NP Afghanistan

[jbor]

millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> rj/rjackson/jbor/?

As I said, Doug, you're the one with the identity crisis.

> this is the bin Laden view, per his video
> statements since September 11.

Not exactly a reliable or credible view. I'm surprised you endorse it.

>> The Taliban and Osama do not represent the
>> majority of Afghani people.
> 
> That's a very good reason why the US shouldn't be killing civilian
> Afghanis, isn't it.

Yes indeed. Which is why Afghani civilians aren't being targetted by the US.

>> it was the Taliban who refused to negotiate.
> 
> False.  The Taliban declined to hand over bin Laden in response to Bush's
> non-negotiable request.  The Taliban have offered repeatedly to negotiate,
> before and since the bombing began on October 7 -- historical fact.

I'm surprised you're batting for the Taliban. Their "negotiation" position
amounted to "we'll release the Western aid workers we took as prisoners for
having copies of the Bible as long as you get out of the country and let
Osama's terror network be." It was farcical, a bluff. The U.S.'s negotiation
position, which was "give us Osama and we'll let you be", made several times
before and during the bombing, was quite generous by comparison.

>> The course
>> of action he pursued does not correlate with someone who had "made his mind
>> up" on September 11. I doubt he even knew where Afghanistan was.
> 
> Take it up with Time magazine, which ran a long and very flattering
> article, based on interviews with Bush's closest advisers who reported that
> Bush indeed made up his mind about military retaliation on September 11.

This is quite a different contention to your earlier one that he had decided
on Sept. 11 to "respond with an attack on Afghanistan". Bush warned in his
speeches from the outset that he would take military action against any
government which willingly harboured terrorists. Fair warning, I'd say.

> Of  course somebody decides what weapons and tactics to use.

Yes, they chose to use weapons which could target military installations
with virtually no degree of error. They chose not to bomb innocent Afghanis.
Human error, anti-missile hits from the ground, or wrong intelligence
reports, have been suggested as the major causes of any bombs going astray.
The percentage of missed targets must be somewhere under 1 or 2 percent at
most.

> You ought to read a bit more, my friend.  It's been widely reported the
> past view days (The Atlantic magazine's online daily summary of War news
> gathered references from several mainstream sources) that top Bush
> Administration officials and presumably Bush himself have decided not to
> take bin Laden captive if they have the opportunity but to kill him
> instead. 

It's been widely *rumoured* ... Quite a difference. It's also been widely
rumoured that the feeling is that they won't be able to catch Osama at all.
But I also agree with you that Osama should be brought to trial rather than
turned into a martyr.

I'm not your friend.

best