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
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 ..
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 ?
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 ? you already know USA , Russia or NATO no one gives Hoot for Geneva Conventions when bombing their enemies ..
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 ..
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 ?
you are comparing a Miscreants Organization or Non State actors to Legal Immigrants , you really think its a valid argument brother ? 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 ..
And that is all we need. That is all ANY country need to be that offended belligerent.
and so USA invaded and Destroy Afghanistan become the cause deaths of half a million Afghans in cross fire ? your really think its Fair ??
That make them covert agents of a foreign power. We retaliate against the country that sent their spies, correct ?
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
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.
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 ?
The point is that If US is that Holy as American say they are, they could have taken out OBL without shedding the half a million Afghan blood , you have killed OBL in Pakistan with a Spec ops right ? why American didn't do it when he was in Afghanistan ? why not use the Military might to take out AQ leadership and let the Taliban jump around , what most they can do ? Taliban was struggling to get hold of Kabul , let alone attacking US main-land after US could possibly taken out OBL ..
the point is simple, US wanted to Invade the Afghanistan , and After 9/11 US got World's backing over whatever they want to do with any country they want to crush .. so US is no saint here, they are crushing other countries because they have powerful Army ..
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.
OBL was in Pakistan and US taken him out the leader is not attacking US soldiers, but he is giving orders and targets , so the Baluch Terrorist in Switzerland is not running terror camps but they are ordering their foot soldiers to attack civilians in Pakistan .. very similar cases
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.
AQ attack US embassies , they are terrorist that is what they do, you don't killed half a million people because of some Terrorist Organization .. in that case Pakistan , KSA , Yemen , Iran , Syria and many other countries must be obliterated by now ..
Switzerland holds Baluch terrorist leaders who give orders to their foot soldiers in Pakistan to Attack Civilians here. same as US killed OBL in Abotabad ..US didn't Pakistan to take action but they acted on their own, and no one talk about nuking Switzerland, i want to go there for my honeymoon
i am just using the same Logic people here giving to justify attack on Afghanistan or Pakistan against them ..
