5 ms·

If that were the real situation then the taliban could have taken Bin Laden into custody and hand him over for trial in a neutral country (say the Netherlands a

If that were the real situation then the taliban could have taken Bin Laden into custody and hand him over for trial in a neutral country (say the Netherlands alike Lockerbie trial, or somewhere like China or India)

boomboomsubban 5y ago
The Taliban offered to cooperate in turning Bin Laden over to another country. The US refused.
- jay3ss 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this? Sounds like an interesting read
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Someone else in the thread linked https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
    - jay3ss 5y ago
      Thanks!
- bettysdiagnose 5y ago
  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.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >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 torture people associated with al Qaeda, and execute Bin Laden then desecrate his corpse. They were absolutely right to distrust the US there.
    - bettysdiagnose 5y ago
      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.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        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.
      - hiyer 5y ago
        Pakistan was willing to protect him too (that's where he was found at the end) but the US didn't invade them. Why is that? Because Pakistan has nukes?
        hunterb123 5y ago
        We should have imo. Possibly we didn't because of nukes, but not quite the argument though is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I believe the above post wanted to drill down why it was hard for Afghanistan to give him over. After that the Pakistan discussion can happen if energy exists.
    - dd444fgdfg 5y ago
      Burial at sea. I'm not even convinced they killed him at the time.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

The Taliban offered to cooperate in turning Bin Laden over to another country. The US refused.

jay3ss 5y ago
Do you have a source for this? Sounds like an interesting read
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Someone else in the thread linked https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
  - jay3ss 5y ago
    Thanks!
bettysdiagnose 5y ago
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.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >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 torture people associated with al Qaeda, and execute Bin Laden then desecrate his corpse. They were absolutely right to distrust the US there.
  - bettysdiagnose 5y ago
    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.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      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.
    - hiyer 5y ago
      Pakistan was willing to protect him too (that's where he was found at the end) but the US didn't invade them. Why is that? Because Pakistan has nukes?
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        We should have imo. Possibly we didn't because of nukes, but not quite the argument though is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I believe the above post wanted to drill down why it was hard for Afghanistan to give him over. After that the Pakistan discussion can happen if energy exists.
  - dd444fgdfg 5y ago
    Burial at sea. I'm not even convinced they killed him at the time.