Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

This proves, imho, that the Taliban cannot say "9/11? So sorry, it wasn't us". And it also shows that the war, for all its waste and imperfections and failures, is achieving its minimalistic objective of rooting AQ out of Afghanistan.

Isn't it remarkable, then, that not a single one of the 9/11 conspirators comes from Afghanistan? Or that for all these alleged "links" there isn't s single firm or detailed claim to what sort of assistance the Taliban provided to the plot?

Of course there are ideological sympathies at play, but that doesn't mean they are organisationally related. Furthermore, this wasn't even the cited justification for the war; that was refusal to meet impossible demands:

After the September 11 attacks on the U.S. and the PENTTBOM investigation, the United States made the following demands[60] to the Taliban, and refused to discuss them:

Deliver to the U.S. all of the leaders of Al Qaeda...Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities

To which the Taliban reacted by:

Quote:

On September 21, the Taliban responded to the ultimatum, promising that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating that they had no evidence linking him to the September 11 attacks.[63]... On October 4 the Taliban agreed to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal[64] that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan blocked the offer as it was not possible to guarantee his safety.[65] On October 7, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer, and stated that the US would not negotiate their demands.[66]

Quote:

Yeah, well, if you don't believe mvts need leaders and smart and charismatic leaders are superior to dumb ones, yes. OTOH, the Talibans seem to have thought that killing Cdt Massoud wasn't such a bad idea.

Also from your link:

The United Front managed to hold together, however. The slogan "Now we are all Massoud" became a unifying battle cry. It was Massoud's troops who ousted the Taliban from power in Kabul in 2001 with American air support after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 on U.S. soil had killed 3000 people.

Rather backfired, didn't it?

Quote:

And look at Hamas. From the pov of the Israelis, killing someone like Yassin was seen as a "no-downside" trade: It's not like Hamas could hate Israel more whether they killed him or not. OTOH, without Yassin, maybe Hamas would experience some disruption.

Yes, clearly HAMAS has been totally crippled... Maybe it makes the Israels feel good, but the effect is limited at best and counterproductive at worst. your argument about how the Palestinians dosn't hold up becuase it is precisely the killings of leaders and civilians that motivates hostility.

Quote:

If countries were willing to fight to the last man on a systematic basis, no peace treaty between warring factions would ever have been reached.

Sure, but assasination is necessarily a slow process, and in any large, sufficiently motivated organisation you'll be busy forever.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Isn't it remarkable, then, that not a single one of the 9/11 conspirators comes from Afghanistan? Or that for all these alleged "links" there isn't s single firm or detailed claim to what sort of assistance the Taliban provided to the plot?

They gave AQ a home base and a place for setting up their training camps. That's time and space for AQ to relax, re-arm, re-supply and prepare. As to asking for proof that Osama was linked to 9/11, didn't he take credit? If the words of the man himself aren't enough, what is?

Quote:

The United Front managed to hold together, however. The slogan "Now we are all Massoud" became a unifying battle cry. It was Massoud's troops who ousted the Taliban from power in Kabul in 2001 with American air support after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 on U.S. soil had killed 3000 people. Rather backfired, didn't it?

Not really. The Northern Alliance was at war anyhow and, with or without Massoud, wasn't going anywhere... until the US started providing full air cover/support post-9/11.

Quote:

Yes, clearly HAMAS has been totally crippled... Maybe it makes the Israels feel good, but the effect is limited at best and counterproductive at worst.

I agree that the effect is limited. Then again, it cost the Israeli nothing. And how can it be counterproductive? It's not like Hamas is going to hate Israel more... They already hate them as much as humanly possible.

Quote:

Your argument about how the Palestinians dosn't hold up becuase it is precisely the killings of leaders and civilians that motivates hostility.

Hmmm, maybe the killing of civilians. But, in truth, the differences and hostility is of the non-reconciliable variety as long as these two people want the same piece of land and refuse to live together.

Quote:

Sure, but assasination is necessarily a slow process, and in any large, sufficiently motivated organisation you'll be busy forever.

Wouldn't you say that the Napoleonic armies would have been a good deal less efficient without Napoleon leading them? What about getting rid of Nelson and Wellington? What about the October Revolution without Lenin? Or the Cuban one without Castro and Che Guevara. Again, from experience and studies, I know leaders do matter. Removing them is not the perfect solution because leaders are also the figureheads of real mvts with fundamental reasons for being. But they're not just figureheads, simple, interchangeable puppets without meaning.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

They gave AQ a home base and a place for setting up their training camps. That's time and space for AQ to relax, re-arm, re-supply and prepare.

AQ neither has no need of a "home base" because it's not a coherent organisation. In addiiton, much the same could be claimed of, say, the USA and the IRA - and yet not only are the US and UK not at war, they have maintained an active alliance.

Quote:

As to asking for proof that Osama was linked to 9/11, didn't he take credit? If the words of the man himself aren't enough, what is?

I didn't say that Bin Laden was not involved, I pointed out that there is not the slightest trace of Afghan or Taliban involvement with 9/11.

Quote:

Not really. The Northern Alliance was at war anyhow and, with or without Massoud, wasn't going anywhere... until the US started providing full air cover/support post-9/11.

Certainly. But clearly, killing Massoud didn't really matter in the long run.

Quote:

I agree that the effect is limited. Then again, it cost the Israeli nothing.

Ot costs them respectability and curries further hate.

Quote:

And how can it be counterproductive? It's not like Hamas is going to hate Israel more... They already hate them as much as humanly possible.

And as I've just pointed out, they hatre them because of ther assasination and killings.
It's like saying, well the house is already on fire, so it doesn't matter if I pour some petrol on the flames.

Quote:

Again, from experience and studies, I know leaders do matter. Removing them is not the perfect solution because leaders are also the figureheads of real mvts with fundamental reasons for being. But they're not just figureheads, simple, interchangeable puppets without meaning.

Although ironically, just the other day you were arguing that humans are too stupid to choose effective leaders. At any rate, I'm not asserting that thew right leadershipo has no value, but idea of resorting to assasination grossly exaggerates their effect. The gains are so small as to not be worth bothering with.