Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a source for this? Sounds like an interesting read
Someone else in the thread linked https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
Thanks!
How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
111–120 of 145 posts
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
bin Laden said he did it. Many times.
That seems to indicate he wasn't very fond of the US. It's not proof, though, of him being the mastermind of 9/11. If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court?
There's an abundance of other evidence that bin Laden was behind 9/11, his claim of responsibility being only the most blatantly obvious one. Claiming he wasn't responsible for 9/11 genuinely requires conspiracy theorist-levels of contrived argumentation.
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to indicate he wasn't very fond of the US. It's not proof, though, of him being the mastermind of 9/11. If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court?
There's an abundance of other evidence that bin Laden was behind 9/11, his claim of responsibility being only the most blatantly obvious one. Claiming he wasn't responsible for 9/11 genuinely requires conspiracy theorist-levels of contrived argumentation.
With an abundance of evidence it would be trivial to try and convict him, no?
Why, then, didn't they bring him before a court? It would have been awkward of course, logistically, but judicially, so worth it.
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an abundance of other evidence that bin Laden was behind 9/11, his claim of responsibility being only the most blatantly obvious one. Claiming he wasn't responsible for 9/11 genuinely requires conspiracy theorist-levels of contrived argumentation.
With an abundance of evidence it would be trivial to try and convict him, no? Why, then, didn't they bring him before a court? It would have been awkward of course, logistically, but judicially, so worth it.
The mission was capture or kill. If he had surrendered, he could have been tried and convicted, but realistically that wasn't going to happen, so he ended up dying as expected.
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was after the bombing had already begun and it had to be a "country that wouldn't come under US pressure". I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh.
>country that wouldn't come under US pressure Given the context of also asking for bombing to stop, that seems like they were trying to stop the US from using military pressure to force their will on Afghanistan. The deal wasn't even considered, who knows what they were actually trying to negotiate. >I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh History has now shown the US was willing to to…
Yeah and the Taliban were willing to protect the guy who committed one of the worst terrorist atrocities in memory. Funny how it's totally understandable according to you why the Taliban wouldn't trust America, but somehow America isn't afford the same understanding by people like you.... Utterly transparent from you I'm afraid.
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was after the bombing had already begun and it had to be a "country that wouldn't come under US pressure". I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh.
>country that wouldn't come under US pressure Given the context of also asking for bombing to stop, that seems like they were trying to stop the US from using military pressure to force their will on Afghanistan. The deal wasn't even considered, who knows what they were actually trying to negotiate. >I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh History has now shown the US was willing to to…
Burial at sea. I'm not even convinced they killed him at the time.
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#117the US political system is completely broken, and it's destroying a great country. it's a leadership problem, and needs someone who is capable of detaching and acting in the best interest of the country, not themselves or their party.
they need a complete reboot. rewrite the constitution (it's overdue). rebuild the democratic voting functions (they're a mess and don't work).
time for democracy 2.0
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
>country that wouldn't come under US pressure Given the context of also asking for bombing to stop, that seems like they were trying to stop the US from using military pressure to force their will on Afghanistan. The deal wasn't even considered, who knows what they were actually trying to negotiate. >I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh History has now shown the US was willing to to…
Yeah and the Taliban were willing to protect the guy who committed one of the worst terrorist atrocities in memory. Funny how it's totally understandable according to you why the Taliban wouldn't trust America, but somehow America isn't afford the same understanding by people like you.... Utterly transparent from you I'm afraid.
If Afghanistan trusted the US and the US proceeded to torture and execute Bin Laden, they would have no recourse. If the US trusted Afghanistan and Afghanistan proceeded to not cooperate then the US could then start the invasion.
Afghanistan wasn't more trustworthy, the amount of trust necessary was far lower.
I think that addresses your accusation. I barely understand what you consider "utterly transparent" in my comment.
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#119the US political system is completely broken, and it's destroying a great country. it's a leadership problem, and needs someone who is capable of detaching and acting in the best interest of the country, not themselves or their party. they need a complete reboot. rewrite the constitution (it's overdue). rebuild the democratic voting functions (they're a mess and don't work). time for democracy 2.0
> time for democracy 2.0
What’s your proposal? How do you find that altruistic leader, and if you find them, how do you get them elected, and if you do, how do you arrange to get them enough support in Congress?
I don’t like democracy that much, and it looks like Churchill didn’t either. But neither Churchill nor me can come up with anything better.
Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria
#120The US record in Afghanistan is arguably even more ridiculous (and psychotic) than in Iraq. We went in with a pretty good justification (Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism) - although to be honest, the argument for doing the regime change op in Saudi Arabia was far more robust, as members of the Saudi government aided the hijackers and Saudi Royal family members were a…
> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism If we put in mind what we know post hoc about the torture and inhumane interrogation techniques used in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, wouldn't you agree that it's reasonable to assume that there was a high risk of torture? and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition. In fact, let's take it even a step further in…
>and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition.
When you rule the way Taliban did the idea that you're not extraditing someone because you're worried about them getting hooked up to a car battery or beaten with a rubber hose is laughable.