PLS lock this thread it's ruined.

I agree. Unless we're committed to an extensive occupation and re-education campaign, nothing will change. As disgusting and barbaric as their beliefs are I have no great urge to continue to spend billions, and continue to lose lives in a war we've already won. UBL was the objective. We got him. We also got KSM and other high-ranking AQ and Taliban. Lets GTFO.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, some people in this forum act like 9-11 never happened. Would love to know what GazaAli think the US respond should had been after 9-11. People talk shit now because 9-11, frankly, seems like a distant memory, would love had seen OT's liberals and GazaAli make this bullshit and trash arguments right after or even 6 months (if you want to argue that anger could cloud judgement) after 9-11. People are comfortable again.

The US didn't have to invade an entire country just to apprehend Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan. There are plenty of options between pacifism and war that clearly weren't exhausted before we invaded the country. After WWII, Argentina became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals, most notably Adolf Eichmann. Did the Israeli government invade Argentina and overthrow the government as a result? No, they had covert agents go into the country to kidnap him, and they then brought him back to Israel to stand on trial. This all happened within the span of about a year. How many trials has there actually been for 9/11? This was the worst mass murder ever committed on US soil and 12 and a half years later justice still hasn't been served.

You said it yourself, Argentina became a safe haven after WWII. Nazi war criminals didn't lunched an act of war using Argentina as their command base.

I can't help but think this is written by one of those teenage american soldiers.

The way U.S acted in this matter was as savage as 9-11 attack. If someone murders some other guy in the street I can't just go nuts and ram a sharp piece of metal into his skull. There are laws that I should obey and in this case it's obvious that the U.S disobeyed national laws. U.S could ask the neighboring countries to invade Afghanistan and help them destroy Taliban (considering all of those nearby countries slammed 9-11 attack) or at least appropriately consult the U.N . This whole U.S acting on it's own is damn suspicious. You think this is the first time people get blown to pieces? I don't understand why americans should be treated specially.

I'd say it's a bit misleading to describe 9/11 as an act of war. Was the Boston Marathon bombing an act of war? Was the OKC Bombing an act of war? Was the 1993 bombing of the WTC an act of war? Prior to 9/11 terrorism was handled for what it actually is under the law, a felony.

Terrorists should not target US anymore , let it be a lesson :)

Good post :)

I personally never comprehended the 9/11-Al-Qaeda justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. Some insurgents living in the mountains of some failed state managed somehow to launch an attack on some other country. While the attack was of a considerable scale, it was not an act of war in the most exact definition of the world. Afghanistan as a [failed] state and as a people did not commit an act of war against the U.S nor did the state wage war against the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S carried out a fully fledged invasion of the country. The entire invasion and American military presence in Afghanistan are both reduced to "We got Ben Laden". As a result, if you ask any sensible American whether the Afghanistan war was a success or not I bet they would feel inclined to say that the war in total was an embarrassing blunder, considering the lives and resources that were poured into the entire military operation. I highly doubt Ben Laden was such a potently hazardous criminal mastermind and supervillain that it would have inevitably taken an entire invasion to hunt him down. Besides, didn't the U.S itself helped the different Afghan factions to defeat the Soviets by arming them and provide them with resources, effectively fighting a proxy war against the USSR? Why couldn't the U.S do the same thing this time around? The invasion of Afghanistan didn't even eliminate Taliban and now the U.S feels pressured to pack and leave rather hastily. I wonder what the ratio of Taliban's death count and its Afghan-Pakistani civilian counterpart is. Another thing is that since the U.S chose at some point to meddle with some other people's business, I'm inclined to believe that the U.S did contributed to the failure of the Afghan state, a failure which made Afghanistan a haven for the likes of Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

You see, I think that the source of your anger and hostility is the fact that the conscientiousness of the American state is finally feeling itself burdened by its own legacy. The state is feeling the weight of its prolonged destructive and wicked foreign and security policy. And since the individual is a miniature expression of the state, its only natural that you too feel that burden. How you react to it however, is a different issue.

That's great news. Hopefully, they can drop down to zero very soon.

Which is exactly the point. Afghanistan the state did not wage war against the U.S. This is like apprehending a notorious Mexican drug lord operating in the U.S and deciding to go to war with Mexico in retaliation and retribution. Pretty illogical if you ask me. Besides, I thought states, specially those democratic and dandy ones, are held to a higher standard than succumbing to vengeful and impulsive inclinations of retaliation and retribution.

@GazaAli: I think each scenario is different. Afghanistan is so tricky. They are pretty good at making hell for visitors.

@GazaAli:

The problem with Al-Qaeda is it is an entire organization. Kill Osama, great, that is just one less man. Somebody else will step up. Also Al-Qaeda isn't a gang. Their buddies (al-Shabaab) almost took over Somalia and they have large parts of Yemen. Not to mention Al-Nursa could potentially take over Syria if Assad falls. So al-Qaeda is fighting to take over three countries. Do they have to take one over to be considered more than criminals?

@thegerg: Yeah being bullied by the Al Qaeda/ Taliban is looking after themselves, ok Americans just give up, down tools and leave afghan in the shit, who cares about the American lives that have been lost, let's make those losses not count for anything, Americans just leave now and allow Al Qaeda to gain power again so they can plan another 9/11 type event, I know lets make it easier for the Al Qaeda, let's take back all the equipment, and we'll leave the afghan army half trained. I don't reckon the afghan people want to be bullied by the Taliban anymore I'm sure not all afghans are as you describe them. The fact is America have gone there to do a job lives have been lost doing that job, so they need to honour those lives and do the job to the best of there ability. I've seen so many documentaries on the subject, and every time the American/British soldiers say that they just hope they're making a difference and that it's not all for nothing.

@GazaAli: what do you consider an act of war.

@thegerg: "People in Afghanistan can look after themselves. They've been doing it for tens of thousands of years"

"Continuing to throw more money (in the form of training time and equipment) at people who don't give a shit about the political stability or international standing of the country in which they live isn't going to make things change for the better as far as the country of Afghanistan is concerned"

That was your comment thegerg so by that comment I took it as you were saying **** it let's just get out and leave them to it. Am I mistaken did you not mean that? If not then what will make things better in Afghanistan, Big boy?

And I said Documentaries not movies, documentaries like Restrepo, Ross kemp. In Afghanistan ect, I spose now you will throw shit at these documentaries, you certainly live up to your rank as number one troll

@thegerg: yeh all that would help, but there also needs to be a strong army, the fact is that the Americans have been training and growing the afghan army, they've started the job so may aswell finish it and not do half a job. So if it takes more time more training then what's wrong with that. This along with what you said will all go together to help make things better.

So I still call bullshit on your original statement.

You haven't served any time in the army your a fraud, if you did you wouldn't disrespect the real life documentaries on American/British soldiers in Afghanistan by calling them movies. Our boys out there are not in a fucking movie it's real life and death out there.

they should just pull out now, the Afghan government is going to collapse like a house of cards when the US leaves

@thegerg: all I said was America shouldn't leave unless the afghan army is ready, what did you find so wrong with that?

I said I've seen a few documentaries where soldiers have said "we just hope all this isn't for nothing, and that they want to make a difference, what did you find so wrong with that?

I guess we have a difference In opinion on what a movie and what a documentary is

@thegerg: you retard, documentary=using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject.

The reason I thought u meant America should just leave is cos you said

"People in Afghanistan can look after themselves. They've been doing it for tens of thousands of years"

Yeh and look how far that got them. Then u continued to say "more training more equipment won't help"

So that to me sounded like you were saying its a waste of time training the army.

"a documentary programme about Soldiers in Afghanistan"

synonyms: factual, non-fictional, real-life, true to life, fact-based More

If Muhammad lived in the U.S. he'd be in jail for child molestation.