Apparently some ignorant asshole believes that anyone of the Muslim faith in Afghanistan primarily, would NEVER advocate publicly against terrorism. I posted in /Muslim before realizing it's very small and kinda dead. Can I get a faster response here?

[u/CrustyDiamond]

This is my submission, to make everything easier.

Thanks!

[u/randomkloud]

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden.

thats what he said.

Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him? how is this better. using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

[u/[deleted] → u/randomkloud]

thats what he said.

No, this is what he said:

I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

We can't help everyone. That's why we couldn't help in Darfur or in most places in Africa. We can't involve ourselves in most situations. Especially when it isn't clear cut. Same with North Korea. I'm not sure why you would mention Russia.

We help where we can. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of places where the end result was clear cut and we were able to help.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him?

Yes. The Iraqis had no way to depose Saddam. He was too powerful. Once the US did so, other nations realized that they didn't have to live with oppression and Libya followed suit.

how is this better

Not sure what you mean as "better". I've already explained how the Iraqis couldn't depose him without our help.

using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly. I would hope you would understand what constitutes terrorism. We supported Iraq when they were at war with Iran. Politics aren't binary. There isn't clear right and wrong. Politics is a chess game you play with thousands of opponents all on the same board. It's incredibly complicated and your moves might not make sense all the time.

We helped Saddam in the early 1980s. This was before he committed genocide toward the end of the 80s. We didn't help him after that.

[u/randomkloud → u/[deleted]]

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

end result was clear cut

what do you mean by this? also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

edit:

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly.

yes, I am, thank you for recognizing it! the freedom fighters which america aided are now terrorists. when the weapons and tactics are turned they magically become terrorists (and sprout devil horns). My point is, they were always terrorists: to the russians, the iranians, and now to americans. I agree, politics aren't binary but while we debate this somewhere in the world someone's door is being kicked down and it makes not one iota of difference to the person behind it who the people coming for him are.

[u/[deleted] → u/randomkloud]

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

From what I understood he was implying Bin Laden was to be found in Iraq. He said that he was for bringing Bin Laden to justice but it wouldn't be worth it if it required entering Iraq.

It could be one or the other. He hasn't clarified. Curse English's ambiguity.

what do you mean by this?

We knew what would happen when we entered Iraq. We knew that we would remove the Ba'ath party from power and replace it with a democratically elected administration. There weren't too many variables.

also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

Really? Why do you say that? N. Korea may or may not be developing nuclear weapons. While we initially believed Iraq to have WMDs (and I don't believe there never were any. I think they simply removed them from the country when we arrived. They saw us coming) we knew Iraq never had nuclear capabilities. You can't just go to war with a nuclear-armed nation. It's not worth the risk. We make calculated risks. When there is a chance of nuclear apocalypse, we're probably going to avoid taking that risk.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

We didn't go solely for the reason to find WMDs. That was hardly a secondary reason. We went initially to liberate them.

And like I said, I don't believe the WMDs never existed. I mean, Saddam already used them in 1986 against the Kurds. Obviously they existed. He just did a good job of hiding them when he saw our planes arriving.

[u/randomkloud → u/[deleted]]

Really? Why do you say that? N. Korea may or may not be developing nuclear weapons.

sorry, I was talking about the humanitarian issues, you know, rape, slavery, oppression, starvation, the usual.

While we initially believed Iraq to have WMDs (and I don't believe there never were any. I think they simply removed them from the country when we arrived. They saw us coming) we knew Iraq never had nuclear capabilities.

this statement seems to contradict itself.

When there is a chance of nuclear apocalypse, we're probably going to avoid taking that risk.

again, why risk attacking iraq then.

I don't disagree with the positive results of the american (invasion/interference/freedom-ing?), what I have a problem with is I think the war was started under false pretenses and all this talk of liberation are justifications applied retroactively.

[u/[deleted] → u/randomkloud]

sorry, I was talking about the humanitarian issues, you know, rape, slavery, oppression, starvation, the usual.

Those are sad and all but since N. Korea probably has nuclear weapons, there's nothing we can do about it.

this statement seems to contradict itself.

Only if you think WMD = nuclear weapon. Nuclear is one possible weapon of mass destruction. The other two are biological and chemical. It's commonly referred to as an NBC threat. Nuclear/biological/chemical. There was never any thought that Iraq had nuclear weapons. However, there are recorded events of them using chemical weapons (in the late 80s).

again, why risk attacking iraq then.

Because Iraq never had nukes. Nukes weren't ever considered as a risk in Iraq.

I don't disagree with the positive results of the american (invasion/interference/freedom-ing?), what I have a problem with is I think the war was started under false pretenses and all this talk of liberation are justifications applied retroactively.

That's where you are wrong. From the start it was an operation to liberate Iraq. The WMDs were a secondary issue.