Trials to be held in N.Y.

Originally posted by sh76
You're moving the goal posts.

I was not saying that KSM should not be tried in civilian court. On the contrary, if you'll read the thread, I have been supportive of that move.

I am arguing that Afghanistan's harboring of AQ before and after AQ attacked the United States was an act of war against the United States.

So, when the US provided arms and finance and political support to the IRA, was that an act of war against Britain?
When the US provided arms and financial support to the Contra terrorists, was that an act of war against Nicaragua?
In fact, when the US provided arms, financial support and training to the Mujahideen, was that an act of war against Afghanistan?

Or is it only an act of war when it happens against the US?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Was France "harboring and protecting" Roman Polanski an "act of war", too?

Weakest......weirdest.......stupidest.....analogy.....EVER made by you marauder, and that took some doing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If this is so, where is the declaration of war against Afghanistan as required by the US Constitution?

As you know, there has been no declaration of war since 1941 and there have been countless "military actions" comparable to the Afghanistan campaign. So, your question should be addressed to Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton at least as much as it is addressed to Bush Jr.

Originally posted by The Snapper
So, when the US provided arms and finance and political support to the IRA, was that an act of war against Britain?
When the US provided arms and financial support to the Contra terrorists, was that an act of war against Nicaragua?
In fact, when the US provided arms, financial support and training to the Mujahideen, was that an act of war against Afghanistan?

Or is it only an act of war when it happens against the US?

1) When did the US government send arms to the IRA?
2) Of course supporting the contras was an act of war against the entity that controlled Nicaragua at the time. The US position was that they were not a legitimate government.
3) The Mujaheddin were defending Afghanistan against the Russians. How could supporting them be an act of war against Afghanistan?

In any case, let's assume all of those were acts of war. What does that have to do with the question as to whether giving a safe haven to OBL so that he can train terrorists to strike US targets is an act of war?

It perplexes me that anyone would say that the US had no moral authority to attack AQ in Afghanistan after 9/11. What, were we supposed to simply forget about the attack and not make any attempt to bring to justice the perpetrators? Whether it was a good idea to go into Afghanistan in the manner that it was done is a completely separate question. But I don't see the logic behind the argument that the US was morally bound to respect Afghanistan's sovereignty in going after AQ when Afghanistan was intentionally harboring AQ.

Originally posted by sh76
3) The Mujaheddin were defending Afghanistan against the Russians. How could supporting them be an act of war against Afghanistan?

The Mujaheddin were a terrorist insurgency trying to bring down the elected 'leftist' government of Afghanistan - which was building schools for girls etc. - and which then turned on the Soviet forces when they were asked to help by the beleagured regime in Kabul. The U.S. support for the Mujaheddin was clearly equivalent to an act of war against Afghanistan.

Sometimes, when it suits you, you admit you have little knowledge of U.S. foreign policy - usually when you are pressed to substantiate some regurgitated theory or lingering Cold War propaganda - and then sometimes you twist and distort what U.S. foreign policy actually was in order to try to substantiate some regurgitated theory or lingering Cold War propaganda. I suppose, at the very least, this gives your posts on U.S. foreign policy a kind of consistent 'regurgitation' feel.

Originally posted by sh76
1) When did the US government send arms to the IRA?
2) Of course supporting the contras was an act of war against the entity that controlled Nicaragua at the time. The US position was that they were not a legitimate government.
3) The Mujaheddin were defending Afghanistan against the Russians. How could supporting them be an act of war against Afghanistan?

Afghanistan's sovereignty in going after AQ when Afghanistan was intentionally harboring AQ.

1) I don't think that the US government sent arms to the IRA but certainly some of the political elite in the North East of the US provided financial support to the IRA (I don't think that this was so they could buy a pint of Guinness in a Boston pub). Bill Clinton also provided Gerry Adams with a visa to visit the US. Whether you consider Adams to be a terrorist or not, the British government did at the time. So, would you consider this to be 'harbouring' a terrorist?

2) Glad to see you agree that the US committed an act of war against Nicaragua. This may come as a shock to you but the fact that 'The US position was that they were not a legitimate government' is totally irrelevant. Are you suggesting that foreign governments need approval from the US to achieve legitimacy? Surely the opinion of the Nicaraguan people is more important. No? Do you not care for legitimately elected governments if they do not bow to US wishes?

3)Actually, the Soviets were defending the Afghani government against Mujahideen terrorists (backed by the US).

You also mention that OBL was given a safe haven to train terrorists. He must have been passing on all the knowledge and training that he got from the CIA in the 80s. Should the CIA officers or the US government be held accountable for training the fledgling AQ?

Originally posted by The Snapper
2) Glad to see you agree that the US committed an act of war against Nicaragua. This may come as a shock to you but the fact that 'The US position was that they were not a legitimate government' is totally irrelevant. Are you suggesting that foreign governments need approval from the US to achieve legitimacy? Surely the opinion of the Nicaraguan people i ...[text shortened]... ant. No? Do you not care for legitimately elected governments if they do not bow to US wishes?

I am suggesting that countries refuse to recognize coup authors as legitimate governments all the time. How many countries still consider Zelaya the "rightful" leader of Honduras?

You and FMF and no1 can keep picking at technicalities all you like and try to use examples and analogies to try to show how difficult it is to define the term "act of war," and of course, use the endless stream of irrelevant tu quoque arguments that inevitably show up in any foreign policy debate, until the cows come home.

However, I'd yet to see any of you seriously try to argue that the US attacking AQ on Afghan soil was not justified by Afghan harboring of AQ terrorists who launched a major terrorist attack on US soil. Until someone does, my central and only point remains unopposed. And when someone does... good luck.

Originally posted by sh76
You and FMF and no1 can keep picking at technicalities all you like and try to use examples and analogies to try to show how difficult it is to define the term "act of war," and of course, use the endless stream of irrelevant tu quoque arguments that inevitably show up in any foreign policy debate, until the cows come home.

Well, excuse me one moment. It was YOU who brought up the Mujaheddin. And then when this tu quoque argument of yours fell flat on its face, you suggest that the rebuttals are mere tu quoque arguments?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, excuse me one moment. It was YOU who brought up the Mujaheddin. And then when this tu quoque argument of yours fell flat on its face, you suggest that the rebuttals are mere tu quoque arguments?

Uh... no.

It was The Snapper who brought up the Mujaheddin; not I. Look at the top of this page.

In any case, when did I make a tu quoque argument? I said that the US was justified in attacking AQ in Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attacks and Afghanistan harboring them, which I maintained is an act of war.

The Snapper then brought up 3 instances of previous US actions that may or may not be considered acts of war. Although they are completely irrelevant to this question and so therefore I admittedly should have ignored them, I took the bait and discussed those incidents as though they were relevant. When did I make any sort of tu quoque argument?

Originally posted by sh76
Uh... no.

It was The Snapper who brought up the Mujaheddin; not I. Look at the top of this page.

Uh... no. It was YOU who attempted to use the Mujaheddin as an 'example' of why it was OK for the U.S. to support terrorism when it chooses to do so. Your odd characterization of the Nicuaraguan government as "illigitimate" - therefore the support for terrorism was OK there too - was another brazen twisting of reality in keeping with your back of a fag packet 'Facts Reshaped Retrospectively to Demonstrate Consitency of Principles' approach to U.S foreign policy.

Originally posted by sh76
... 3 instances of previous US actions that may or may not be considered acts of war. Although they are completely irrelevant to this question and so therefore I admittedly should have ignored them, I took the bait and discussed those incidents as though they were relevant.

Why do U.S. actions always seem to be "irrelevant" all of a sudden when analysing the reactions of others to these actions and also when analyzing current U.S. actions?

Originally posted by sh76
I am suggesting that countries refuse to recognize coup authors as legitimate governments all the time. How many countries still consider Zelaya the "rightful" leader of Honduras?

You and FMF and no1 can keep picking at technicalities all you like and try to use examples and analogies to try to show how difficult it is to define the term "act of war," and o ...[text shortened]... eone does, my central and only point remains unopposed. And when someone does... good luck.

I never said that the US wasn't justified in going after AQ, of course they were. The point I'm trying to make is that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were not an act of war and certainly not by the Afghan state. I tried to do this by highlighting instances where the US has behaved in a similar manner but their actions were never regarded as an act of war.
You always seem to have a very conveniently selective appreciation of the relevance of historical events. From previous threads, the nuclear attacks on Japan, the 'axis of evil' phrase, the current economic crisis, etc. all seem to have little import for you. Yet the League of Nations, well that's a different matter. You are just totally unable to see anything other than from a US ideological perspective. You appear to be either totally blinkered or incredibly niave.

Originally posted by sh76
As you know, there has been no declaration of war since 1941 and there have been countless "military actions" comparable to the Afghanistan campaign. So, your question should be addressed to Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton at least as much as it is addressed to Bush Jr.

I agree with most of what you've said in this thread.... but wasn't Desert Storm in 1991 a declaration of war?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I agree with most of what you've said in this thread.... but wasn't Desert Storm in 1991 a declaration of war?

Strange as it sounds, there was no declaration of war prior to Desert Storm. There has been no US declaration of war since June 5, 1942 (against some Axis countries). Of course, that kind of makes a joke of the whole declaration of war concept.

Originally posted by The Snapper
I never said that the US wasn't justified in going after AQ, of course they were. The point I'm trying to make is that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were not an act of war and certainly not by the Afghan state. I tried to do this by highlighting instances where the US has behaved in a similar manner but their actions were never regarded as an act of war. ...[text shortened]... US ideological perspective. You appear to be either totally blinkered or incredibly niave.

But those things ARE irrelevant to the only point I was making (which I am glad to see that you have now conceded).

Maybe it's you that are unable to see anything other than the anti-US ideological perspective.

I, on the other hand, have criticized the WMD fiasco many times on these boards and have taken the position that maintaining ground soldiers in Afghanistan is a mistake. I also have plenty of other criticisms for US policies. For example, I think the blockade of Cuba should be ended and should have been ended a long time ago.

I do believe that the United States is fundamentally a force for good in the World and that most US foreign policy actions have done more good than harm. If you disagree, fine. But in that case, I think it is you that are prejudiced against the United States, not the other way around.

For example, your IRA example above exposes a fundamental lack of understanding of the United States. Anyone who has lived here for the last couple of decades knows that US sympathy is generally with Britain and against the IRA. This "some political elite in the northeast" business was seriously weak.