6 ms·

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 the

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.
    - rendall 5y ago
      Unfortunately, true. We humans are still just scary, tribal apes who have brains big enough to feel the need to build elaborate rationalizations for brutish, reprehensible behavior
    - trasz 5y ago
      No different from killing terrorists to some other people.
  - rendall 5y ago
    I cannot conclude logically that evidence sufficient for me means that anyone who disagrees is per se operating in bad faith. I'm not going to argue for the Taliban. I have no idea whether they're good faith actors or not. Regardless, they're assholes, and I'm pretty sure, as far as I can ever be, that bin Laden is responsible. But to be fair, "he claimed responsibility" isn't by itself iron-clad proof for anything. All kinds of people claim all kinds of false things for all kinds of reasons. We know this. The Taliban knows this. I could easily come up with a plausible, reasonable explanation why bin Laden would falsely make such a claim. You could too. When someone rejects evidence that you find convincing, don't assume bad faith. Ask them what evidence they would accept no matter how unlikely. If they have something (e.g. "If I had a private meeting with bin Laden and he assured me personally..."), it means they just have a really high bar.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      > Ask them what evidence they would accept no matter how unlikely. > it means they just have a really high bar. Nope. Truth does not require meeting everyone's bar for evidence. Motive, Opportunity, Means, Confession. Done. Unquestionably culpable, even if only through negligence (in controlling his own messaging). Just as the US is for various "mistakes" made in targeted attacks.
- icelancer 5y ago
  bin Laden said he did it. Many times.
  - kreeben 5y ago
    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?
    - icelancer 5y ago
      >> If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court? Well, they killed him, so there's that. Hard to bring a dead man to trial. Also... it was Obama's desire to try Osama bin Laden. “We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III.” Obama continues: “I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.” There is no doubt that bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11. It is not remotely controversial or in any way disputed.
      - kreeben 5y ago
        There is plenty of doubt. Obama: kill him or try him? CIA: kill him Military: kill Obama: but why not show the world and his followers likewise, what the US of A all about? And then you did. There was a time, btw, when it was not remotely controversial or in any way disputed to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was the mastermind behind the assassination of JFK.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      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.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility on video in '04. If that isn't credible evidence, no evidence in the world could ever have been credible for them.

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.
  - rendall 5y ago
    Unfortunately, true. We humans are still just scary, tribal apes who have brains big enough to feel the need to build elaborate rationalizations for brutish, reprehensible behavior
  - trasz 5y ago
    No different from killing terrorists to some other people.
- rendall 5y ago
  I cannot conclude logically that evidence sufficient for me means that anyone who disagrees is per se operating in bad faith. I'm not going to argue for the Taliban. I have no idea whether they're good faith actors or not. Regardless, they're assholes, and I'm pretty sure, as far as I can ever be, that bin Laden is responsible. But to be fair, "he claimed responsibility" isn't by itself iron-clad proof for anything. All kinds of people claim all kinds of false things for all kinds of reasons. We know this. The Taliban knows this. I could easily come up with a plausible, reasonable explanation why bin Laden would falsely make such a claim. You could too. When someone rejects evidence that you find convincing, don't assume bad faith. Ask them what evidence they would accept no matter how unlikely. If they have something (e.g. "If I had a private meeting with bin Laden and he assured me personally..."), it means they just have a really high bar.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > Ask them what evidence they would accept no matter how unlikely. > it means they just have a really high bar. Nope. Truth does not require meeting everyone's bar for evidence. Motive, Opportunity, Means, Confession. Done. Unquestionably culpable, even if only through negligence (in controlling his own messaging). Just as the US is for various "mistakes" made in targeted attacks.
icelancer 5y ago
bin Laden said he did it. Many times.
- kreeben 5y ago
  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?
  - icelancer 5y ago
    >> If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court? Well, they killed him, so there's that. Hard to bring a dead man to trial. Also... it was Obama's desire to try Osama bin Laden. “We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III.” Obama continues: “I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.” There is no doubt that bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11. It is not remotely controversial or in any way disputed.
    - kreeben 5y ago
      There is plenty of doubt. Obama: kill him or try him? CIA: kill him Military: kill Obama: but why not show the world and his followers likewise, what the US of A all about? And then you did. There was a time, btw, when it was not remotely controversial or in any way disputed to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was the mastermind behind the assassination of JFK.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    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.
mannerheim 5y ago
Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility on video in '04. If that isn't credible evidence, no evidence in the world could ever have been credible for them.