7 ms·

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism That's not entirely true. They wanted to negotiate his extradition. As an

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism That's not entirely true. They wanted to negotiate his extradition. As any sovereign nation would. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...

tuyguntn 5y ago
Exactly! US have an excuse all the time, surprisingly, people who represent educated segment don't either want to look to other side, I remember Taliban tried to have a negotiation with US, they tried to get their voice heard in western media, but failed, because everyone was blind sided, no one wanted to hear them and US anyway launched attack, 20 years later, everything is even more fucked up over there. Now we should be really worried if there are other extremist groups are training and planning another attack soon, this time everyone would know US don't have a justification and obviously will fail again. (I don't remember if US won any war recently? Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan all are in trouble, all of the wars are started wrongly)
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Given the official statements of the Taliban (ie: that Osama Bin Laden didn't cause 9/11), what exactly is your proposal? Taliban were protecting Bin Laden, period. Their official stance on the subject is clearly false, and they were willing to go to war to provide sanctuary to Bin Laden. The main worry was that any such delays at this point would give Bin Laden more room to get away (and Bin Laden did escape: all the way to Pakistan). So if anything, we should have pursued Bin Laden even more vigorously back then. The Taliban were successful in buying enough time for him to hide with their false diplomacy. We were at least successful in destroying the Al Qaeda training centers in Afghanistan (successfully located, blown up, and dismantled). Maybe these bases will return now that we've left Afghanistan, but we at least rendered them unable to train new terrorists for the last 20 years or so (and the new Taliban regime officially doesn't want to sanction any such training sites anymore. They've got an ISIS-K problem because of it too)
  - tuyguntn 5y ago
    agree with you, maybe they tried to protect Bin Laden. But there are multiple questions which should be answered: 1. are we 110% sure that Bin Laden ordered the attack? I am not trying to defend him, but you know there are many organizations who can do that attack, including multiple organizations funded by CIA (don't forget Bin Laden was initially funded by CIA), maybe government could prevent attack but didn't prevent, because they were also interested in natural resources of Afghanistan? 2. Are we 120% sure we can capture and execute Bin Laden without civilian fatalities? if civilian fatalities can't be avoided, did we have numbers in mind, how many people will get killed? 3. Why western media didn't give enough voice to Taliban at that time? If enough people listened to them, maybe US could make public negotiation and if negotiation fails publicly, then everyone would definitely know Taliban is to blame for this war. In reality, US just said, we are super power, we can do whatever we want. 4. Are we sure war wasn't lobbied? You know, US sells lots of weapons, they sometimes need to test, are we sure that war wasn't lobbied? where did 2T$ go? Do you think all were eaten by corrupt Afghan government? even 10% of it would be 200B which would create 100 billionaires. I am not defending Taliban or Bin Laden, just showing how decisions made was wrong and I still doubt US can make right decision. Now Afghanistan has lots of uneducated people, who lost their families, children. Do you think they would just forgive? Who can guarantee that they won't come over to US and start killing people?
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      > are we 110% sure that Bin Laden ordered the attack? Bin Laden made a video in '04 regarding the US presidential election at the time in which he implicitly claimed responsibility.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > 1. are we 110% sure that Bin Laden ordered the attack? Bin Laden attacked the USA in the 90s (the original twin tower attacks). Then issued a Fatwa declaring a Holy War against the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden). Bin Laden's writings on 9/11 are well published, even on Western Media (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver). There's no doubt in anybody's mind that Bin Laden was involved in 9/11. > 2. Are we 120% sure we can capture and execute Bin Laden without civilian fatalities? Of course not. We would have preferred for the Afghan government (aka: the Taliban) to cooperate with us. But they didn't. > 3. Why western media didn't give enough voice to Taliban at that time? We have Bin Laden's writings published and the Taliban's writings published. What exactly is missing from their argument that you want published? > 4. Are we sure war wasn't lobbied? Oh, Cheney was definitely a Warmonger. But that doesn't make the Afghan War a wrong move.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tuyguntn 5y ago
One more thing! Person who tried to expose what is actually happening is now going to jail, right? I am talking about Julian Assange. No one needs such "world police", who is trying to build a democracy in other countries, but failing on pillars of democracy by putting journalist to jail in home country.
photochemsyn 5y ago
That's one of the central reasons a regime change op in Saudi Arabia would have been more justified. I think the rational explanation is that Team Bush wanted war, but couldn't directly attack Iraq (the efforts to link Al Qaeda and the anthrax letters to Saddam were largely unsuccessful), so they went into Afghanistan instead. The complete abandonment of 'nation-building' Afghanistan in 2002 as all efforts shifted to invading Iraq sort of supports this scenario.
mannerheim 5y ago
They wanted proof bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Given that they've denied he was responsible as recently as a couple months ago despite him claiming responsibility on video in '04 or so, I don't think this was in good faith.
missedthecue 5y ago
The Taliban can not be expected to negotiate in good faith. It would be beyond naive to think they would.
- rendall 5y ago
  Can you say more about that? Why not? Have they broken agreements before?
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    In this specific case, the Taliban still to this day doesn't believe bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, so their supposed offer to hand over bin Laden back then if they were given proof he was responsible probably wasn't made in good faith.
    - rendall 5y ago
      ... I don't see how that follows, logically. These can all 3 be true: The Taliban does not believe that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. They would hand over bin Laden if they saw credible evidence. Their bar for credibility is quite high.
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        Why isn't bin Laden saying verbatim to the public that he's responsible enough? If that's not enough, what could the coalition forces possibly say that would convince the Taliban? There isn't high bar to cross. They've already decided what they think. That's what I mean by 'bad faith'.
        kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        Killing infidels is justifiable and completely ethical to some people.
        5y ago

tuyguntn 5y ago

Exactly! US have an excuse all the time, surprisingly, people who represent educated segment don't either want to look to other side, I remember Taliban tried to have a negotiation with US, they tried to get their voice heard in western media, but failed, because everyone was blind sided, no one wanted to hear them and US anyway launched attack, 20 years later, everything is even more fucked up over there. Now we should be really worried if there are other extremist groups are training and planning another attack soon, this time everyone would know US don't have a justification and obviously will fail again. (I don't remember if US won any war recently? Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan all are in trouble, all of the wars are started wrongly)

dragontamer 5y ago
Given the official statements of the Taliban (ie: that Osama Bin Laden didn't cause 9/11), what exactly is your proposal? Taliban were protecting Bin Laden, period. Their official stance on the subject is clearly false, and they were willing to go to war to provide sanctuary to Bin Laden. The main worry was that any such delays at this point would give Bin Laden more room to get away (and Bin Laden did escape: all the way to Pakistan). So if anything, we should have pursued Bin Laden even more vigorously back then. The Taliban were successful in buying enough time for him to hide with their false diplomacy. We were at least successful in destroying the Al Qaeda training centers in Afghanistan (successfully located, blown up, and dismantled). Maybe these bases will return now that we've left Afghanistan, but we at least rendered them unable to train new terrorists for the last 20 years or so (and the new Taliban regime officially doesn't want to sanction any such training sites anymore. They've got an ISIS-K problem because of it too)
- tuyguntn 5y ago
  agree with you, maybe they tried to protect Bin Laden. But there are multiple questions which should be answered: 1. are we 110% sure that Bin Laden ordered the attack? I am not trying to defend him, but you know there are many organizations who can do that attack, including multiple organizations funded by CIA (don't forget Bin Laden was initially funded by CIA), maybe government could prevent attack but didn't prevent, because they were also interested in natural resources of Afghanistan? 2. Are we 120% sure we can capture and execute Bin Laden without civilian fatalities? if civilian fatalities can't be avoided, did we have numbers in mind, how many people will get killed? 3. Why western media didn't give enough voice to Taliban at that time? If enough people listened to them, maybe US could make public negotiation and if negotiation fails publicly, then everyone would definitely know Taliban is to blame for this war. In reality, US just said, we are super power, we can do whatever we want. 4. Are we sure war wasn't lobbied? You know, US sells lots of weapons, they sometimes need to test, are we sure that war wasn't lobbied? where did 2T$ go? Do you think all were eaten by corrupt Afghan government? even 10% of it would be 200B which would create 100 billionaires. I am not defending Taliban or Bin Laden, just showing how decisions made was wrong and I still doubt US can make right decision. Now Afghanistan has lots of uneducated people, who lost their families, children. Do you think they would just forgive? Who can guarantee that they won't come over to US and start killing people?
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > are we 110% sure that Bin Laden ordered the attack? Bin Laden made a video in '04 regarding the US presidential election at the time in which he implicitly claimed responsibility.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > 1. are we 110% sure that Bin Laden ordered the attack? Bin Laden attacked the USA in the 90s (the original twin tower attacks). Then issued a Fatwa declaring a Holy War against the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden). Bin Laden's writings on 9/11 are well published, even on Western Media (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver). There's no doubt in anybody's mind that Bin Laden was involved in 9/11. > 2. Are we 120% sure we can capture and execute Bin Laden without civilian fatalities? Of course not. We would have preferred for the Afghan government (aka: the Taliban) to cooperate with us. But they didn't. > 3. Why western media didn't give enough voice to Taliban at that time? We have Bin Laden's writings published and the Taliban's writings published. What exactly is missing from their argument that you want published? > 4. Are we sure war wasn't lobbied? Oh, Cheney was definitely a Warmonger. But that doesn't make the Afghan War a wrong move.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tuyguntn 5y ago

One more thing! Person who tried to expose what is actually happening is now going to jail, right? I am talking about Julian Assange. No one needs such "world police", who is trying to build a democracy in other countries, but failing on pillars of democracy by putting journalist to jail in home country.

photochemsyn 5y ago

That's one of the central reasons a regime change op in Saudi Arabia would have been more justified. I think the rational explanation is that Team Bush wanted war, but couldn't directly attack Iraq (the efforts to link Al Qaeda and the anthrax letters to Saddam were largely unsuccessful), so they went into Afghanistan instead. The complete abandonment of 'nation-building' Afghanistan in 2002 as all efforts shifted to invading Iraq sort of supports this scenario.

mannerheim 5y ago

They wanted proof bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Given that they've denied he was responsible as recently as a couple months ago despite him claiming responsibility on video in '04 or so, I don't think this was in good faith.

missedthecue 5y ago

The Taliban can not be expected to negotiate in good faith. It would be beyond naive to think they would.

rendall 5y ago
Can you say more about that? Why not? Have they broken agreements before?
- mannerheim 5y ago
  In this specific case, the Taliban still to this day doesn't believe bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, so their supposed offer to hand over bin Laden back then if they were given proof he was responsible probably wasn't made in good faith.
  - rendall 5y ago
    ... I don't see how that follows, logically. These can all 3 be true: The Taliban does not believe that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. They would hand over bin Laden if they saw credible evidence. Their bar for credibility is quite high.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Why isn't bin Laden saying verbatim to the public that he's responsible enough? If that's not enough, what could the coalition forces possibly say that would convince the Taliban? There isn't high bar to cross. They've already decided what they think. That's what I mean by 'bad faith'.
      - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        Killing infidels is justifiable and completely ethical to some people.
        5y ago