In 2003 some 72% of Americans fully supported the Abandoning of the Missions and those Sent to Accomplish so extremely Quickly after 9/11!!

At least some 95%, if not more as less then 1% serve them, not only still support the, just below, total lack of Sacrifice, they ran from any and all Accountability and left everything still on the table to be continually used if the political/military want was still in play in future executive/legislative wants!!
DeJa-Vu: “With no shared sacrifices being asked of civilians after Sept. 11", Decades and War From, All Over Again!!

DEC. 21, 2014 - Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses

‘Operation Inherent Resolve’

Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan

* * Operation Resolute Support * *

* * Iraq: 10 Years After, 19 March 2013 - Costs of War * *

CNN Map U.S. and Coalition Iraq/Afghanistan Casualties

Civilian Fatalities in Afghanistan, 2001–2012

* Bookshelf * Iraq War Inquiry * The Torture Archive * Donate * Subscribe *

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

After bin Laden:

Why Afghan war was flawed response to 9/11

Kate Hudson is general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and currently Visiting Research Fellow at London South Bank University. She was formerly head of Social and Policy Studies at the same institution.

London (CNN) -- May 9, 2011 -- In the sorrow and chaos which followed the criminal attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, voices of sanity were there to be heard. The most profound and eloquent of these were from some of those most humanly and directly affected -- those who had lost their loved ones on 9/11.

Just weeks after the attacks, some of these formed a group called Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, rejecting the idea that their grief should be "a cry for war" (as one of their banners put it) and expressing the view that security cannot be built on violence and revenge.

The recent killing of Osama bin Laden by intelligence-led U.S. special forces in Pakistan gives cause to reconsider the views of those families. When asked what alternative they proposed, instead of an attack on Afghanistan, one option was clearly outlined: that the criminal attacks should be treated as such; that a criminal investigation should be undertaken, using police work and intelligence, and that the perpetrators should be apprehended and brought to trial.

I well remember similar arguments put against a war on Afghanistan in Britain at the time: that to wage war against a whole nation for the crimes of a few was not only wrong but illegal under international law: collective punishment of a people is outlawed. Even assuming bin Laden was guilty and was hiding in Afghanistan -- and even if the Taliban government harbored him and his al Qaeda network -- that would not make it right or legal to bomb innocent civilians.

Many people in Britain and around the world shared the same view: if a murderer hides in a block of flats, you don't blow up the block of flats. You take all necessary steps to capture the murderer and bring him or her to trial. Yet George W. Bush was hell-bent on war against Afghanistan and the people of that tragically abused country have paid a heavy price for his utterly misplaced retribution.

Of course the irony now is that bin Laden was indeed located through the means recommended by Families for Peaceful Tomorrows and not through war. But unfortunately the U.S. administration has not seen fit to take the next step and bring bin Laden to trial for his crimes. Instead they chose summary execution of an unarmed man, not even able to claim that killing was necessary to prevent his escape. President George W. Bush had promised that bin Laden would be taken "dead or alive," and so he was. But one is left with the question, why dead -- why not tried? {continued}

No comments:

Post a Comment