111 replies to this topic

[Haflinger]

I argued for the war in Afghanistan when it began. I thought it was the smart thing to do then, and I still think it was.

 

Most of the progress that was achieved in Afghanistan, which was a strike at a global headquarters of terrorism, was undone by the invasion of Iraq. You cannot look at current events in Syria - much of it under occupation by IS, a monster the US created by invading Iraq - and say otherwise.

 

The 700 million people outside the UK in 1945 were mostly in India, which left British rule officially in 1947. But citing that date as the end of the British Empire is like citing 1918 as the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; yeah, 1918 was the legal end, but in real terms the empire was long gone before then. To identify an empire, you look at a country that is able to directly control events outside its own borders; under Queen Vicky, the British were able to have enormous impact even in areas that they didn't legally control.

[Redezra]

Personal belief:

 - Empires are (in some ways) good cause they foster improvements in the general quality of life of their colonies. The US has not been taking colonies, which is why it's not been working for them. 
 

[the rebel]

What it proves is I don't work in absolutes, I'm willing to admit I could be wrong, unlike you, who always thinks you're right no matter what. Despite things like "logic" and "facts" coming in to play.

I only think I'm right when backed up by irrefutable evidence, everything else is opinion only when irrefutable evidence isn't available. The big difference between us is I don't argue opinion as fact.

You don't admit you're wrong even when facts come flying over your head and you get carpet bombed with them.

But you said something correct for a change where you don't work in absolutes, which is good if its wasn't just replaced with fantasy

[Manoka]

I argued for the war in Afghanistan when it began. I thought it was the smart thing to do then, and I still think it was.

 

Most of the progress that was achieved in Afghanistan, which was a strike at a global headquarters of terrorism, was undone by the invasion of Iraq. You cannot look at current events in Syria - much of it under occupation by IS, a monster the US created by invading Iraq - and say otherwise.

 

The 700 million people outside the UK in 1945 were mostly in India, which left British rule officially in 1947. But citing that date as the end of the British Empire is like citing 1918 as the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; yeah, 1918 was the legal end, but in real terms the empire was long gone before then. To identify an empire, you look at a country that is able to directly control events outside its own borders; under Queen Vicky, the British were able to have enormous impact even in areas that they didn't legally control.

The U.S. didn't create ISIL, they were in Iraq before the U.S. invaded, and the U.S. didn't somehow create these people, they organized themselves, they decided to kill innocent people and slaughter Shia's for fun, none of that was encouraged or promoted by the U.S., to say so would be insane. The Good in Afghanistan and in Iraq isn't somehow magically gone by ISIL, and in no way is the problem in Syria caused by ISIL. Hundreds of thousands of people were dying per year, now it's a few thousand. Iraq and Afghanistan are freer and safer than they've been in over a decade, ISIL isn't taking it all away. ISIL isn't even in Afghanistan in any significant number, so how would ISIL possibly be undoing the good done in Afghanistan? How would us extraditing a prisoner be responsible for the formation of ISIS and leading to this problem?

 

The Syrian civil war started because Assad began a mass genocide against his own people, not because of ISIS. ISIS showed up after the fact. The main fighting forces originated from Ex-Syrian military officials who refused to slaughter their own civilians, which is how the war began. You can't blame ISIS for that, that doesn't even make any sense. 

 

 

Somehow the U.S. created ISIL because, the invasion magically causes organizations predicated on centuries old conflicts to just then decide to commit violence, somehow the few thousands of people they've killed is worse than the hundreds of thousands who died as a result of Saddam and the Taliban, and even though things like the Syrian war have more to do with Assad mobilizing troops against his own people, with ISIL showing up after the fact, we're going to say they're responsible for that too. All I can really do is shake my head. 

 

Alright, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. HOW did the U.S. create ISIL? And you realize that dozens of other countries were involved in the conflict, yes, not just the U.S.?

[Manoka]

What it proves is I don't work in absolutes, I'm willing to admit I could be wrong, unlike you, who always thinks you're right no matter what. Despite things like "logic" and "facts" coming in to play.

I only think I'm right when backed up by irrefutable evidence, everything else is opinion only when irrefutable evidence isn't available. The big difference between us is I don't argue opinion as fact.

You don't admit you're wrong even when facts come flying over your head and you get carpet bombed with them.

But you said something correct for a change where you don't work in absolutes, which is good if its wasn't just replaced with fantasy

Yeah, like you did with the Russians not invading Ukraine, or like all the facts and sources you've presented which have proved me wrong in this thread... 

 

Oh wait, that's right, you've done none of those things.

[HordeLorde]

Personal belief:

 - Empires are (in some ways) good cause they foster improvements in the general quality of life of their colonies. The US has not been taking colonies, which is why it's not been working for them. 
 

yeah sure the us hasnt been taking colonies....ha
Please talk to Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, and countless others.

Plus our incessant occupation in the middle east and everywhere else in the world for that matter. Team America World Police indeed.

[the rebel]

Oh wait, that's right, you've done none of those things.

I've stated my opinion and then fact they do not have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan or anything that dictates they can remove prisoners from the country.

You provided opinion and facts on irrelevant sources which do not disprove my facts or opinion.

---------------

And do yourself a favour stop living and crying over the past, if you got a problem, nut up or shut up.

[Manoka]

Oh wait, that's right, you've done none of those things.

I've stated my opinion and then fact they do not have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan or anything that dictates they can remove prisoners from the country.

You provided opinion and facts on irrelevant sources which do not disprove my facts or opinion.

---------------

And do yourself a favour stop living and crying over the past, if you got a problem, nut up or shut up.

They don't have an extradition treaty specifically, but they do have a treaty detailing prisoner involvement, which I have already sourced you, multiple time, even the one specifically for bagram prison facility. 

 

You can claim isn't real all day long, but that's just because you're a crazy person. 

 

"The Conduct of ongoing military operations shall continue under existing frameworks, which include the Memorandum of Understanding on the Transfer of U.S. detention facilities (2012), and the memorandum of understanding on the Afghanistanization of Special Operations (2012)." Page 3

 

"Afghanistan shall provide U.S. forces continued access to and use of Afghan Facilities through 2014, and beyond as may be agreed in the Bilateral Security Agreement" Page 4

 

 

 

Now, let's look at the MoU on Detention Facilities, first of all that establishes bilateral control: "The Participants, upon signing this MoU, hereby establish a Bilateral Committee on Detentions to oversee the implementation of this MoU.  Co-chaired by the Minister of Defence and the Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, or their designees, the Committee is to be responsible for the following tasks, among others:" This gives the U.S. joint control over the members in the prison. 

 

Secondly, the U.S. is only obligated ot hand over Afghan nationals, which this guy is not. "The United States reaffirms that it is to transfer Afghan nationals detained by U.S. forces at the Detention Facility in Parwan (DFIP) to Afghanistan according to the provisions of this MoU."

 

The U.S. is keeping a large number of non-Afghanistan members in their own prisons, as per their agreement. Here are further statements made by Afghanistan government officials. 

 

 

Some Afghan officials signaled that the continuing American role was understood and, to a degree, acceptable. “The priority for Afghanistan is Afghan citizens,” said Janan Mosazai, the Foreign Ministry spokesman. “When it comes to third-country nationals, that will be a matter we decide with our international partners at some point down the road.”

 

 “If we keep these people with us in this current situation and deal with them, this will create more problems for us,” General Ghulam Farouk, the Afghan official who runs the Afghan-controlled portions of Parwan, said. “Therefore it is better for the Americans to keep them.”

 

The United States military will maintain control over dozens of foreign detainees in Bagram for the indefinite future.

 

 

But, according to you, none of this is "evidence" that the U.S. is allowed to have control over a small number of foreign nationals. I guess it's easy to keep deluding yourself.

[the rebel]

None of that specifically states they can extradite prisoners from the country. Are you retarded to not understand simple English in your sources.

So for the billionth time show me a relevant source that proves your stance because so far you have found nothing.

Repeating the same old nonsense which doesn't answer my facts doesn't make me crazy it makes you crazy.

Learn English you window licker.

Edited by the rebel, 02 September 2015 - 07:58 AM.

[Haflinger]

The U.S. didn't create ISIL, they were in Iraq before the U.S. invaded

 

Quoting from your link.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian Salafi jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his militant group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, founded in 1999, achieved notoriety in the early stages of the Iraqi insurgency for the suicide attacks on Shia Islamic mosques, civilians, Iraqi government institutions and Italian soldiers partaking in the US-led 'Multi-National Force'.

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was founded in 1999. It was tiny, and did not control any territory at all. Because of the US invasion, it was able to recruit more followers and consequently grew. You cannot simply deny the facts. 

 

The Syrian civil war started because Assad began a mass genocide against his own people, not because of ISIS. ISIS showed up after the fact. The main fighting forces originated from Ex-Syrian military officials who refused to slaughter their own civilians, which is how the war began. You can't blame ISIS for that, that doesn't even make any sense.

The genocide started after the civil war began. However, yes, you're right, Assad would probably have caused a civil war anyway. IS wouldn't exist though.

[Manoka]

The U.S. didn't create ISIL, they were in Iraq before the U.S. invaded

 

Quoting from your link.

>Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian Salafi jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his militant group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, founded in 1999, achieved notoriety in the early stages of the Iraqi insurgency for the suicide attacks on Shia Islamic mosques, civilians, Iraqi government institutions and Italian soldiers partaking in the US-led 'Multi-National Force'.

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was founded in 1999. It was tiny, and did not control any territory at all. Because of the US invasion, it was able to recruit more followers and consequently grew. You cannot simply deny the facts. 

 

The Syrian civil war started because Assad began a mass genocide against his own people, not because of ISIS. ISIS showed up after the fact. The main fighting forces originated from Ex-Syrian military officials who refused to slaughter their own civilians, which is how the war began. You can't blame ISIS for that, that doesn't even make any sense.

The genocide started after the civil war began. However, yes, you're right, Assad would probably have caused a civil war anyway. IS wouldn't exist though.

 

How did the U.S. invasion enable them to grow members?

 

The U.S. invasion might have attracted Al Qaeda to increase activities in Iraq, which it did (they sent over more members until they eventually broke it off), but it's a small potatoes compared to the hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed by Saddam. They didn't "create" or even give opportunities for Al Qaeda to grow stronger, Al Qaeda sent more of it's members to Iraq. If someone off in the corner decides to do something while we're doing something, that can't possibly be blamed on us. This guy shot up a black church because he didn't like the way civil rights are going. Do we blame civil rights for the shooting, or the crazy guy? U.S. policy isn't responsible for what these guys did, and FYI, it was more than the U.S. in Iraq. 

 

You're reaching, at best.

[Manoka]

None of that specifically states they can extradite prisoners from the country. Are you retarded to not understand simple English in your sources.

So for the billionth time show me a relevant source that proves your stance because so far you have found nothing.

Repeating the same old nonsense which doesn't answer my facts doesn't make me crazy it makes you crazy.

Learn English you window licker.

It doesn't specifically mention the word Extradition, but it does say that the U.S. has control over the prisoners, and it does say that Afghanistan agreed to give us those prisoners, in fact it said that Afghanistan, and the ruling general in charge of the prisons, did not even want to deal with the prisoners, since it would spark international debate, and they're focusing on internal growth. Knowing English is knowing how other words can *gasp* be used to imply the same message. You're just going to argue it's a matter of semantics, even though the U.S. was given control over the prisoners and was told to try them overseas by Afghanistan?

 

/sigh 

 

 

The way Afghanistan's extradition process works is not be establishing treaties with other countries, but a catch-all document that outlines their extradition process. Due to the numerous countries involved in Afghanistan, the UK, the U.S., Spain etc. Afghanistan instead allows extraditions by request, and handles each case on an individual basis, through a review board. So, specifically, there is no agreement with the U.S. that allows for extradition, but there are agreements in place that facilitate extradition in Afghanistan. They could potentially extradite someone anywhere in the world.