What's new

Think tank: 92% of Afghans never heard of 9/11

Please do engage i dont mind as long as you do not pose your long nose into Pakistani affairs.


We are not engaging into any of pakistani affairs its you who are doing so, And yeah afghanistan is sovereign nation and we have aour own bilatral ties with them so plss dont pose your long nose into our bilatral relationship and nor cry...

:lazy::lazy::lazy: they say ignorance is blessing in some cases.

I accepted that i don't know much about afghanistan and i told this to ahmed...:angel:
 
They don't know why they're dying.

Infact, I don't know why they're dying.

Taliban had no hand in 9/11 and were not hostile towards America before war on tea-rar
If your house guest made it clear that he is a dealer of illegal hallucinogenic substances, from manufacturing to sales, retail and wholesale, and if you and the neighborhood knows about it, then you are legally liable and guilty of his illegal business even if you had no hand in his business. The Taliban was the ruling authority in Afghanistan and the regime can be as friendly or as neutral or as hostile to the US as they want. But hostility does not always translate to 'armed conflict' as long as the Taliban abide by accepted international understanding of inter-state relations...

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907
Article 1.

The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.
Yes...We accept that understanding.

Art. 2.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3.
Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:

(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4.
Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5.
A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda considered themselves 'belligerents' against the US. Article 2 through 5 places DUAL and EQUAL moral burdens on the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Taliban, if they wish to keep Afghanistan's neutral status, they must NOT allow al-Qaeda to recruit and train al-Qaeda affiliated combatants on Afghanistan's soil. Likewise, if al-Qaeda respect the Taliban's desire to maintain Afghanistan's neutrality, even if the two are friendly and hostile to the US, al-Qaeda would NOT recruit and train its affiliated combatants on Afghan soil. This is common sense.

Art. 6.
The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.
Travelers crossing the neutral country to offer their services to a belligerent party does not involve said neutral country in the conflict. In other words, Article 5 does not apply to said neutral country regarding Article 6. Did this happened? No, because al-Qaeda established recruitment and training centers INSIDE Afghanistan with the Taliban's consent. This rendered the Taliban an active belligerent in the conflict.

Art. 7.
A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Art. 8.
A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.
Since al-Qaeda established recruitment and training centers inside Afghanistan's borders with the Taliban's consent, Article 7 and 8 are negated hence invalid protections for Afghanistan.

Art. 9.
Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents.

A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.
We know this did not happened. Were there US military recruiting and training centers inside Afghanistan? The Taliban clearly favored al-Qaeda and their recruiting and training centers inside Afghanistan made the Taliban an active belligerent in this conflict.

Art. 10.
The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda did not entered Afghanistan by force and compelled the Taliban under the gun to allow Afghanistan to be used as a war base against the US in this conflict. The Taliban consented and therefore made Afghanistan an active belligerent in this conflict.

The refusal and/or failure by the Taliban and al-Qaeda to abide by Articles 2 through 10 rendered Article 1 an invalid protection for Afghanistan. Keep in mind these articles are applicable to Pakistan as well.
 
i think it is over exaguration. lets differentiate between entire history and the last 200 years.

last 200 IS your entire history
you got independence in 1748

@ the Indian that says AFG currently has a centralized govt.

My answer: LOL
you call this a centralized govt? Without the Americans and the coalition the Taliban would have control of the country in no time. Plus, a centralized govt has control of every square inch of the country. Can you say that about the current Afghan regime?
 
As I read the posts of our US friends, (Gambit) I was reminded of a thread "The Turkey & The Eagle" on the US affairs board - below is excerpt from that thread:

Underpinning the Eagles' willingness to act on their goals of military and economic supremacy is a cultural belief shared by the vast majority of Americans: exceptionalism. This exceptionalism permits the self-congratulatory perception of a benevolent US state that shapes the world for the better. Moreover, exceptionalist policies that advance American self-interest are legitimate because what's good for America is good for the world. "The logic of exceptionalism," writes Rossiter, "dovetails with the requirements of domination." America's cultural acceptance of this logic largely confines anti-imperialists to the political hinterlands.

So majorities in two troublesome provinces of Afghanistan do not as yet know why the US and her "coalition" is there and will not leave -- So what?

Well, if they knew why the US and her coalition are in Afghanistan and will not leave, the population would accept the right of the US to be there and not leave -- is this not the logic of those who argue that the US must do a better job of articulating why it is in Afghanistan??

The "active" and "passive" roles this set up are absolutely devastating. While the stated logic of Al-Qaida's attack on the US is US policies, the US's response is not to examine the quality of policies but rather to punish the notion that such policies are even open to change - good luck.
 
Yaar,

what baqwas poll is this. Considering most Afghan's are more concerned about day to day survival... What did they expect? Jesus... Considering a Think Tank conducted this poll, they didn't think much about their population segment did they...
 
As I read the posts of our US friends, (Gambit) I was reminded of a thread "The Turkey & The Eagle" on the US affairs board - below is excerpt from that thread:



So majorities in two troublesome provinces of Afghanistan do not as yet know why the US and her "coalition" is there and will not leave -- So what?

Well, if they knew why the US and her coalition are in Afghanistan and will not leave, the population would accept the right of the US to be there and not leave -- is this not the logic of those who argue that the US must do a better job of articulating why it is in Afghanistan??

The "active" and "passive" roles this set up are absolutely devastating. While the stated logic of Al-Qaida's attack on the US is US policies, the US's response is not to examine the quality of policies but rather to punish the notion that such policies are even open to change - good luck.
US foreign policies are custom tailored vis-a-vis inter-states relations. Only states can challenge states and how states resolves their differences are equally custom tailored. So if you support the notion that al-Qaeda's challenges to US policies are legitimate, you might as well declare your allegiance to al-Qaeda right here and now on this forum.
 
1. Who authorized US and British forces to attack Afghanistan on 7 October 2001? The UN?

2. The Taliban demanded an evidence regarding Osama's involvement in 9/11 attacks, they said "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". Bush rejected that offer.

9/11 attacks was an act against humanity (terrorism), not an armed conflict. The US was attacked by a group of people who could move wherever they want; Afghanistan, Pakistan, even they could be inside the US itself. I think Afghanistan is no longer a shelter to them.
 
So if you support the notion that al-Qaeda's challenges to US policies are legitimate, you might as well declare your allegiance to al-Qaeda right here and now on this forum

More fiber in more diet, it will bring greater clarity to your thinking. With us (submit) or Against us (die) this formulation is exhausted, Gambit - see, what so many who see the world through the lens of "exception" cannot grasp, is how different the world is from when this idea had merit.

Look again at your response, instead of responding to the substance, you attack the person for having the nerve to see the world and policy options differently - more fiber in your diet.

I very much agree with you that
Only states can challenge states
and yet US policy towards the Muslim world is informed by the notion that the US must respond to a organization now consisting of less than 300 individuals - your position lacks internal cohesion (and for this no amount of fiber will serve as prescription) because it's ideological premise is found wanting.


Do you find yourself at odds with the suggestion that given the finding in the above referenced poll, the US should do a better job of articulating why it is in Afghanistan??
 
1. Who authorized US and British forces to attack Afghanistan on 7 October 2001? The UN?
Who authorized al-Qaeda to attack US, on US soil and against US interests overseas, over many years? Islam?

2. The Taliban demanded an evidence regarding Osama's involvement in 9/11 attacks, they said "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". Bush rejected that offer.
We have every right to reject that offer. The fact that Osama bin Laden is Mullah Omar's brother-in-law means nothing to you?

9/11 attacks was an act against humanity (terrorism), not an armed conflict.
Wrong. An act of terrorism falls under the broader definition of 'war' and 'armed conflict'.
 
More fiber in more diet, it will bring greater clarity to your thinking.
More logical arguments and less rhetorics, please.

With us (submit) or Against us (die) this formulation is exhausted, Gambit - see, what so many who see the world through the lens of "exception" cannot grasp, is how different the world is from when this idea had merit.
Whether the US view its country and people as 'exceptional' is irrelevant. No different than how each muslim country view its people as 'exceptional'. But the formula of 'us' versus 'them' is nothing new when a country has war declared upon it.

Look again at your response, instead of responding to the substance, you attack the person for having the nerve to see the world and policy options differently - more fiber in your diet.
Tut..tut...A wee bit sensitive, ya think? I do not care if you are 'nervy' enough to challenge US. But I would care if you take up arms against US. I have been to the ME and know full well how different the muslims are from US and I do not care how you think about US.

...and yet US policy towards the Muslim world is informed by the notion that the US must respond to a organization now consisting of less than 300 individuals - your position lacks internal cohesion (and for this no amount of fiber will serve as prescription) because it's ideological premise is found wanting.
How do you know al-Qaeda is 'less than 300 individuals'? Anyway...Regardless of how many are there, al-Qaeda is a global franchise that any muslim can claim affiliation and they must be sheltered somewhere, even among the muslim community in the US.

Do you find yourself at odds with the suggestion that given the finding in the above referenced poll, the US should do a better job of articulating why it is in Afghanistan??
Yes, perhaps we should be. But that does not absolve US the responsibility of exacting retribution for a country that harbored a belligerent against US.

Osama bin Laden and company have claimed to be speaker for the muslims and waged a war against US. Do you agree with his 'formulation' to justify that war?
 
Considering a large number of people here in US believe that Obama was born in some other country, the Taliban poll doesn't sound too far fetched.
 
Do you find yourself at odds with the suggestion that given the finding in the above referenced poll, the US should do a better job of articulating why it is in Afghanistan??

Yes, perhaps we should be. But that does not absolve US the responsibility of exacting retribution for a country that harbored a belligerent against US.

Why do you think articulating why US forces are in Afghanistan is necessary?? After all, you want to extract retribution, at least you do, while the commanding general and US policy supports negotiating with the Talib, unless of course that is seen as retribution?

By the way, Would Talib have the right to "extract" retribution from the US?? If not, why not? Why should exceptional-ism work only one way?

Now to policy change - You argue that only sovereign states can ask or effect policy changes, well, almost all Muslim countries have asked that US revise it's policy of offering Carte Blanche to Israel and yet US policy is not amenable to change for the last 50 years, what gives? If US policy does not change, why should the policies of other sovereign states which can be harmful to the US's long term interests??


You were in the Middle East? And you learned to despise Islam and Muslims there? Must have been a great mission.
 
Why do you think articulating why US forces are in Afghanistan is necessary??
I did not. I said we could do a better job.

After all, you want to extract retribution, at least you do, while the commanding general and US policy supports negotiating with the Talib, unless of course that is seen as retribution?
If the Taliban is ready to negotiate and if in said negotiation, the Taliban agree not to support Osama bin Laden, then the US is amenable to negotiation. The retribution is done when we removed them from power and install another leadership more friendly to US.

By the way, Would Talib have the right to "extract" retribution from the US?? If not, why not? Why should exceptional-ism work only one way?
No...The Taliban do not have such right. Remember...We did nothing to Afghanistan before 9/11. You can criticize US for neglecting Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal but that does not confer any 'right' to any retribution. If anything, the Taliban should thank US for leaving Afghanistan open for them to take over.

Now to policy change - You argue that only sovereign states can ask or effect policy changes, well, almost all Muslim countries have asked that US revise it's policy of offering Carte Blanche to Israel and yet US policy is not amenable to change for the last 50 years, what gives? If US policy does not change, why should the policies of other sovereign states which can be harmful to the US's long term interests??
Such resolutions usually contains something reciprocal, ya think? Israel as an ally is beneficial to US in ways different than other countries are. You muslims want US to throw Israel towards another Holocaust? Give US something in return. :D

You were in the Middle East? And you learned to despise Islam and Muslims there? Must have been a great mission.
It was great and educational in that I see nothing over there of value that I want to have in my country. As an American, I was already despised. As an Asian-American I was despised ten-fold. Thanks.
 
As an American, I was already despised. As an Asian-American I was despised ten-fold. Thanks.


What a sorry and curious experience - in your experience or opinion, were your experiences the norm or were your experiences exceptional, not the norm? Anyway, it does go to explaining some of your more emotional positions.

The retribution is done when we removed them from power and install another leadership more friendly to US.

No...The Taliban do not have such right

Why not - I would really want to read some more thought in your response - Why not? Why do others not have the right to extract from you what you think you have the right to extract fro them?

For instance, in the Turkey and Eagles thread, I posted a quote from, that exceptional-ism is a Cultural Belief, as strong in Israel as in the US, no doubt - but as a first generation, how is it that you have internalized such a conception of self in relation to others? I'm genuinely interest to understand.


You muslims want US to throw Israel towards another Holocaust? Give US something in return

Do we, indeed, history not a strong suite of your I take it - anyway, are you suggesting US will consider giving up the Israeli to the likes of Muslims who want to do a holocaust on them? what kind of thing would prevail upon you to do that, I mean the US, to do that? What would Us want for selling out the Israeli?

I really do look forward to your post as I do want to understand.
 
Who authorized al-Qaeda to attack US, on US soil and against US interests overseas, over many years? Islam?
You do not answer my question at all. The United Nation DID NOT authorized US and British onslaught over Afghanistan on October 7th 2001. No body authorized Al-Qaeda to attack US soil and other US interest overseas as well. So the US and British acted just like the Al-Qaeda.

Stop this state-terrorism!
We have every right to reject that offer. The fact that Osama bin Laden is Mullah Omar's brother-in-law means nothing to you?
Yeah.. you may call it a right to reject an offer. I know the answer would be like this. Because, it is the US who still don't have the hard evidence about the perpetrators...

It's been 9 years, so where is the hard evidence that linking Osama to the 9/11?
Wrong. An act of terrorism falls under the broader definition of 'war' and 'armed conflict'.
Hmm... Thanks for the correction.

Anyway, when did the definition got broadened?
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom