Quote:
Originally Posted by ynwa03
Ok cool. Thanks for the reply.
After 9/11, the US accused bin Laden of planning and executing the attacks and asked the Taliban to hand him over. I'm paraphrasing, but the words used by the Taliban in response was almost exactly..."give us proof and we will find and surrender bin Laden to you." The problem was the US had no proof. I think this is a realistic demand, anytime a country extradites an individual they have the right to ask for whatever evidence there is against that individual.
Remember, the Taliban had control of most of the country, but many parts were still under the control of other actors ie. warlords, northern alliance etc. There was no reason for them to keep a criminal in the country and risk having the US intervene in their domestic business. People like to paint 'others' as unreasonable and illogical. We are all human beings. When you get down to it, people will do what is in their best interests. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, other than putting up with bin Laden inside the country. And they were given no evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks.
This is where the whole issue gets iffy. It seems like the US gave up looking for bin Laden because he might have escaped a few hundred kilometre away into the jurisdiction of one of their allies. Wherever he went, IF the US was actually in Afghanistan to capture bin Laden, they would have followed him instead of staying and fighting the Taliban.
About NATO 'trying to stabilize the country.' I think this is a little naive to think. I'm not sure about you, but it seems logical that if you want to stabilize a country, you give the everyday citizen a choice in political matters. In other words implement actual democracy. Not bring in a man who was essentially raised, and educated outside the country and who worked for the CIA. The government in Afghanistan is the furthest thing from a democracy. If you want to stabilize a country you police it, set up fair elections, let the people decide and then back the legitimate government.
While i agree about the poppy fields, even that issue is a political one. Whoever controls the poppy fields has access to a cash cow. The US doesn't want just any group to benefit off of this. It's not really a matter of controlling how much heroine is grown, or smuggled.
|
Put spaces between your giant paragraphs next time. It makes it less of a headache to read.
The Taliban had absolutely no way of handing Bin Laden over, whether they wanted to or not. He wasn't sitting in an office building with a receptionist at the door. Like you said, they didn't have control over portions of their own country. And you honestly believe they had the ability to just hand Osama over to the U.S. if they so wished? Yeah, right. They knew they were effed, and couldn't do a damn thing about it.
And if you honestly want proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, you could start with Osama Bin Laden himself admitting that he was behind it.
That could be a start.