Why Afghanistan lost its neutrality in the War on Terror September 19, 1998

[Hack-Hook]

View attachment 954185

Can you name ome of those effort
And in suddan you guys blamed all atrocities on central government and portrayed militia in south as saint just like Libya and guess what in both cases after the war the truth become into the light and those militia showed their true nature

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The problem is you can't make demand from others based on non disclosed and secret data
If you want anything from them you must share the data with them


Actually in the world
You hdent attack a country which is not neutral
It's only European and American who do so ND turn every regional conflict into a world war

You can attack a country which has enemy bases or otherwise contribute to your enemies war effort. You have claimed this before, and never produced any sources supporting your view.

Al-Qaeda had admitted the attacks on the Embassy and USS Cole, no further motivation is legally needed after 9/11. The US and Afghanistan were legally at war since the US cruise missile strikes in 1998.

Imagine Adolf Hitler making a deal with Ireland where he has Luftwaffe using Irish air bases to bomb Western UK and Northern Ireland. Only an idiot thinks that they can do so without consequences.

Can you name ome of those effort
And in suddan you guys blamed all atrocities on central government and portrayed militia in south as saint just like Libya and guess what in both cases after the war the truth become into the light and those militia showed their true nature

This is not about Libya.

 

[MastanKhan]

I don't think Musharraf told the truth in his book. The correct narrative is that Afghan Taliban asked for proof for Osama Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11. USA did not provide any. And Thats how the war started.

Also it is said that Osama Bin Laden died in the early 2000's of kidney disease, not some stupid Abbottabad raid. LOL.

And then some Pakistanis in Abbottabad said they don't believe because they saw no Arabs around in that city at the time. LOL.

Hi,

And that resulted in a loss of 30 lakh plus afghans in the 20 plus years war---.

Another 30 lakh plus dead in Iraq---another 20 lakh pluis dead and syria---aboput 100 million homeless muslims in middle east---about 10 lakh dead in Lybia

 

[Hack-Hook]

You can attack a country which has enemy bases or otherwise contribute to your enemies war effort. You have claimed this before, and never produced any sources supporting your view.

Al-Qaeda had admitted the attacks on the Embassy and USS Cole, no further motivation is legally needed after 9/11. The US and Afghanistan were legally at war since the US cruise missile strikes in 1998.

Imagine Adolf Hitler making a deal with Ireland where he has Luftwaffe using Irish air bases to bomb Western UK and Northern Ireland. Only an idiot thinks that they can do so without consequences.

Only desperate claim the war was for anything but 9/11
And please name the effort about suddan and Afghanistan and what I said was about both Libya and Sudan not just Libya and your article clearly mentioned it

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

International Law says that you may not invade neutral countries.

International Law does not say anything about being a non-belligerent country.
Legally there is no difference between being a belligerent country and a non-belligerent country.

It is not forbidden to attack a belligerent country in a War of Self-Defense.
It is not therefore not forbidden to attack a non-belligerent country in a War of Self-Defense. It is only forbidden to attack a Neutral country in a War of Self-Defense.

Afghanistan was no longer a neutral country after refusing to intern or deport Al-Qaeda and close their bases in 1998. They were technically in war with the United States since the Cruise Missile strikes.

Neither the non-belligerent status nor the status of war had legally ended by September 2001. It therefore does not matter legally if Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks or not. Mullah Omar asked for evidence. The United States did not legally have to provide evidence.

Of course Al-Qaeda admitted later they were behind the 9/11 strikes. Some conspiracy theorist claim the video of Usama bin Laden admitting 9/11 was fake, but cannot explain why Al-Qaeda never issued a video to reject the ”fake”.

Mullah Omar was too stupid to realize this and demanded evidence.
Well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
He died a broken man as a refugee.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Only desperate claim the war was for anything but 9/11
And please name the effort about suddan and Afghanistan and what I said was about both Libya and Sudan not just Libya and your article clearly mentioned it

The title of the thread clearly indicates it is about Afghanistan.
Articles that are important to explaining the Afghan War even if they mention other countries are OK.
Trying to deviate the thread into discussing Libya, Sudan or whatever is not.
I will ignore any further comments from you making claims without sources in this thread.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The title of the thread clearly indicates it is about Afghanistan.
Articles that are important to explaining the Afghan War even if they mention other countries are OK.
Trying to deviate the thread into discussing Libya, Sudan or whatever is not.
I will ignore any further comments from you making claims without sources in this thread.

Then answer what was done to stop afghan war if your article tell the truth

 

[retaxis]

Laws never mattered to US lol. They create/bend/twist the laws after the end of Cold War so they can rule the world as a dictatorship. Funny that Bin Laden bought US from an undisputed superpower in the 90s and early 2000s to a cry baby LGBT sissy white minority nation with 30trillion+ debt now.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Then answer what was done to stop afghan war if your article tell the truth

The article explains that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia tried to make Mullah Omar realize he obligations to the international society, but he wanted war with the US.
The US gave him a last chance to avoid war, and he responded with arrogance.

The US was not obliged to give him evidence of 9/11 since he was already violating neutrality since 1998.
He was obliged to intern or kick out Al-Qaeda.

 

[Dalit]

View attachment 954185

Who cares? LOL You lost in the end. That is how the Afghan war will forever be remembered.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The article explains that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia tried to make Mullah Omar realize he obligations to the international society, but he wanted war with the US.
The US gave him a last chance to avoid war, and he responded with arrogance.

The US was not obliged to give him evidence of 9/11 since he was already violating neutrality since 1998.
He was obliged to intern or kick out Al-Qaeda.

Did any proof presented about al-qaeda involvement?
And what obligation exactly. And no he clearly didn't wanted war he said provide evidence we try them here. And he had no obligation to hand them to USA

And your last paragraph is completely irrelevant as USA was the one that start the attack not alqaeda and no where it's norm of international community to bomb the one who is not neutral

 

[Zarvan]

What non sense.

Basically America makes its own laws as its the modern Rome

Ok let say you are a huge power. One group in another country declares war on you. You ask that country to arrest that group and they straight out refuse? What will you do than?

 

[Trango Towers]

Ok let say you are a huge power. One group in another country declares war on you. You ask that country to arrest that group and they straight out refuse? What will you do than?

Osama was American Financed and trained to fight the Soviets as were the taliban so what are you talking about? Additionally please read the taliban offered to give obl to America. You are just towing the fox news and hillbilly narrative. The evidence is there just go look it up

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Did any proof presented about al-qaeda involvement?
And what obligation exactly. And no he clearly didn't wanted war he said provide evidence we try them here. And he had no obligation to hand them to USA

And your last paragraph is completely irrelevant as USA was the one that start the attack not alqaeda and no where it's norm of international community to bomb the one who is not neutral

Why would the United States need to provide evidence in 2001, when Al-Qaeda abandoned its neutrality in 1998?
Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States before that.
Then they attacked embassies in Africa and USS Cole.
And Afghanistan refused to intern Al-Qaeda in 1998.

The US were legally able to invade Afghanistan in 1998 and onwards.
Nothing that happended in 2001 affected the legal situation.

Yes, neutralit matters. You are open to attack if you support an enemy in ways that are illegal for a neutral country.

There are no legal difference between a belligerent country which attack you and a non-belligerent country which supports attacks on you.

Yet again, you provide no sources for your claim.

 

[Haldorss]

I believe Afghan Taliban asked USA for proof for Osama Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.
USA did not provide proof for Osama Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.
Don't mislead the people here. Its even on wikipedia.

Stop spreading lies here.
View attachment 953876


Shut up you idiot, Afghan Taliban asked for Osama Bin Laden's proof in 9/11. George w Bush failed to provide any.
All the major regional countries know that like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, India, and Russia.

Stop defending USA's imperial wars against other nations and other peoples like the "Iraq War (2003)."


Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

More smart pakis like this.