all know many were already in US for quite sometime .. the only thing i see that Taliban refused to give OBL to you guys as you ask them too , and as Taliban spokesman said in a Interview that the evidence provided by USA is not enough , now if a country wants US to handover someone who is seeking Asylum in USA , and if they give evidence to you , your govt will not hand them over anyway .. is it truth ?
so America Invaded Afghanistan instead of Targeting OBL via drone or some targeted Operation ( US army is Mighty and can do it ) but they invaded the country which we all know how it turned out .. civilians got killed in cross fire and Air strikes that leads to more and more people picking up arms against a Foreign invaders .

the Baluch terrorist leaders are living in Switzerland, giving orders to their foot soldiers to attack Chinese and Pakistan labors , why we can not Nuke or Invade Switzerland and US can invade Afghanistan following up a person who attack and killed 3000+/- Civilians ?

 

[Thetigerforces]

So India was funding ISIS and selling Industrial grade detonators from Indian state firms / Also trading oil .By the way India is only country in the world who has business links with the same organization .

@CAD a piece of advice stop following this lunatic .

Pakistan role in Islamic world is not hidden and some how being a small nation (we have our issues but managed to take down super powers)
Pakistan role for Bosnian muslims was such a high point against Kufars.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistans-role-in-stoping-the-bosnian-genocide.6116/

Your Allies China and Turkey were also found to be supplying them with detonators you dumbass, guess you like to ignore that fact. And it was due to it being sold to companies in Turkey and Lebanon who might have passed it to IS. Where is the proof India was funding IS? And again, you ally Turkey was purchasing oil from IS.

 

[gambit]

USA persuade OBL after the incident of 9/11, before he actually attack USA why you guys want him anyway ? and is it a bit odd that not very distant OBL was one of the foot fighter in Afghan Jihad which was run and controlled by US and allies ? so why US want OBL post 9/11 ( as you mentioned that US try to negotiate to get OBL ) and we all know that twin towers got hit in sept 2001, and US invaded the same year, which means few months ( if my memory works fine ) ..

One of the biggest lies is that Osama bin Laden 'worked' for US during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...inessman-who-recruited-mujahedin-1465715.html

But what of the Arab mujahedin whom he took to Afghanistan - members of a guerrilla army who were also encouraged and armed by the United States - and who were forgotten when that war was over? 'Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help.

Robert Fisk is no friend of US.

There were many groups who fought against the Soviets. We did not know all of them, let alone control.

The personal war that Osama bin Laden waged against US was religious in motivation. bin Laden was a devout Muslim who saw any non-Muslim in any position of prominence in Muslim countries as blasphemous. At best, Osama bin Laden may have been a name we notice because of the familial connection in Saudi Arabia, but as bin Laden himself testified to Fisk, he and his group had nothing to do with US back then.

now for Afghanistan to not follow the Geneva is it obvious ? Afghanistan was run by a Taliban govt which was not Accepted by the UN or any other country except few , than why you expect them to follow a Article ? are you saying that Americans did not know Afghanistan govt is not a legitimized Govt to begin with ? it was a law-less country run by Taliban and other parts controlled by War lords ?

It does not matter if Afghanistan was ruled by a government recognized by the international community or not, or if the country was ruled by tribal leaders. The fact is that the UN recognized a political entity called 'Afghanistan' and accorded that country with the minimum of political respect, the most important is the respect of international borders.

What the Geneva Convention did was formalized that understanding of neutral power's responsibility for the modern time, but that understanding came from common sense for as long as warfare existed. Think about it for a moment. Pakistan and India is at war against each other. India uses Tibet to train and create bases there. Tibet (China) is helpless. You think your Pakistan is going to let Tibet off the hook ?

OBL did not use Afghanistan to attack US , he use men from KSA and Egypt

Even though Al Qaeda is a transnational organization, it still need the security -- given or not -- of a parcel of land in order to recruit, motivate, train, and disperse its combatants. Going by your logic, since the US is an immigrant country, if you go to war against US, are you going to attack European countries as well since they are the source of our citizens ?

, and they might got training in Afghanistan...

And that is all we need. That is all ANY country need to be that offended belligerent.

...but we all know many were already in US for quite sometime ..

That make them covert agents of a foreign power. We retaliate against the country that sent their spies, correct ?

...the only thing i see that Taliban refused to give OBL to you guys as you ask them too , and as Taliban spokesman said in a Interview that the evidence provided by USA is not enough , now if a country wants US to handover someone who is seeking Asylum in USA , and if they give evidence to you , your govt will not hand them over anyway .. is it truth ?

The demand for evidence was nothing but a stalling tactic and everyone knew it.

If a country have an extradition treaty with US, we would not demand evidence but would simply hand the suspect over. Extradition treaties are not the same.

Take this Canadian example...

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/canadas-extradition-law-a-legal-condundrum

Seeking political asylum is not the same thing. We take political persecution differently than killing someone during a bank robbery.

so America Invaded Afghanistan instead of Targeting OBL via drone or some targeted Operation ( US army is Mighty and can do it ) but they invaded the country which we all know how it turned out .. civilians got killed in cross fire and Air strikes that leads to more and more people picking up arms against a Foreign invaders .

What is the point here ?

the Baluch terrorist leaders are living in Switzerland, giving orders to their foot soldiers to attack Chinese and Pakistan labors , why we can not Nuke or Invade Switzerland and US can invade Afghanistan following up a person who attack and killed 3000+/- Civilians ?

Pakistan must provide evidence to Switzerland that their country is being used in contradiction to Articles 2 thru 5 and allow Switzerland time to correct that error. If the Swiss either refused to comply or incompetent in enforcement, then Pakistan have the right to retaliate against Switzerland anyway you see fit.

 

[LeGenD]

It was clear to nearly everyone that George W. Bush had launched a foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq, and then compounded the error by mismanaging it (and the war in Afghanistan too). So Americans chose a candidate who had opposed Bush’s war in Iraq which was Obama at that time.

But, Yet a mere two years later, you find yourselves back in the fray once again. Since taking office, Obama had escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of your intervention is regime change at the point of a gun. At first you hoped that most of the guns would be in the hands of the Europeans, or the hands of the rebel forces arrayed against Muammar al-Qaddafi, but it’s increasingly clear that U.S. military forces, CIA operatives and foreign weapons supplies are going to be necessary to finish the job.

Reasons Why America Keeps Fighting Foolish Wars?

The most obvious reason that the United States keeps doing these things is the fact that it has a remarkably powerful military, especially when facing a minor power like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan when you’ve got hundreds of planes, smart bombs, and cruise missiles, the whole world looks like a target set for the USA. So when some thorny problem arises somewhere in the world, it’s hard to resist for the USA and the temptation to “do something!”

Invasion of Iraq was not an overnight decision.

Iraq was set for collision with US when it invaded Kuwait in 1990 and annexed it. US gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum of 1 year to call off its troops from Kuwait but to no avail (What was Saddam thinking?); US and Iraq exchanged blows in 1991 which led to liberation of Kuwait but Saddam Hussein remained strong in Iraq and a "foreign policy concern" for American interests in the region because clashes with him continued from time-to-time. Bush jr. ordered the invasion in 2003 to close the chapter of Saddam permanently.

Personally, I see the fall of Saddam Hussein (and Iraq in general) as one of the greatest tragedies to befall Islamic bloc in modern times. However, these matters are really complicated.

IMO, US should have prioritized its mission in Afghanistan (and combating Al-Qaeda Network) after 9/11 event - "regime change" mission in Iraq was not necessary under these circumstances and diverted American resources from Afghanistan.

A little off Topic Gambit, but with your logic in this specific Post , can we say that every country has a right to attack the other country who give Asylum to someone who did something bad ? for example the Baluch Terrorist Leaders were enjoying their lives in Switzerland and some other Western countries, so by this logic are we ( Pakistani's ) have the legitimate right to invade those lands, obliterate their population , disband their govt to install another , and than call the native people terrorist if they resist ?

Hmm.

This is valid critic.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Already at the beginnings of the Syrian Rebellion it was noted that there were no "good guys"
to support, so the FSA that organized the rebellion found themselves more or less abandoned
by the West.
Syrian Government atrocities began to be highlighted by the press forcing some token support
with anti tank missiles being noted.
Also a CIA training program was started, with some funding, but that only resulted in a few dozen trained rebels, and generally was deemed a complete failure a few years ago.
FSA rebels deserted to Al-Nusra, or simple handed over weapons to other organisations
as payment for passage and other things.
The significant amount of support for rebels has come from KSA and Gulf states.
The Toyota affairs show that they supplied 50,000 vehicles, and the US supplied a few hundred.

The US has bombed Syrian troops by mistake a few times,
but lately has attacked Syrians Government forces attacking rebels trained to fight ISIS.
I doubt that the US has made any effort to supply ISIS.

You might as well claim that the British supported the Nazis during operation Market-Garden.
They dropped a lot of supplies right into the hands of the Wehrmacht/SS.

Meanwhile, the USAF is online 24/7 to support the Iraqi Army in its fight against ISIS.

So it is really not that complicated.

thanks for your point of view those few times attacks were at a very crucial point where the Syrian forces were at the verge of crushing Daesh only to be bombed to bits and then Daesh moving in immediately celebrating the unexpected victory and sharing their gruesome videos afterwords


there are some disturbing news of ISIS receiving American arms directly via airdrops or via their Saudi allies
you pointed out right that at start FSA just simply dissolved into Al Nusra and Daesh .. for me the word moderate and militant are self contradictory and on the face of it what right does any western government have to arm the rebels against a sovereign state even without a token UN resolution? secular / moderate or Not.. arming FSA under international law (what a laughable joke that word is) couldnt be supported.. because it is the same reason Iran is condemned for its support of groups in Lebanon and in Yemen
that said. American support of Iraqi forces in their fight against Daesh needs to be mentioned too but it becomes very confusing as our alliances seem to change depending on what side of a border we are talking about in middle east.
the Daesh (with changed label) camps are allegedly still running under the supervision of CIA and patronage of saudis in Jordan against Asad although the overt and celebratory mention of them saw a decline over the years after burning the Jordanian jet pilot alive.

How can I give that kind of proof when it turned out that Iraq did not have FUNCTIONAL nuclear weapon ?

The issue and the charge is that the US 'lied'. To lie about something means you must know the truth but instead tells something else. So if you charge that the US 'lied' about Iraq's WMD program, are you ready to have your charge challenged ? Simple question, no ?

You sound like just another 12 yr old who thinks he can play with adults.

the tragedy here is all about the wording and the wizardry of it

the weapons of mass destruction narrative morphed into weapons of mass destruction program
if lying is not a correct charge then deceiving maybe a suitable replacement?

as bad as ISIS is you are taking sides in a civil war

what a wise comment

NOT

 

[HAIDER]

Now Pakistan army also started grand operation against IS along Pak-Afghan belt. Also arrested IS soldiers from Parachanar. ISPR said today , IS influence is increasing inside Afghan side of border. Afghan govt fail to control IS.
Now IS is functioning against Haqqani network inside Pakistan ? .... @Irfan Baloch

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The report identifies that the majority of the opposition is full of extremists and terrorists. The U.S and it's allies than continued to support said opposition through the years and still continue to do so to this day.

The intelligence report conclusively proves that the U.S and it's allies knew exactly what their support would lead to. It even says so in the report, yet they continued with their plans, only because they wanted to weaken Iran and Syria.

Only a spin doctor like yourself would try to make U.S and its' allies innocent in this matter. Your spin on "Supporting Powers" is funny as well. The report states, "Western countries, the Gulf states states and Turkey are supporting these efforts."

And then again, "The West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition..." The same opposition that has been identified as the above.

You obviously will not accept that the self righteous West can ever do any wrong and all the blame is on "Gulf states and possibly Turkey".

The intelligence officers certainly don't make policy decisions, but this report showed who the opposition was and what the purpose of the allies of the opposition was. Yet did it prevent the U.S and its' allies from stopping their support to the opposition?

You even accepted in your second paragraph exactly what I am saying. So what's your other rant about?

The fact that X supports the opposition, does not mean that everyone in the opposition
gets supported. The report does not mention which groups gets support.
The US supports only a few groups, not all groups.
Yet you claim that if a group is opposing Assad, it gets supported by the US.
The report does not support such a view.

Then you claim that I believe that the West can do no wrong,
when I already stated that the CIA program to support rebels was a total failure.
It only produced a few trained rebels, and they transferred equipment to other rebel groups
or defected.

The ideal end game for the West is a fully democratic Syria where Sunnis and Shia share power.
Not a terrorist Caliphate.
Assad has no place in that state.

 

[volatile]

Your Allies China and Turkey were also found to be supplying them with detonators you dumbass, guess you like to ignore that fact. And it was due to it being sold to companies in Turkey and Lebanon who might have passed it to IS. Where is the proof India was funding IS? And again, you ally Turkey was purchasing oil from IS.

Your first post and you choose to use words which are in appropriate

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...ong-those-in-isis-supply-chain-says-eu-study/

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...nents-to-isis-report/articleshow/51142301.cms


http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/ind...-modi-iraq-crisis-isis-mosul-tikri-38913.html

http://dailymailnews.com/2014/11/21...ausing-acute-threat-to-regional-global-peace/

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ed-by-us-state-department-117061501454_1.html

I think there are many proofs to what i have shared ,Regarding Turkey / Lebanon i give a dam each country has his own objectives ,

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

thanks for your point of view those few times attacks were at a very crucial point where the Syrian forces were at the verge of crushing Daesh only to be bombed to bits and then Daesh moving in immediately celebrating the unexpected victory and sharing their gruesome videos afterwords


there are some disturbing news of ISIS receiving American arms directly via airdrops or via their Saudi allies
you pointed out right that at start FSA just simply dissolved into Al Nusra and Daesh .. for me the word moderate and militant are self contradictory and on the face of it what right does any western government have to arm the rebels against a sovereign state even without a token UN resolution? secular / moderate or Not.. arming FSA under international law (what a laughable joke that word is) couldnt be supported.. because it is the same reason Iran is condemned for its support of groups in Lebanon and in Yemen
that said. American support of Iraqi forces in their fight against Daesh needs to be mentioned too but it becomes very confusing as our alliances seem to change depending on what side of a border we are talking about in middle east.
the Daesh (with changed label) camps are allegedly still running under the supervision of CIA and patronage of saudis in Jordan against Asad although the overt and celebratory mention of them saw a decline over the years after burning the Jordanian jet pilot alive.

If the US was serious about crushing Assad, You know as well as I,
that the Syrian Air Bases would no longer exist, and there would be no Syrian Air Force.
The ground forces would be DECIMATED.

The US has no problem saying that they are out to get Syrian government forces,
when they think they have a reason.
Why would they claim that some are mistakes, but others are on purpose?
The only rational explanation is that some are indeed mistakes.

It is not rational to provide supplies to ISIS, while at the same time blow them to smithereens.
There are plenty of unsubstantiated rumour (aka slandering), but no credible sources proving
the US supports ISIS.

When a population is repressed by a dictator, it is the DUTY of the rest of the world
to help the oppressed.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

A little off Topic Gambit, but with your logic in this specific Post , can we say that every country has a right to attack the other country who give Asylum to someone who did something bad ? for example the Baluch Terrorist Leaders were enjoying their lives in Switzerland and some other Western countries, so by this logic are we ( Pakistani's ) have the legitimate right to invade those lands, obliterate their population , disband their govt to install another , and than call the native people terrorist if they resist ?

A neutral country can in some cases allow soldiers from a warring party to make a short visit.
An example is the Graf Spee in Montevideo. It needed to leave after 1-2 days due to rules,
even thoigh it needed repairs to be battleworthy.
The devious Brits had some commercial ships leave the harbour a few times per day,
triggering a rule that a Germa ship must wait at least 12 hours, after an enemy commercial ship left.

If an military airplane crashes in a neutral country, the crew should be interned.
Failure to do so vilolates the Geneva and You can treat the country as an ally to the crew.

Presence of political leaders is not violating neutrality.

You can never legally obliterate purely civilian targets

Lets put this US thing aside ..

USA persuade OBL after the incident of 9/11, before he actually attack USA why you guys want him anyway ? and is it a bit odd that not very distant OBL was one of the foot fighter in Afghan Jihad which was run and controlled by US and allies ? so why US want OBL post 9/11 ( as you mentioned that US try to negotiate to get OBL ) and we all know that twin towers got hit in sept 2001, and US invaded the same year, which means few months ( if my memory works fine ) ..

now for Afghanistan to not follow the Geneva is it obvious ? Afghanistan was run by a Taliban govt which was not Accepted by the UN or any other country except few , than why you expect them to follow a Article ? are you saying that Americans did not know Afghanistan govt is not a legitimized Govt to begin with ? it was a law-less country run by Taliban and other parts controlled by War lords ?

OBL did not use Afghanistan to attack US , he use men from KSA and Egypt , and they might got training in Afghanistan but we all know many were already in US for quite sometime .. the only thing i see that Taliban refused to give OBL to you guys as you ask them too , and as Taliban spokesman said in a Interview that the evidence provided by USA is not enough , now if a country wants US to handover someone who is seeking Asylum in USA , and if they give evidence to you , your govt will not hand them over anyway .. is it truth ?
so America Invaded Afghanistan instead of Targeting OBL via drone or some targeted Operation ( US army is Mighty and can do it ) but they invaded the country which we all know how it turned out .. civilians got killed in cross fire and Air strikes that leads to more and more people picking up arms against a Foreign invaders .

the Baluch terrorist leaders are living in Switzerland, giving orders to their foot soldiers to attack Chinese and Pakistan labors , why we can not Nuke or Invade Switzerland and US can invade Afghanistan following up a person who attack and killed 3000+/- Civilians ?

Al Qaeda attacked US Embassies, and USS Cole way before 9/11 and bragged about it.
Mullah Omar choose to allow them to remain in Afghanistan, creating a legal reason
for the US to attack Afghanistan, within the limits if the Geneva Convention.

As the Taliban did not sign the Geneva Convention, You can argue they do not enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention.
They can then be legally attacked without a valid reason.

A more conventional view would be that Afghanistan has signed the convention
and the Taliban are bound by that.
The US still has a valid reason.

If Baluch leaders sets up training camps for training troops in Switzerland, then
they are involved as a party.
You still can't nuke them, as that would most likely be considered to be unproportional.
Switzerland are an exceptionslly bad country to attack, because it is surrounded by countries,
which are neutral, and You have no right of fly-over to attack Switzerland.
ICBMs may be yoir only alternative, but without nukes, how effective will they be?

Be aware that the UN is working towards a ban of nuclear weapons.
Once implemented, use of nuclear weapons against a signee nation would most likely be
treated as a Crime against Humanity.
Use against a non-signee (Pakistan, China and India are not planning to sign) would still be legal,
but if a signee country sees fallout from an attack on a non-signee,
It is likely that they can prosecute attackers for Crime against Humanity.

 

[jericho]

Remember guys, we only provided training besides advise and intelligence, just imagine if there were Pakistani troops on the ground or pilots in the air......

While i was reading the news and going thorugh this thread I couldnt help but notice that Pakistanis always help train the army of others countries to help them while on the other side, the is a so called Soupa Powa which is requesting a country (Israel) 100 times smaller then them to give them training

 

[Irfan Baloch]

When a population is repressed by a dictator, it is the DUTY of the rest of the world
to help the oppressed.

I agree with what you are saying by going by this definition
this rule must apply to many Apartheid states in the Middle east that just happen to be American allies and hosts to their Naval and airbases.
but thats another discussion. re America I agree its might is right and they don't apologize when they do whatever they do but they are not stupid, they choose their targets carefully.
re Georgia and Ukraine their actions were very limited and modest because it was Russia on the other side

 

[gambit]

the tragedy here is all about the wording and the wizardry of it

the weapons of mass destruction narrative morphed into weapons of mass destruction program
if lying is not a correct charge then deceiving maybe a suitable replacement?

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.

Invasion of Iraq was not an overnight decision.

IMO, US should have prioritized its mission in Afghanistan (and combating Al-Qaeda Network) after 9/11 event - "regime change" mission in Iraq was not necessary under these circumstances and diverted American resources from Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda was and still is a transnational organization and as such, it needs a secured physical location to continue to exists and perform its mission.

Al Qaeda cannot exist in subterfuge of hosts -- secret agents and all -- like how popular entertainment would have us believe. Such an existence would have slow communication, substandard training, low motivators, and limited resources, all because of the host country's surveillance and counterintelligence efforts.

If a 'backward' country like Afghanistan can sustain Al Qaeda and the result was an attack on US soil to the scale not seen since WW II, the inevitable argument is that what COULD a more 'advanced' country like Iraq, under a ruler that has expansionist goals, can do ? This is the kind of questions that all governments must contend with since they all have at least adversaries, if not outright enemies. Hindsight will always make one 'wise' and often produce lucrative financial returns on the speaking circuit, but the people who appears to be 'wise' today usually were not the ones who had to face uncertain facts to make decisions yesterday.

 

[Psychic]

If a 'backward' country like Afghanistan can sustain Al Qaeda and the result was an attack on US soil to the scale not seen since WW II, the inevitable argument is that what COULD a more 'advanced' country like Iraq, under a ruler that has expansionist goals, can do ? This is the kind of questions that all governments must contend with since they all have at least adversaries, if not outright enemies. Hindsight will always make one 'wise' and often produce lucrative financial returns on the speaking circuit, but the people who appears to be 'wise' today usually were not the ones who had to face uncertain facts to make decisions yesterday.

There were many wise people who warned of the consequences of OIF and OEF. But the invasion plans were pushed through nevertheless because of the vested interests of a few.
And what could a sanction ridden country barely having a Navy and Airforce do to anyone is beyond comprehension. Even if it were a threat to other Gulf countries or Israel, the US already had military bases in the region and the regional armies were stronger than they were before.
Attacking a country on mere speculation that it would become powerful in the far future and killing a million human beings in the process is unjustifiable unless you attack that country when it is in the process of becoming a danger...Even in that case, the best course of action is to improve one's own defensive and offensive capabilities to deter the expansionist designs of that country.

P.S we know what was done to Libya.

So in the case of Afghanistan, we spent over a decade trying to negotiate with Mullah Omar about Osama bin Laden. Since Afghanistan not only failed to enforce Articles 2 thru 5 but actually encourages Al Qaeda to make basing in Afghanistan, we have the right to retaliate against Afghanistan the way we did after 9/11.

Can you provide a source regarding those negotiations?

Mullah Omar had a lot of other things to do with his meager resources regarding law and order and stability in a country that was involved in a war/civil war for over a decade instead of doing the bidding of others, especially those who neither recognized his rule nor helped his poor country but instead imposed sanctions.
The demand for evidence was not a stalling tactic and later on, the Taliban were on the verge of taking action against Bin Laden without evidence (Coming from General Mahmud who negotiated with Mullah Omar in Kandahar and the Shura in Kabul) but the US had another purpose for the invasion which was regime change.

When a population is repressed by a dictator, it is the DUTY of the rest of the world
to help the oppressed.

Unless those dictators are stooges of the US.