True. They just provided shelter, and protection for those who did. When we asked that the perpetrators be turned over, the Taliban refused. What then?
Al Qaeda did, and they don't have any discernable state affiliation. They certainly weren't acting on any state orders.
So what? Are you saying that we should not have gone into Afghanistan to punish them and to prevent them from having a secure base from which to plan future attacks?
Certainly not Saddam Hussein's.
Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with this discussion because I said nothing about attacking Iraq. I was speaking solely of going after the perpetrators of 9/11.
They are criminals and should be handled as such.
That's a nice little phrase, but exactly how would we do that? The people who flew the planes are dead. The people who planned and supported the operation are in Afghanistan. How are we supposed to bring the members of Al Qaeda to justice when they are in another country and protected by the military of that country?
My "extreme" critique of your definition of "deterrent" is nonetheless totally accurate, if you agree with the war against the Taliban and Iraq.
I didn't attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq. I mentioned only the Taliban/Afghanistan, because that was where Al Qaeda was. Do you think we should have used military force to take out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or not? And if not, what should we have done?