Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

View article without comments

Taliban Propose[d] Osama Extradition to Pakistan

by The Frontier Post [of Peshwar, Pakistan] Monday, Oct. 08, 2001 at 9:30 PM

On the verge of US airstrikes, the Taliban made a gesture that the US & the world ignored: Afghanistan's ruling Taliban are proposing to turn over Osama Bin Laden to Pakistan for trial, but only on condition that Islamabad will not extradite the Arab dissident to any other country, a top Taliban official told Online on Saturday."The proposal aimed at avoiding large-scale devastation has been received by Pakistani officials and they are considering it before sending to the USA", the official said.

Taliban Propose Osama Extradition to Pakistan

Updated on 10/7/2001 12:00:47 PM



KARACHI (Online): Afghanistan's ruling Taliban are proposing to turn over Osama Bin Laden to Pakistan for trial, but only on condition that Islamabad will not extradite the Arab dissident to any other country, a top Taliban official told Online on Saturday."The proposal aimed at avoiding large-scale devastation has been received by Pakistani officials and they are considering it before sending to the USA", the official said.

"Amir-ul-Momineen Mullah Muhammad Omer Mujahid had already announced that Taliban government is ready to accept Pakistan's mediation to resolve this issue", he added.

Taliban government has already announced that it would not hand over Bin Laden to USA even if it provided "whatever" proofs against him.

" We will not hand over Osama to America in any case.

Even if it provides whatever proofs against him", The Afghan Ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaif said while talking to newsmen on Thursday.

" They (USA) will treat Bin Laden like Yusuf Ramzi and Sheikh Abdul Rehman, who were innocent but the American courts had sentenced life imprisonment to them", he said adding " we don't trust in US judiciary".

Mullah Omer on Thursday in a meeting with a delegation of Pakistan's one of the main Islamic parties, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) had announced that his government would be happy if Pakistan mediates to help resolve Bin Laden issue.

" Taliban government has decided in principle that Osama Bin Laden would be handed over to Pakistani authorities if the USA and the western countries agree that he would be tried in Pakistan", the Taliban official said and added: " However, before that the USA has to give a firm assurance to Taliban through United Nations that he (Osama) would be tried only in Pakistan and would not be handed over to it".

This, he said, was a generous offer made by Taliban to avoid war and the international community including Pakistan should pressurise USA to accept it.

" Pakistan which earlier had been considered the benefactor of Taliban now sides with USA, therefore America should trust its old friend (Pakistan) and accept this proposal", he maintained.

To a query, the official confirmed that the Taliban government had received a clear-cut message from Pakistan expressing its inability to "support" the ruling militia any more.

" Musharaff has sent this message to Mullah Omer that his government, squeezed by an immense US pressure, could not support Taliban any more", he said and added: " Mullah Omer responded to the message of General Musharaff that his government does not want to plunge its old friend into any difficult position and will remain be thankful to Pakistani brothers for their generous hospitality".

However, the official avoided to elaborate on when, where and who delivered Musharaff's message to Taliban's supreme leader.

He dispelled the impression that General Musharaff had assured British Prime Minister Tony Blair of his government's support to replace Taliban government by Northern Alliance.

" Musharaff has only talked about a broad-based government in Pakistan.

This is his personal opinion but he cannot support Northern Alliance fighting against Taliban with the help of India and Russia", he said adding: " The incumbent government enjoys the support of 99 per cent Afghan people.

They mean by a broad-based government is a government which can turn over Osama to them".

"We understand the problems of the Pakistani government that is why we are not angry with it", he added.

© Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post

Report this post as:

remember 1945?

by hiroshima Monday, Oct. 08, 2001 at 10:59 PM

This reminds me of when the Japanesse at the end of world war II offered to surrender to russia but we dropped the bomb anyway. This is a war started by the rich and faught by the poor. The vast majority of these soldiers and all these innocent civilians who are being killed will be victims of the bloodthirsty upperclass war for profit and imperailism.

No war but the class war.

(A)

Report this post as:

Not Quite The RIght Ending To WWII

by Paul H. Rosenberg Monday, Oct. 08, 2001 at 11:21 PM
rad@gte.net

Just one quibble, but it's important, since it could be used to discredit an important point: Japan didn't offer to surrender to the USSR at the end of WWII.

Rather, the USSR was committed to ENTERING the war. Japan was trying to surrender to the US, but with a face-saving way to protect its "honor"--more specifically, its emperor. The US said "no deal," and dropped two A-bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, some immediately, others through ghastly lingering deaths. Then we ended up letting the emperor be, for our OWN neo-imperialist purposes.

Report this post as:

and another point. . .

by kimmcdaniels Tuesday, Oct. 09, 2001 at 12:14 AM

dropping the A bomb was the most humane thing the US could have done for the Japanese.

If there had been an invasion of Japan -- the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last child. Every Japanese was trained to give his life to prevent the gaijin from landing. The kamikazi program was expanded. Not only did they have 3,000 kamikazi aircraft waiting for American landing craft, but kamikazi mini-subs and soldiers and civilians trained to act as human bombs.

The experience of the invasion of Okinawa is instructive. Civilians jumped off of cliffs with their children in their arms, rather than be captured by the Americans. Fathers killed their wives and children with their bare hands rather than see them captured by Americans.

US military officials estimated that 3 million Japanese would have died in the invasion of japan, as well as 500,000 Americans. Under these circumstances, the 180,000 killed by the two bombs was an act of mercy.

Report this post as:

Not Quite

by Harry S. Truman Tuesday, Oct. 09, 2001 at 2:42 AM

Another absurd argument for saving lives by taking them. Your entire argument rests on arbitrary numbers whose sources you fail to divulge. There is at least as much proof to the contrary, that the Japs were days away from surrendering with or without the A- bomb. Dropping the bomb favored the US in many ways. First of all, it once and for all proved our military invincibility, second, it created a whole industry in arms manufacturing that continues to this day(arms that will supposedly never be used ). If by definition, terrorism is the use of violence against civilians to achieve political means(as paraphrased from our own Army handbooks), then 9/11 hardly stands against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the world's grossest act of terrorism.

Report this post as:

no. . .

by steveo Tuesday, Oct. 09, 2001 at 10:31 AM

it took TWO A bombs to get the Japanese to surrender.

If they were just days away from surrender when the first one dropped. . . why did they not surrender in the three days between then and second one?

Because. . . they were not about to surrender. They were going to fight to the last man, woman and child.

Their strategy was simple: inflict enough casualties on the US that it we would lose the will to fight.

Report this post as:

Not quite

by Johnny TC Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2001 at 6:25 PM

In response to kimmcdaniels' comment, the Japanese were not the suicidal warriors that they are made out to be. Kamikaze was to used predominantly as a last ditch effort. The civillians in Okinawa jumped off the cliffs because they believed that under American capture they would be tortured and killed.

In response to steveo's post, the Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945. This was 5 days after dropping the second atomic bomb. Should we have dropped a third? A fourth or a fifth? After all, this would be a so-called merciful act.

Major decisions could not have been made in such a short time period. Japan was not filled with fanatical soldiers who would "fight to the last".

Furthurmore, the excuses of "preventing greater losses from an invasion" are just masks to hide the real reasons behind the decision to drop the bomb. Namingly, to field test the atomic bomb on an untouched city (Hiroshima was not a military target and had not been devastated by war), as a show of force to the Soviet Union and also to prevent the Soviet Union from aiding the allied war effort. The USSR promised to aid in war against Japan three months after the war in Europe was finished (VE day was on May 7, 1945). This would mean that the Soviets would have aquired a share of the spoils and a military presence in the east. Isn't it a bit suspicious that the bomb was dropped the day before the three month deadline was up?

The truth is, Japan was considering a surrender, but did not want to relent to the unconditional surrender that the U.S. presented them with. Defending on the home front would have given Japan more leverage in negotiating a peaceful settlement. You cannot argue that you are saving lives while destroying them.

Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy