AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
You mean the parts that validate my arguments about US arrogance and unwillingness to compromise ..As you wish...
Please see post 148 for the full article.
Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.
...
In interviews, U.S. participants and sources close to the Taliban discussed the exchanges in detail and debated whether the State Department should have been more flexible in its hard-line stance. Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.
Some Afghan experts argue that throughout the negotiations, the United States never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula." Officials never found a way to ease the Taliban's fear of embarrassment if it turned over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western power.
"We were not serious about the whole thing, not only this administration but the previous one," said Richard Hrair Dekmejian, an expert in Islamic fundamentalism and author at the University of Southern California. "We did not engage these people creatively. There were missed opportunities."
...
The article only further establishes the fact that the war in Afghanistan was a war of 'choice' and was a result of US unwillingness to explore multiple options provided by the Taliban to have OBL prosecuted.
'Precedence of trials of the accused in the accusing nation' does not invalidate the Taliban's position - the decision on whether or not OBL and Co. should be handed to the US for a trial in the US was the Taliban's - they were, justifiably, unwilling to do so and offered multiple feasible alternatives that the US rejected and instead launched war. I fail to see how you can excuse US behavior here, or excuse US culpability, direct and indirect, in the deaths of hundreds and thousands of innocents across three nations following the US decision to go to war.Any international organizations you may cite is no good if the government in discussion is not a party to a treaty that created said organization in the first place. There are plenty of historical and current precedents where the accused was tried by the accusing country: Peru v Lori Berenson. Or that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was turned over by Libya for Pan Am 103.
Was the Taliban 'OBL's sponsor in his actions'? There is no evidence that the Taliban provided OBL with money, training or resources - if anything, it was OBL who was providing the Taliban with finances, in order to cushion his own stay in Afghanistan.Was the US Brahamdagh Bugti's sponsor in his actions? News has it that there were several European countries willing to accept him. None stepped forward to assist ObL and ObL's parent country, Saudi Arabia, disowned him.
Brahamdegh Bugti continued to lead his terrorist organization while in 'exile' in Afghanistan under US and Afghan protection and support. His organization continued to (and still is) carry out terrorist attacks against civilians (educators, physicians and workers from other ethnic groups as well as pro-Pakistan Baluch) while he was in Afghanistan. Wikileaks indicates that he was also involved in the abduction of Solecki, and the US and UN were involved in negotiations with him over his release.
The number of countries 'willing to accept Bugti' does not invalidate US culpability in sheltering a terrorist and his organization, and facilitating his 'safe exile' to another nation. At best, US actions are identical to those of the Taliban (in sheltering OBL) that it condemned and went to war over. But of course being 'two-faced' comes naturally to the red-neck infested US military and political leadership.