| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Taliban and Surrendering Osama
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The Taliban and Surrendering Osama

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Taliban and Surrendering Osama
    Posted: 19 Feb 2010 at 01:53
I recently got into a prolonged discussion with my housemate over the morality of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The key point on which we could not find agreement regarded that of Osama bin Laden and the willingness (or lack of) by the Taliban to surrender him.

I had always been under the impression that the Taliban refused to hand him over, and so the United States invaded to aprehend the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks. My housemate asserts that this is incorrect, and that the Taliban had been perfectly willing to accommodate this American demand. To this end, after a good deal of internet searching, he provided me with an article backing up his claim:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

However I am not entirely satisfied with this. The article leaves open the possibility that the Taliban were playing games and buying time for Osama. What do you think?



Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2010 at 11:03
I don't think it really matters. The important points, pro and contra, are:
 
1) A country is free to refuse to extradite accused criminals, especially if they believe the accused will not be given fair trials, or will face excessive punishment. The US has always been a firm supporter of this position, with regard to its own right to refuse to hand over accused terrorists.
 
2) Intervening on one side in a civil war is not the same as attacking the established government of a country. Given the state of affairs in Afghanistan at the time it was reasonable to refuse to recognise the Taliban government as legitimate.
 
So basically, if the Taliban was the de jure government of Aghanistan at the time, it had every right to refuse to extradite Osama, and there was no legitimate casus belli. However, if the Taliban was not the de jure government of Afghanistan, then the US and others were within their rights to intervene against them.
 
At the time of the initial intervention, only Pakistan recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (Saudi Arabia and I think some other countries had at one time recognised it, but had subsequently withdrawn recognition).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2010 at 00:54

In my personal opinion and knowledge that I do have on the subject it was a long back planed program to invade Afghanistan for its geo-political location.

I had heard this story some time back in 2002, that Taleban were willing to surrender 0sama in return for the recognation of their rule by UN and USA which I think is entirely baseless.
Afghanistan in real means was invaded in 1998 (two years after Taleban took over from Mujahideen) by the Al-Qaida.
Taleban had rarely authority over Al-Qaida since the entire budget of them were in the hands of either Pakistanis or Arabs so even if Taleban wanted to hand over 0sama to the US, they couldn't had done it.
 
I don't know why don't most people recognize that 0sama was and is nothing else but an EXCUSE, the same like WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, that paved the path for the invasion of Iraq.
To me he is just an actor (and that one of the best Hollywood has ever produced) who has been scripted and is doing as the director says and as the producer requires him to do.
How to turn a simple man into a ghost, that shall be the name of the theory.
 
He was a business man in the US where he was asked to pave a path for Middle Eastern supplies for the Afghan Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets and that he did well, then his new mission becomes to pave a path for the invasion and again he does it to the perfection.
 
As gcle said that other than Pakistan and a couple of Middle Eastern countries no other country recognized them including the United States of America, then how in 1997 in Texas of US a meeting took place between Taliban and Unocal to arrange a gas pipleline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.
 
Anyways these are the Ultimatum of US to Taliban:
  1. Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda;
  2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
  3. Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
  4. Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
  5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.

Now the 5th point in itself is a sort of invasion, how is it possible to give another country access to your land for search and inspection. If the US really wanted Mr.A,Mr. B,C and D they should had named the list. Although in 4th point they mention to hand over EVERY terrorist, now how would you differentiate between a Mujahideen who fought the Soviet and was now fighting the Russian backed Northern Alliance with a Terrorist who was in some how involved with 9/11?

Anyways on 7th October 2001 just days before the invassion, Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Mullah Mohammad Zaheef asked US and Pakistan that they will hand over 0sama to Pakistan so that he could be tried under Islamic law (Sharia Law) and if quilty shall be punished.
The offer was turned down by both US and Pakistan.
 
So the invassion took place and Taliban were toppled and Bonn conference took place.
Now if US really was in Afghanistan for a short term and just to clean up the Al Qaida, it would had been fear enough to had asked Taliban also for negotiation in th Bonn Conference while the ex-warlords were present.
No, there were not asked becaue again it was a future plan for a future engagement. Just thing if tomorrow Taliban lays down their arms and sets with the Afghan government, what more excuse will the US have not to leave (where as they have their long term plans for this place)?
 
So to cut the long story short, I guess it's just a wonderful game being played by the US which is the only thing that the Soviets lacked + the world is a uni-bloc now compared to dual bloc of back 1970-90s.
 
 
 


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2010 at 18:51
Come on folks, the Taliban were a PR dissater from their inception (we will not go into the role of Pakistan here). It was never "pretty" as this convenient time-line on the Web brings together as far as events between 1980 and 2001 underscores:
 
 
To post this mess within the context of Bash-Bush and post 9/11 is incorrect since the scenario was more or less in place by 1998.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2010 at 00:49
Agreed, Osama and al-Qaedia are mostly irrelevant in the invasion of Afghanistan. (Except in terms of PR)

The Taliban did offer to hand over bin Laden to Pakistan or another 3rd party nation shortly before the US invasion. If the Americans had so wished they could've seized upon that opportunity and brought the Taliban onto their side in the "war" against Al-Qaedia. But they really had no interest in Al-Qaedia. That's just the sell story to their public.
Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2010 at 22:13
 
Who is fighting against the Afghan-Nato Allied forces in Marja, Helmand?

That was a question in NY Times article by C.J. CHIVERS, where a poster of Saddam was found while clearing the houses in the area by Allied forces.
It's reported that the Allied Forces got confussed as they wanted to know whom are they fighting?

But if you watch it closely and those who understand Urdu, will at an instance get that this is a Pakistani propaganda poster just for the motivation of the fighters.
The Allied forces also says that some Type 56 Chinese Kalashnikov and a PK machine gun were also found in the compounds.

Now the question of mine is that; Aren't we seeing the same old game being played again.
Where the US armed Mujahideen with Russian weaponary stocked in Egypt with the help of Pakistan.
Don't you all think that now they are arming the Taleban with Chiness weaponary stocked in Pakistan with the help of Pakistan (again), who could clearly be seen that is still behind helping and motivating the young muslims to die for a cause that's way outh of their imagination?

The link to the article: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/just-who-are-we-fighting-in-marja/


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2010 at 16:14
Look, Gharani, it is no secret that the dissolution of Afghanistan has its roots in Pakistani politics and the particular foibles and rivalries of its military establishment. In a way, one might explain the dysfuntion as a product of the rhetoric over the Indian frontier and Kashmir. Therein the rub, given the fact that an "isolated" Afghanistan would have been no more a danger than the regime of the generals in Burma. Believe me, no matter the public rhetoric, it is Pakistan itself that raises the greatest concern among acute analysts and not the verbiage of the policy wonks and the phantom of Osama. Just think of him as the Mahdi redivivus, an interesting windmill distracting attention from the dangers of the realities.

Edited by drgonzaga - 01 Mar 2010 at 20:28
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2010 at 17:25
Well that would be taking the thread out of bounds, but Drgonzaga the analysts you were reading about are idiots. Pakistan has followed a policy since 1947 of ensuring that there is no threat on the Western border, that has been the policy no matter what government is in charge in Karachi and later Islamabad.
 
As for the answer itself, you are forgetting the after math of 9-11 and the emotions it arose (understandably) in the US. The Taliban  could have promised to have Osama shot in Kabul football ground and that would not have been enough. The US was on the warpath and somebody needed to bleed. The Taliban were a very good target.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2010 at 20:49
Thank goodness you did not catch the slip of the keys [now safely edited] in my original response to Gharani, Sparten! However, I disagree with your emphasis on 9-11 as the engine of embroilment or that Pakistan had "no policy" with regard to the Afghanis prior to what in shorthand has become known as "Charley Wilson's War". This late Texas congressman would wax prolific of his own adventures there and how his "visit" was facilitated through Pakistani connections and introductions. In a way, the Afghan frontier was the perfect cover for Pakistani actions in Kashmir. Nor is the assumption that Pakistan never paid attention to the "Durand Line" with regard to its defensive posture based upon reality. We can discuss the implications of Qaums, as well as the fact that the old Afghan kingdom never recognized the "legality" of that border, but we would stray into lengthy discussions on Pakistan proper. In a way, the only distinction for events after 9-11 was the discarding of Pakistan as an "unreliable" entity as far as, let us use an euphemism, Allied concerns with Afghanistan were concerned.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 05:13
Pakistan has never had "no policy" towards Afghanistan, nor did Spaten say as much (infact he said the exact opposite)
Pakistan wasn't viewed as (more) unreliable before 9-11 than after.
And Afghanistan respected the Durrand line regardless of rhetoric.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 03 Mar 2010 at 05:13
Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 23:48

Pakistan's policy towards Afghanistan has always been a friendly one apparently but a deadly on behind the scene and as Sparten mentioned Pakistan has always tried to keep any sort of threat away from its western border even it involves killing of thousands of Afghans by supporting terrorist groups; which to me as mature person, Pakistan has the very right to keep it's sovereignty at any cost and it's Afghanistan's policy to keep this peace in away which is profitable to both sides, not only to Pakistan.

US-Pak relation as never ever distorted behind the closed doors, what we the common civilians see on the news and media is just a script read by a talented politician and nothing else.
 
Afghan government's stance on the Durrand Line has always been here and there, some governments recognized it and some didn't, speaking of the current government it does recognize it officially but again it also supports the process of an independent Pashtunistan.
So it has been and is the main hurdle in a cordial relation between Kabul and Islamabad same as Kashmir is between Dheli and Islamabad.
Those are lines drawn to keep the area disturbed and I don't know when will the people of these 3 countries will recognize that the only way they could survive (specially in case of Afghanistan and Pakistan) is to make some sort of a union like the EU, otherwise this never ending blame games of Dheli, Islamabad and Kabul will continue till X time.


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 01:40
Just what has been the history of Afghanistan since 1885 and the trans-tribal line imposed in the North by the Russians and in the South by the British. Do we really want a recitation of the various "Khans" that attempted to consolidate a stable regime from the Kabul epicenter? In a way, one may assess that Pakistani governments have more or less followed the the policies of Britain and Russia during the long decades between 1885-1929.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.