Death to America?

[Gotholic]

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.

That doesn't mean they printed lies. Here are others:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...d-to-give-up-bin-laden-for-trial-before-911/1

Bin Laden denied he was behind the attack. The video that says he did it was "discovered" in Afghanistan after the invasion and was released by the U.S. government.

There are problems with the alleged confession tape pointed out in the following vids:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19eVwHAbmRI

As you can see, that wasn't Bin Laden.

Also, you can go around confessing you did whatever. but it must be proven you did it as a confession alone will not convict you. Regardless, that wasn't Bin Laden confessing.

 

[2minkey]

from your USA today article-

Update at 11:25 a.m. ET: Al-Jazeera says Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirms that such proposals were made to U.S. officials.

It quotes Grenier as saying Washington considered the offers a "ploy." "Another idea was that [bin Laden] would be brought to trial before a group of Ulema [religious scholars] in Afghanistan," Grenier is quoted as saying. "No one in the U.S. government took these [offers] seriously because they did not trust the Taliban and their ability to conduct a proper trial."

thanks for supporting my point.

 

[Gotholic]

from your USA today article-

Update at 11:25 a.m. ET: Al-Jazeera says Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirms that such proposals were made to U.S. officials.

It quotes Grenier as saying Washington considered the offers a "ploy." "Another idea was that [bin Laden] would be brought to trial before a group of Ulema [religious scholars] in Afghanistan," Grenier is quoted as saying. "No one in the U.S. government took these [offers] seriously because they did not trust the Taliban and their ability to conduct a proper trial."

thanks for supporting my point.

The Taliban also offered for Bin Laden to be taken to another country to be tried. There were various options but the U.S. would not negotiate and no evidence was ever given of Bin Laden's involvement.

 

[2minkey]

because those dari-speaking jokers were never taken seriously. right. you're starting to get it. would YOU believe the taliban?

 

[Gotholic]

because those dari-speaking jokers were never taken seriously. right. you're starting to get it. would YOU believe the taliban?

It doesn't matter what they thought of them. The proper course of action was for the U.S. to have presented evidence and then if they still refused then it would have been another matter. Yet, TO THIS DAY, no evidence of Bin Laden's involvement whatsoever.

Keep in mind that after the U.S. attacked them, they were then willing to give up Bin Laden without receiving evidence.

 

[catocom]

That doesn't mean they printed lies. Here are others:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...d-to-give-up-bin-laden-for-trial-before-911/1

Bin Laden denied he was behind the attack. The video that says he did it was "discovered" in Afghanistan after the invasion and was released by the U.S. government.

There are problems with the alleged confession tape pointed out in the following vids:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19eVwHAbmRI

As you can see, that wasn't Bin Laden.

Also, you can go around confessing you did whatever. but it must be proven you did it as a confession alone will not convict you. Regardless, that wasn't Bin Laden confessing.

They were shown "evidence".
It wasn't good enough, and or they didn't believe it.

You can't MAKE someone believe something.

.

 

[2minkey]

It doesn't matter what they thought of them. The proper course of action ...

right. we should enter into negotiations with those that are a) crazy, b) fucked-up and repulsive, and c) absolutely untrustworthy. you've again shown yourself to be little more than naive. better stick to faerie tales. you can imagine yourself the hero!

Keep in mind that after the U.S. attacked them, they were then willing to give up Bin Laden without receiving evidence.

right. that's why we chased bin laden through tora bora. because the taliban made it so easy for us. that makes perfect sense.

 

[Gotholic]

.

What you previously said has been demonstrated to be false. The Taliban was not shown any evidence of Bin Laden's involvement. The "confession" video was "discovered" in Afghanistan after the invasion. It is the only such "evidence" ever shown and it is clearly a fake.

 

[Gotholic]

right. we should enter into negotiations with those that are a) crazy, b) fucked-up and repulsive, and c) absolutely untrustworthy. you've again shown yourself to be little more than naive. better stick to faerie tales. you can imagine yourself the hero!

right. that's why we chased bin laden through tora bora. because the taliban made it so easy for us. that makes perfect sense.

You have to think about it like this. What if some Islamic country thought you were behind an attack against them and they wanted you to come over there to be tried? You would of course want your government to defend you by at least having the foreign country provide evidence that you did it.

The reason why the U.S. got away without showing anything is because it is much more powerful than Afghanistan. But imagine if it was China? The U.S., of course, would oblige.

Might does not equal right. Whether the U.S. thinks the Taliban was crazy or the Taliban thought the U.S. was crazy, there are proper procedures to be followed despite cultural differences.

 

[catocom]

They were indeed shown so-called evidence.
Whether true or false they were shown it.

al-Qaeda also claimed responsibility, and Bin Laden was indeed the head of al-Qaeda. Was he not?

Either way, we are where we are Now, and I do agree that we need to get out.
We needed to get out 8 years ago at least.
This so-called trying to "win the hearts and minds" ain't gonna ever happen.

 

[Gotholic]

They were indeed shown so-called evidence.
Whether true or false they were shown it.

al-Qaeda also claimed responsibility, and Bin Laden was indeed the head of al-Qaeda. Was he not?

Either way, we are where we are Now, and I do agree that we need to get out.
We needed to get out 8 years ago at least.
This so-called trying to "win the hearts and minds" ain't gonna ever happen.

Give me a link that they were given evidence. i have given you plenty that they were not.

 

[2minkey]

You have to think about it like this. What if some Islamic country thought you were behind an attack against them and they wanted you to come over there to be tried? You would of course want your government to defend you by at least having the foreign country provide evidence that you did it.

The reason why the U.S. got away without showing anything is because it is much more powerful than Afghanistan. But imagine if it was China? The U.S., of course, would oblige.

Might does not equal right. Whether the U.S. thinks the Taliban was crazy or the Taliban thought the U.S. was crazy, there are proper procedures to be followed despite cultural differences.

you offer nothing more than schoolyard moralizing.

in this case we had both right and might. and properly recognized mullah omar's shitcan attempts to weasel the situation. you keep acting as if negotiating with the taliban - a bunch of redneck savages - was an option.

would you consider the taliban a legitimate government?

what are these "proper procedures" you mention? the conventions of civilized people interacting with one another? hmmmm. perhaps you think we should negotiate with every local strongman that becomes inconvenient. great. what about hugo chavez? think we should take him at his word?

congratulations. you are now a full member of the teenage junior activist club.

 

[catocom]

Give me a link that they were given evidence. i have given you plenty that they were not.

It would be useless for me to do so at this point.
You've clearly made up your mind, and would dismiss, or post a link refuting anything I put up.

Lets say...OK they were not given an evidence and the whole thing was a conspiracy.
What are You going to do about it?

 

[catocom]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/0...pullback-as-panetta-shrugs-off-afghan-runway/

.