Is Tony Blair a war criminal

[NotfooledbyW]

Where did aldiboronti go?

On 05-18-2014 at 10:29 AM aldiboronti wrote:

So is Obama a war criminal for having continued the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and for the countless civilians killed in drone attacks and bombings?

**I responded **to aldiboronti on 05-18-2014 at 11:18 AM:

NO. First off the invasion of Afghanistan was justified under an international principle of law that any nation has the inherent right of self-defense which includes retaliation for being attacked such as the USA was attacked on September 11, 2001.

On 05-18-2014 at 03:17 PM aldiboronti replied:

Justification for hot pursuit into Afghanistan to take out the terrorist camps. No justification at all for toppling the legitimate Afghan government.

It is quite clear that aldiboronti accepts justification of a US invasion for hot pursuit to take out the terrorist camps. And then on 05-18-2014 at 06:19 PM **Little Nemo makes a point **against aldiboronti’s argument:

No, the Afghan government was openly supporting Al Qaeda. It was offered an opportunity to repudiate that support and chose not to do so (at least not on terms the Bush administration considered acceptable).

As for the legitimacy of the Afghan government, it was pretty minimal even prior to 9/11. The Taliban had de facto control of most of Afghanistan but only three countries (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) had recognized it as the legitimate government (and Saudi Arabia and the UAE withdrew recognition after 9/11). Most countries in the world, including the United States, recognized the United Front as the legitimate government of Afghanistan even though it only controlled about a tenth of the country.

So to back up what Little Nemo posted **I asked aldiboronti **on 05-18-2014 at 06:57 PM

To start, do you believe either of these two factors are not true:

September 22, 2001 - Fighting begins between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban.

September 24, 2001: The Taliban calls for a jihad against the US if its forces enter Afghanistan.

Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera

Then 05-19-2014 at 02:09 AM Dissonance not realizing that the fighting between the Taliban and Northern Alliance was ‘intermittent’ declares:

Your first factor is astoundingly untrue.

So I have explained to Dissonance why Al Jazeera was indeed correct. And I have not heard from Dissonance whether he knows what ‘Intermittent’ means? So I will wait for that.
So while I am waiting for aldiboronti and Dissonance to get back to the debate, I would also like to know if they both believe that Al Jazeera’s other factor is true:

“September 24, 2001: The Taliban calls for a jihad against the US if its forces enter Afghanistan.”

It was not challenged as the first factor I cited was clumsily challenged. So is this factor true?
It matters if you care to follow the discussion in full context because … there is no way for the US Military to invade Afghanistan in hot pursuit to take out the terrorist camps if the Taliban calls for a jihad against the US if its forces enter Afghanistan" and not be justified for the US to take the Taliban down, now is there?

[NotfooledbyW]

For the record - I agree with the statement that Dissonance wrote on 05-19-2014 at 02:09 AM

The Northern Alliance, or more properly the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan had been fighting a losing war with the Taliban since 1996, and as Little Nemo noted was down to only controlling 10% of the country by 2001.

I also agree with this statement:

The Taliban continued to control most of Afghan territories with **intermittent fighting **with Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, the former defense minister under the coalition government led by President Burhanuddin Rabbani (Maley 1-9).

http://www-pub.naz.edu/~aamghar6/His...%20Taliban.htm

If anyone believes that the fighting between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban was not intermittent I’d like to know where they have received that information.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@NotfooledbyW

For the record - I agree with the statement that Dissonance wrote on 05-19-2014 at 02:09 AM

So then how come your initial response to his statement was in post #39 to rather foolishly proclaim

Al Jazeera has it right.** You have it wrong**.

The truth is he was the one who was right and you were the one who was wrong.

[NotfooledbyW]

What Dissonance has wrong has been explained:

Then 05-19-2014 at 02:09 AM Dissonance not realizing that the fighting between the Taliban and Northern Alliance was ‘intermittent’ declares:

Your first factor is astoundingly untrue.

Dissonance is wrong to state that Al Jazeera’s statement of fact is not true. That’s because the fighting was intermittent not continuous.

Those who wish to think the Taliban and Northern Alliance fought every day for years are wrong.

[UDS]

I have to say that, when something is happenning intermittently, and it resumes after an intermission, I wouldn’t say that it had “started”. I would say that it had resumed, or re-started. To say that fighting has “started”, without more, implies that there hadn’t been fighting before.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Ibn_Warraq

Dissonance is wrong to state that Al Jazeera’s statement of fact is not true.

He didn’t say Al Jazeera was wrong, he said you were wrong.

He was correct and you were wrong.

You’re just too proud to admit it.

Those who wish to think the Taliban and Northern Alliance fought every day for years are wrong.

Had anybody made this claim you’d have a point, but nobody did, so you don’t.

[Little_Nemo]

The Taliban and Al Qaeda assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, the de facto leader of the United Front, on September 9, 2001. So even before the Al Qaeda attacks against the United States, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were already actively attacking the United Front in Afghanistan.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ibn_Warraq

He didn’t say Al Jazeera was wrong, he said you were wrong.

Is the Al Jazeera first factor I cited true?

[Shodan]

@NotfooledbyW

Is the Al Jazeera first factor I cited true?

If you said it, obviously not.

Regards,
Shodan