4 ms·

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.
  - kreeben 5y ago
    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.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      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.

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.
- kreeben 5y ago
  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.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    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.