Paul wrote, "The Taliban were given the option of handing over Bin Laden and his terrorist mates, they refused to do so."

This is a lie.

From the complete 9/11 Timeline:

September 16, 2001: Taliban Said to Agree to All US Demands in a Secret Meeting

A secret meeting takes place between Taliban and US government representatives in the city of Quetta, Pakistan. Afghan-American businessman Kabir Mohabbat serves as a middleman. US officials deny the meeting takes place, but later in the month Mohabbat explains that the US demands the Taliban hand over bin Laden, extradite foreign members of al-Qaeda who are wanted in their home countries, and shut down bin Laden?s bases and camps. Mohabbat claims that the Taliban agrees to meet all the demands. However, some days later he is told the US position has changed and the Taliban must surrender or be killed. Later in the month, the Taliban again agrees to hand over bin Laden unconditionally, but the US replies that ?the train had moved.? [CBS NEWS, 9/25/2001; COUNTERPUNCH, 11/1/2004 (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html)] (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601talibanagree#a091601talibanagree)

Paul wrote, "... the war in Afghanistan was not illegal."

Rubbish!

"On September 11, 2001, prior to the NATO meeting (which authorised the invasion on the basis of 'evidence' never made public), the UN Security Council adopted hastily-written resolution 1368 (2001) ... (which) called on 'all states to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable.'

(tobcontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

"... a 'white paper' for the UN was promised by then Secretary of State Colin Powell proving Osama bin Laden's and al Qaeda's guilt for 9/11. Such a white paper, if proved valid, would enable all member states at the UN to proceed with the urgent priority of tracking down the 9/11 perpetrators, since the resolution is binding on all members. But there's a problem blocking this much-expanded 'war on terrorism'. The promised white paper has never been produced." (Barrie Zwicker, "Towers of Deception - the Media cover-up of 9/11" (2006) p111)

Such issues are also discussed on the "9/11 Truth" forum (now unfortunately massively bloated to 511 posts largely as a result of obfuscation, personal attacks and other assorted diversionary ploys by truth deniers) at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#53049.

Lately, Paul's sterling efforts to convince the rest of us that black is white appear to have faltered, so if anyone else would like to help Paul out, please feel free to join in.

---

In point of fact, I found the previous Taliban regime to have been repellent. Its treatment of women and the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan#Dynamiting_and_destruction.2C_March_2001) in March 2001 sickened me. (On the other hand that act of wanton vandalism seems hardly worse than the US occupation authorities having seemingly intentionally allowed the destruction of Iraqi museums and archives in 2003 in the immediate wake of the invasion). As a result, I welcomed the Taliban's overthrow and supported the war in Afghanistan for many years afterwards (whilst opposing the invasion of Iraq).

In hindsight, I can seen that the illegal invasion only made an appalling situation (in any case largely brought about by previous US meddling) even worse.

Kellie, I thought your article was good. I am surprised at the tenor of the comments. I thought there was widespread opposition to the war in Australian society, but if the comments are anything to go by, it looks like there's not.

Just one point. Isn't it a double standard to criticise government's acts of armed aggression against the people of Iraq, and then to endorse calls from the same govenrment to spend millions of dollars taken from the people of Australia? Are these donations to be voluntary? If not, how do you propose we get the money? Send armed men around and beat people into submission? Filch it from their bank accounts and threaten them with prison if they try to do something about it?

Surely the consistent and ethical stance is to condemn the aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to condemn the violation of people's right to life and liberty by means by which it is financed? Why the double standard?

Also you say that the war in Iraq is illegal. Would it be in any better position if it was legal?

Dagget

Says >> “Lately, Paul's sterling efforts to convince the rest of us that black is white appear to have faltered ....”

Rolling on the floor laughing my ASS off.

“ ...The rest of us”?

You imagine that you {who believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation, that the Mumbai massacre was a false flag operation, that capitalism is a global conspiracy organised in a small room somewhere in Switzerland and numerous other CRAZY things} share beliefs with the ordinary people who post to OLO.
You are a NUTNAG of the highest order. There is no "rest of us" thank god.

“ ... Paul's sterling efforts to convince the rest of us that black is white”?

Coming from someone who is SO gullible that they accept without scepticism EVERYTHING ever posted on a Green Weekly, Alternet or other LOONY left websites, I find that SO SUPREMELY ironic I can barely contain my astonishment.

YOU believe that the official version of EVERYTHING is a LIE. YOUR WHOLE WORLD is about trying to convince others as gullible as yourself that BLACK IS WHITE.

I said >> "The Taliban were given the option of handing over Bin Laden and his terrorist mates, they refused to do so."

you say >> “This is a lie” and give us a link about a SECRET meeting. The good and even handed folk at Counterpunch ask us to accept as FACT the uncorroborated testimony of a paid informant and intermediary of the Taliban. There’s no possible way this guy would lie is there. Doh!!

In any case, the Taliban never did hand over Bin Laden, although there was plenty of time to do so.

It’s this kind of stupidity that really marks you out Dagget. You’d believe the North Koreans if they told the AlterNet that they’d got rid of their nukes years ago, and were now being persecuted by the rest of the world for fun/profit/or the joyful exetrmination of socialism.

So

>>”Afghanistan rebuffed an American demand relayed today by Pakistan that the Taliban government immediately and unconditionally surrender Osama bin Laden”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E6D7143BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B63

tbc

CONT,

>> “despite the us ultimatum, the taliban rulers refused on friday to hand over alleged terrorist mastermind osama bin laden and said us attempts to apprehend him by force could plunge the whole region into crisis” http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1270907889.cms

The Taliban militia has issued an ultimatum to the United States stating that evidence against suspected Saudi terrorist, Osama bin Laden, must be submitted by November 20 or bin Laden would be cleared of any crimes.
http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=2309

You really have to go through all sorts of contortions to pretend that the Taliban were ever going to hand over Bin Laden. Even if they sat down with Pakistani and US officials it is FAR more likely they were using the cover of negotiation to buy time for their escapes. Which is what in fact happened.

As for the legality of the conflict. Show me who, besides loony left groups, has actually declared the war illegal. The UN? The International Criminal Court, War Crimes tribunal in the Hague? The lack or otherwise, of a White Paper does not make the war illegal, moron.

Dagget says >> “Such issues are also discussed on the "9/11 Truth" forum”

Well actually no their not. I see you are now spruiking for an audience since clearly no one is interested in listening to your drivel by choice. You keep being all you can be Dagget

Hi Polycarp,
Interesting thesis. You write that “all peace is the result of war”.
Peace lies within, and once the stupid war maschinery comes to an end, peace will emerge. So will oil.
Try to tell this an Iraqi, whose family was blown up thanks to our help as well, that peace will soon come. Whether it matters to him, I don’t know. As his family was killed, his life was destroyed as well.
Whether we would speak German today or not, doesn’t really matter, as we are unable to change the course of past history. There might have been a chance for WW2 to be avoided, but the world missed it as it missed the chance to settle peacefully the differences with Iraq. There is always a chance to avoid a war, as long as politicians won’t give up on it. Saddam was a bastard, no denying. But so is George W. Bush and to some degree J.Howard. Iraq was invaded based on a lie, with no weapons of mass destruction, so this war was so wrong and has cost almost one million lifes. We as Australians are co- responsible for that. Period!
My grandmother happened to live in Germany and went through 2 world wars, even last year when she died she had tears in her eyes, when remembering those dreadful times. Australia was very lucky in that way, that it only suffered minor scratches on its own soil. It would pay off for every politician in power to talk to people who went through such a disaster, to better rethink their upcoming actions.
A war is only producing loosers, all the way. And also those ones with a medal, who believed to be on the winners side, will tell you the ugly side of the truth. The scars on their brain will stay with them forever…