Is The US At War?

[Captain Seafort]

You're honestly comparing AQ and Taliban with a couple of bank robbers??? One side being the belief that rape, torture and murder are just daily rights of those in charge so long as they blame God. The other side, poor guys who robbed for quick cash. Thats just pathetic even by your standards.

So focus on the upper end - Capone and the Krays, neither of whom were at all averse to torture or murdering their rivals to get their way. Sure, AQ are a lot more dangerous, but they are fundamentally just another bunch of criminals. Treating them as though they're a sovereign state is giving them far more respect, recognition and legitimacy than they deserve.

[Deepcrush]

So focus on the upper end - Capone and the Krays, neither of whom were at all averse to torture or murdering their rivals to get their way. Sure, AQ are a lot more dangerous, but they are fundamentally just another bunch of criminals. Treating them as though they're a sovereign state is giving them far more respect, recognition and legitimacy than they deserve.

Someone doesn't have to be the controlling party of a sovereign state to commit a crime. In order to commit a crime you simply break the law. To commit and act of war you commit a crime against another nation with the support of your home nation. AQ fits all of this, there for its an act of war which was responded with by our declaring war.

[Captain Seafort]

Someone doesn't have to be the controlling party of a sovereign state to commit a crime. In order to commit a crime you simply break the law. To commit and act of war you commit a crime against another nation with the support of your home nation. AQ fits all of this, there for its an act of war which was responded with by our declaring war.

AQ certainly does not fit all that. They've certainly committed crimes, but they're a stateless organisation, and as such have no home nation. They were sponsored by the Taleban, and I've no quibble with calling the NATO support to the Northern Alliance in 2001 a war, but the counterterrorism operations against AQ itself are separate from that war.

[Deepcrush]

Right, so the Taliban... rulers of Afghanistan... weren't supporting AQ for the last twenty years? You know, if this goes over your head anymore more its going to be ramming the moon. You invade their host country and actively fight them and their host, that's a war. Simple and done.

[Captain Seafort]

Right, so the Taliban... rulers of Afghanistan... weren't supporting AQ for the last twenty years?

Indeed they weren't. Mainly because the Taleban didn't exist twenty years ago. As for the period when they did provide AQ with a safe haven as the Afghan government, between 1996 and 2001, I just agreed that the result of that support was war. A war between the US and its allies on one hand and Afghanistan, under the Taleban, on the other. AQ, and specifically 9/11, were merely the causus belli.

You invade their host country and actively fight them and their host, that's a war.

No, you invade and fight their host country. Not them. Once the war is concluded you withdraw and release any prisoners held. Members of AQ, on the other hand, are criminals, and will be either imprisoned or executed according to the laws of whatever country has jurisdiction (be it the US, Spain, the UK, or whoever).

[SolkaTruesilver]

Right, so the Taliban... rulers of Afghanistan... weren't supporting AQ for the last twenty years? You know, if this goes over your head anymore more its going to be ramming the moon. You invade their host country and actively fight them and their host, that's a war. Simple and done.

Right. But crushing the Talibans won't stop AQ.

And withdrawing from the Taliban's center of operation won't expose the country to more attack. We just need to keep the current strategy of airstriking whatever terrorist grouping we find, while abandonning ground operation and leave Afghanistan to those who actually have the power to rule it.

Maybe even strike a deal with the Talibans, threatening them to keep bombing them if they don't actively prevent AQ from implanting themselves in their territory. Ultimately, I think the Talibans, being an effective geopolitical force with actual power bases in Afghanistan, could be, one day, not considered our active antagonist.

[Deepcrush]

Indeed they weren't. Mainly because the Taleban didn't exist twenty years ago. As for the period when they did provide AQ with a safe haven as the Afghan government, between 1996 and 2001, I just agreed that the result of that support was war. A war between the US and its allies on one hand and Afghanistan, under the Taleban, on the other. AQ, and specifically 9/11, were merely the causus belli.

That was a lovely ramble of absolutely nothing, good job.

No, you invade and fight their host country. Not them. Once the war is concluded you withdraw and release any prisoners held. Members of AQ, on the other hand, are criminals, and will be either imprisoned or executed according to the laws of whatever country has jurisdiction (be it the US, Spain, the UK, or whoever).

What makes you think we would release Taliban members? They supported AQ, hosted AQ which means they'll be treated the same as AQ. In war you just don't let enemy troops go so that they can come back at you again.

Right. But crushing the Talibans won't stop AQ.

Which is why we're fighting both.

And withdrawing from the Taliban's center of operation won't expose the country to more attack. We just need to keep the current strategy of airstriking whatever terrorist grouping we find, while abandonning ground operation and leave Afghanistan to those who actually have the power to rule it.

Right, like the Taliban who took power because of that idea. Good thinking... win a war and then just give them back the country so they can do it again.

Maybe even strike a deal with the Talibans, threatening them to keep bombing them if they don't actively prevent AQ from implanting themselves in their territory. Ultimately, I think the Talibans, being an effective geopolitical force with actual power bases in Afghanistan, could be, one day, not considered our active antagonist.

Yes, because fanatics are so easy to talk to and once we start shooting at them they'll give up and no one will get hurt.

[Mikey]

Sorry, I've just been skimming due to time constraints, but... the Taliban didn't exist twenty years ago? You mean they changed their name from when the U.S. as supporting them in their fight against the U.S.S.R. and were called the mujahadin.

[Captain Seafort]

Sorry, I've just been skimming due to time constraints, but... the Taliban didn't exist twenty years ago? You mean they changed their name from when the U.S. as supporting them in their fight against the U.S.S.R. and were called the mujahadin.

Nope. The mujahiddin took Kabul in '93, and promptly fell into fighting among themselves. The Taleban formed partially in response to this chaos (with more than a little nudging from ISI) and chucked the muj out in '96. They then went medieval on the country (to give them the benefit of the doubt). There were (and are) probably plenty of former mujahiddin in the Taelban, but they're distinct movements.

[Captain Seafort]

That was a lovely ramble of absolutely nothing, good job.

In other words you're either too thick or too arrogant to admit that I've proven you wrong.

What makes you think we would release Taliban members?

The fact that we're fight a war with them, which means that they will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention and released when the war ends.

They supported AQ, hosted AQ which means they'll be treated the same as AQ.

Wrong. While they're certainly morally responsible for AQs actions between 1996 and 2001, the fact that one is a criminal organisation while the other was the government of a sovereign state means that different rules apply.

In war you just don't let enemy troops go so that they can come back at you again.

During the war, no, at the end of the war, yes.

Which is why we're fighting both.

"Fighting" =/= "war".

[Deepcrush]

In other words you're either too thick or too arrogant to admit that I've proven you wrong.

Coming from someone like you that's not just beyond hypocritical but purely pathetic.

The fact that we're fight a war with them, which means that they will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention and released when the war ends.

But you said we aren't at war... so pick one already. Either we are or we aren't.

Wrong. While they're certainly morally responsible for AQs actions between 1996 and 2001, the fact that one is a criminal organisation while the other was the government of a sovereign state means that different rules apply.

While I'm not sure what the laws are in the UK. In the US any threat, foreign or domestic, can be declared upon by Congress the rights of war. This means that since both AQ and the Taliban are active threats, war can be issued.

During the war, no, at the end of the war, yes.

Only if they aren't imprisoned or executed for war crimes which is rather likely since their trials are going to be handled by their fellow Arabs.

"Fighting" =/= "war".

Of course, which is why we use the term war and not "Police Action".

[Captain Seafort]

But you said we aren't at war... so pick one already. Either we are or we aren't.

We're at war with the Taleban. I haven't disputed that. We are not at war with AQ, any more than we've ever been at war with any other criminal gang.

While I'm not sure what the laws are in the UK. In the US any threat, foreign or domestic, can be declared upon by Congress the rights of war. This means that since both AQ and the Taliban are active threats, war can be issued.

Source please.

Only if they aren't imprisoned or executed for war crimes which is rather likely since their trials are going to be handled by their fellow Arabs.

What Arabs? The Taleban are mainly Pushtun, not Arab.

Of course, which is why we use the term war and not "Police Action".

You're using the term "war" to refer to glorified police work.

[Deepcrush]

We're at war with the Taleban. I haven't disputed that. We are not at war with AQ, any more than we've ever been at war with any other criminal gang.

That's how you personally see it which has nothing to do with how the United States as a whole sees it.

Source please.

We declared war.

What Arabs? The Taleban are mainly Pushtun, not Arab.

Which are descendants of Arabia... aka short hand Arabs since they'll be sent to trial in a number of nations in that region and I didn't feel the need to type out every nation, creed, etc for the details.

You're using the term "war" to refer to glorified police work.

Again, that's your personal opinion against a declared war by the United States Congress. Though if you want to test your opinion why don't you spend a 18 month tour in Afghanistan and then see how you feel.

[SolkaTruesilver]

What Arabs? The Taleban are mainly Pushtun, not Arab.

Which are descendants of Arabia... aka short hand Arabs since they'll be sent to trial in a number of nations in that region and I didn't feel the need to type out every nation, creed, etc for the details.

And Indians. And Persians. And Khazaks.

Pushtun are quite the bastard people, when you think of it. Make sense when you are at the crossroads of multiple civilisations and having consistantly dominated by foreigners.

So I wouldn't call them "arabs"

[Captain Seafort]

That's how you personally see it which has nothing to do with how the United States as a whole sees it.

Who gives a fuck about the US as a whole. This is the same bunch of morons that elected George Bush twice.

We declared war.

You claimed that "in the US any threat, foreign or domestic, can be declared upon by Congress the rights of war." Source please.

Which are descendants of Arabia

No, they're not. They're Pushtun. There's probably a mix of most regional groups in their distant history, but they are a distinct ethnicity in their own right, not Arabs.

Though if you want to test your opinion why don't you spend a 18 month tour in Afghanistan and then see how you feel.

What the fuck's Afghanistan got to do with the discussion. It's an entirely different situation from the AQ counter-terrorism one, and one where I have repeatedly stated that I've no issue with calling it a war.

In case you're too blind or stupid to read that, I'll repeat it:

I AGREE THAT THE AFGHANISTAN FIGHTING IS A WAR