Was invading Afghanistan a crime?

@BlueVeins Not accurate. The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden to a third nation for trial like a criminal. But Bush wanted to be a war president because in the US being a war criminal is better for political clout.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Even that was already after the war had started, and the Taliban neither offered to turn in his co-conspirators nor named a specific country.

@BlueVeins That is false. The war started afterwards. Bush wanted a war no matter what. The mistake the Taliban thought the US would follow diplomatic norms.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Now, you're just making sh*t up.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Yes, it did. The US had been bombing Afghanistan for over a week when the Taliban made that underwhelming offer.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.attacks15oct15-story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-surrender-bin-laden-9143208.html

@BlueVeins If anything this suggests the bombing started unprovoked and the president refused their offer proving the entire pretext was bullshit and he wanted a war. It changes literally nothing.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Al-Qaeda bombed the US. The US demanded that the Taliban hand over Al-Qaeda. The Taliban refused to hand over Al-Qaeda, so the US went to war with the Taliban. The Taliban offered to turn in one Al-Qaeda leader out of the numerous people responsible for the attack, so the US rejected that offer and took over the Taliban's territory. There was a clear line of provocation the whole way through that exchange and the Taliban could've stopped it at any point by just arresting the Al-Qaeda operatives and turning them in to the U.S.. Or if that's too extreme, they could've at least offered to turn all of them in to another country like a trial; the US didn't seem like they'd take that offer, but they certainly coulda tried.

@BlueVeins Al Qaeda did. Not the Afghan government.

Your own sources proved they offered to hand him over and Bush wanted a war so turned it down. They didn't take over the Taliban territory. They reduced an entire nation to rubble and occupied it for 20 years.

The fact the US gave up on seriously dealing with Bin Laden for years further proves it was just a pretext.

They did offer up Bin Laden. Period. And would you comply if they other side said "nope, we will just wipe you out instead."

And that is exactly what they offered. Bush had no interest in negotiating anything. He wanted to be a war hero.

They also could have handled this like the US does every couple years with the Narcos. Destroying an entire country and subjugating it for 20 years was never necessary.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Bush, for all his flaws, explicitly stated that the US would stop bombing the Taliban if the latter turned in Bin Laden & all his little terrorist friends, as well as released some prisoners.


Yes, absolutely. If the Westboro Baptist Church somehow managed a horrific attack on the PRC, I would 100% arrest all of them and send them to international court. In fact, I could probably be persuaded to hand them over to the Chinese government in that scenario given the gravity of the crimes they committed. Meanwhile, the Taliban never even arrested the bastards to my best knowledge.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow agreed

@BlueVeins Again, they did offer to hand over Bin Laden. Bush wanted to be a tough guy instead. When he started shooting really is irrelevant.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow IDK why you keep acting like just turning in Bin Laden would be enough. The idea of only punishing one dude for the coordinated murder of 3,000 people is ridiculous on the face of it.

@BlueVeins Lol. So I guess you think the Punisher approache is justice? Destroy an entire nation for vengeance? I am not the one being ridiculous here. A criminal invasion doesn't magically become legal because you feel your vendetta is justified. And the US has murdered hundreds of thousands out of this vendetta. So spare me the moral high ground bullshit.

I suppose you would advocate carpet bombing the entire nation of Ireland over the IRA, or perhaps wiping out Mexico over El Chapo?

Or is that only a reasonable response when it is Muslims.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Gotta say, it does not make me want to have discussions with you when you openly strawmwan my positions. Like I've been suggesting over & over again that the Taliban should've turned over Bin Laden and his co-conspirators. Warfare is not and cannot be an act of justice in itself due to the amount of random people & conscripts killed, but it can be necessary for bringing killers into the jurisdiction of the sovereign state that was attacked. I'm sure not every single one of the 11.9 million soldiers fighting for Germany & Italy in World War II were personally, individually bad people, but it would not have been possible to de-throne the German government who'd invaded Poland without killing quite a few of them.

@BlueVeins Your entire argument is totally incoherent. You claim a war of vengeance is not justice and in the same breath say those actions were justified because you think additional people should have been handed over. You are talking out both sides of your mouth. You can't have it both ways.


And comparing a criminal non state actor to the Axis forces is a completely bullshit false equivalence.

You are desperately trying to make an illegal invasion justifiable to the point of doing more and more mental gymnastics with each post.

What I said is accurate. You can dress it up all you want but it was a war of vengeance and to build up Bush's profile domestically. Full stop.

@BlueVeins Also claiming invasion was the only option is provably false. The US governments own operations around the world for years proves that.

@BlueVeins And if we accept your premise the Axis forces deserve an apology because apparently wars of aggression and collective punishment are okay now.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow No contradiction there, and no equivalence either. If you cannot understand incredibly basic concepts like this, I'm not gonna waste my time.

@BlueVeins I understand just fine. you are desperately trying to fabricate justification for an illegal invasion.

And apparently making up all kinds of nonsense to claim the invasion was not a war of aggression when it obviously was both technically and legally.

But I guess laws only apply to the peasant nations.

I am not misrepresenting anything. making complete nonsense arguments and blatant false equivalences to justify an clear cut illegal war.


You don't even seem to understand the difference between governments and non state actors. Hence my point that based on your argument bombing all of Ireland or Mexico based on the IRA or El Chapo would be justified. Because you make no distinction between the two when convenient to your argument.

And if it ever had anything to do with Bin Laden the invasion would have ended when he fled the country in 2001 or when he was killed in a completely separate country a decade ago. Both prove that it was just a pretext and was never about Bin Laden or 9/11. Good excuse to get Americans on board though and to recruit cannon fodder.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow The whole "It WaSn'T tHe TaLiBaN gOvErNmEnT" argument goes away the moment the Taliban starts supporting Al-Qaeda. Honestly if you can't understand that at your age, you probably never will, but here we are. If El Chapo had been backed by the Mexican government & was waging a war on the US, then yeah of course it would be morally acceptable for the US to either invade and infilitrate Mexico and arrest El Chapo and his lackeys if the Mexican gov't refused to give them up. The idea of countries being allowed to shield non-state actors from justice and there's just nothing the rest of the world can do about it it ridiculous on the face of it.

@BlueVeins Yeah no. Nice try to dodge that. Again, non state actors and governments are different things particularly legally. You can't just hand wave exceptions when it is convenient. And they were supporting him but wanted to hand his over for trial. That makes total sense.


Ummm news flash but all the cartels are backed by various politicians.

And sorry but again a terror attack by a non state actor is also not an act of war by a government. You are desperately trying to conflate the two to justify this war.

And funny how infiltrating Mexico and arresting him is the solution for mexico but when it is a poor Muslim country that your own govern knew he fled within months of 9/11 the solution is bomb it till the rubble bounces, invade and occupy for 20 years.

Again, handing someone over is not shielding anyone unless we are making up even more definitions here.


And sorry but legality has nothing to do with what you personally think is morally justified. That is why vigilantism is illegal.

I am thinking you are being dishonest here because I know you are not this clueless.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow a'ight fuck this, left-wing clone of hippyjoe. i don't usually block over arguments, but i'll 100% do it to someone who'll misconstrue shit & say whatever ridiculous shit they have to to support their tribalistic side. Bubye