Canadians should more to welcome Islamic community

[SuperJerk]

You're forgetting that the Taliban was also helping bin Laden. They were considered accomplices, and thus guilty of attacking the US. And everyone knows bin Laden was responcible. The U.S. intelligence community got that one right.

 

Yeah? This still does not justify the invasion. The US attacked Afghanistan, not the other way around.

 

 

Look familiar?

[Lord of The Curry]

TERROR UPDATE~!

 

The accused were in court today and many of them demanded they be released on bail because they were being mistreated.

 

Not because they were innocent, mind you. Because they were being mistreated.

[2GOLD]

TERROR UPDATE~!

 

The accused were in court today and many of them demanded they be released on bail because they were being mistreated.

 

Not because they were innocent, mind you. Because they were being mistreated.

 

Did they detail what exactly they mean by mistreatment? Not being a dick about it, just curious what they mean.

[Lord of The Curry]

Denied access to a lawyer, beaten by guards, not being able to sleep because the lights in their cells were always on.

 

I believe it's called "Intro Level 1" on the Gitmo scale of prisoner abuse.

[cbacon]

You're forgetting that the Taliban was also helping bin Laden. They were considered accomplices, and thus guilty of attacking the US. And everyone knows bin Laden was responcible. The U.S. intelligence community got that one right.

 

Yeah? This still does not justify the invasion. The US attacked Afghanistan, not the other way around.

 

 

Look familiar?

 

The acts on 9/11 were not perpetrated by the Afghani citizens, who have been the primary victims since the war began and you could just as easily tie places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and to the 9/11 attacks.

 

Attacking Afghanistan in response to 9/11 also justfies counter terrorism. It's also like saying Britain should have bombed the US after the IRA bombings since the US provided finances to the group.

[Art Sandusky]

Denied access to a lawyer, beaten by guards, not being able to sleep because the lights in their cells were always on.

 

I believe it's called "Intro Level 1" on the Gitmo scale of prisoner abuse.

Leaving the lights on is what passes for torture these days?

[Lord of The Curry]

Canada iz ruff.

[Art Sandusky]

When you guys flush their Korans, you'll be able to do it with real Canadian toilets. None of this water-saving low-pressure nonsense like we have down here. I need a waterfall, not a babbling brook.

[Lord of The Curry]

[Newfoundland[Lord 'Tunderin she's a beautiful thing, me terlit.[/Newfoundland]

[Big Ol' Smitty]

Yeah? This still does not justify the invasion. The US attacked Afghanistan, not the other way around.

 

The Taliban were accomplices to Al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. If this war was not justified, then almost no war would ever be justified.

 

Furthermore, the US wasn't the only country that attacked Afghanistan. The coaliton included:

 

Canada

Australia

United Kingdom

New Zealand

France

Germany

Russia

Italy

The Netherlands

Denmark

Norway

Croatia

Czech Republic (aka Felonies!)

Bahrain

Jordan

Japan

Portugal

Poland

Romania

 

Among others. NATO and the UN have also been involved.

 

The war was pretty much universally legitimized.

 

The acts on 9/11 were not perpetrated by the Afghani citizens, who have been the primary victims since the war began and you could just as easily tie places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and to the 9/11 attacks.

 

I totally agree that elements from other countries were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. For example, most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian. But the response to every country couldn't have been the same. Attacking Egypt and Saudi Arabia post-9/11 would have been asinine given the US relationship with these two countries (however suspect said relationship(s) may be [especially with Saudi Arabia]).

 

With respect to civilian casualties, they are horrible. The use of bombing and so-called "collateral damage" is always troubling to me. I don't know enough about military operations to know if the war could have been conducted with fewer civilian casualties. There have been pretty serious humanitarian efforts since the invasion, though, by both the UN and the US. It seems like valid criticisms can be made of the war's effect on civilains.

 

Attacking Afghanistan in response to 9/11 also justfies counter terrorism.

 

Not sure what you mean here.

 

It's also like saying Britain should have bombed the US after the IRA bombings since the US provided finances to the group.

 

The US government/regime/administration did not provide funding to the IRA as far as I know. A few individual US citizens did. I think that's a pretty big reach for an analogy.

 

I don't mean to defend every decision that has been made in Afghanistan or to suggest that it has been a flawless war by any means. But there are no flawless wars. I believe that this was as close to a "good" war as you can get.

[Dobbs 3K]

Criticizing the war in Afghanistan because there have been a few civilian casualties is asinine. There are innocents killed in every war. It is impossible to conduct a flawlessly perfect war where only the enemy is killed. It's a fact of life that the innocent will suffer for the crimes of their government.

 

I visited Dresden in Germany last year. If you know history, you know Dresden was severely bombed by the Allies right at the end of the war, and many people died. We took a tour of the city, and the German woman giving the tour told us "We knew the Nazis started the war, and it was inevitable that it would come back to us."

[SuperJerk]

You're forgetting that the Taliban was also helping bin Laden. They were considered accomplices, and thus guilty of attacking the US. And everyone knows bin Laden was responcible. The U.S. intelligence community got that one right.

 

Yeah? This still does not justify the invasion. The US attacked Afghanistan, not the other way around.

 

 

Look familiar?

 

The acts on 9/11 were not perpetrated by the Afghani citizens, who have been the primary victims since the war began and you could just as easily tie places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and to the 9/11 attacks.

 

We attacked the Taliban, who were giving aid and a base of operations to bin Laden. That makes them his accomplices. Bin Laden and the Taliban had been close allies for years prior to 9/11.

 

Attacking Afghanistan in response to 9/11 also justfies counter terrorism. It's also like saying Britain should have bombed the US after the IRA bombings since the US provided finances to the group.

I don't know what you're talking about. Your usage of "counter terrorism" also doesn't make any sense in the context you're using it in. It appears as though you're using the term "counter terrorism" as something that should be done against the U.S.

[Lord of The Curry]

One of the kids from around here made the cover of Macleans this month.

 

Just when I think things are getting kinda normal around here shit like this happens and makes you realize how surreal it all is.

[Dr. Zaius]

It should be noted that the Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan.