They were willing to hand him over if they were provided evidence of his involvement. This was understandable and reasonable. The U.S. refused.
They were shown "evidence".
It wasn't good enough, and or they didn't believe it.
You can MAKE someone believe something.
The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
and you still question the evidence against him?
you show me that the existing, widely-disseminated evidence is not valid, poster boy.
You went from "the way I remember it" to an affirmative.
You keep going from the way I remember it to the way you seem to have perceived it.
he just thinks the way that INFOWARS!!!! tells him to.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I have provided old news stories of THE DAY that clearly back up what I say.
YOU clearly have no idea of what I'm talking about.
You clearly don't know what the situation was then, and or remember selectively, because
the decision to GO with it wasn't make in "a day".
BTW do you have links to said "provided stories"?
This forum was here, and so was I. I didn't see them to my recalling.
edit: well I thought this forum was here. I may be thinking of JJR's
Where did you link to the stories?
Oh, that's why I dismissed that post.
Those are second or 3rd hand accounts.
I though you had something more official.
You do know the UK was against us going in, to start with, don't you?
What about the video tape of Bin-laden taking responsibility for it?
I guess a confession in his own words wasn't good enough.