Bin Laden Innocent?

by dubla 44 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seeker

  teejay,

  On the other hand, it goes to show that the longer two people talk, the more they realize how much they have in common. In spite of our differences, we really aren't so different, are we?

  I honestly believe that if we all sat in a room together and had coffee, we'd get along far better than we do online, all of us. It's so easy to notice the differences here but, as we've seen, the more you get to know someone, the more you realize that they are just like you in many ways.

  If only Bush and bin Laden could drop the baggage and just sit, talk, and have a bit of tea... Do you 'spose it'd do any good? Save a lot of lives, maybe.

  In principle, yes, I agree, but in this particular case, no, I don't think it would do any good. We are dealing with religious fanaticism here, and there is no reasoning with a religious fanatic. The only thing that might be accomplished by talking with bin Laden is finding out what his objections are, but we know that already: he wants us out of Saudi Arabia and he wants us to not walk in lockstep with Israel, even when they go too far against the Palestinians. Great, we know what to do in order to get him to leave us alone. Unfortunately, those are not easy policy changes to make (well, Saudi Arabia is easier). This is a complicated issue, and you can't allow terrorism to alter national policy. That just encourages more terrorism.

  So in this case, I can't see how talking would do any good. Once this is over, then, yes, the U.S. needs to think about its actions in the world. Not that anything the U.S. did was "responsible" for the WTC attacks, for nothing justifies what happened. But there needs to be a better thought-out view of the world and consequences of actions. For one thing, we'd better stick around Afghanistan after its over a provide whatever support the people request in order to build up a normal infrastructure. Last time we left them in a power void and chaos, and that allowed the Taliban to waltz in and take over.

  the other day (i lost the thread), you mentioned the possibility of U.S. fighters shooting down the flight in Penn. Question: would it make any difference to you if they did? Do you think it would matter to the average U.S. citizen?

  Fundamentally, no, it wouldn't make a difference. They already admitted they would shoot it down if they had to, and the average U.S. citizen would want them to shoot it down should it happen again. The only thing that would make a difference if it turns out it really was shot down after all is it would be another case of the government lying to its citizens. You'd have to wonder why they lied. Did they not trust the public to understand the necessity of shooting it down? Were they just in CYA mode? That's the only difference I can see.
• 

  dubla

  path-

  not to beat a dead horse here, but i had a question on part of your last post.

  The taliban said they would give up Bin Laden to a neutral country to be tried and requested the evidence to be presented to them. This is hardly an unreasonable request, a request that most countries require for them to extradite accused people to other countries for a trial.

  now i know the taliban have been saying one thing one day, and the opposite the next, but i never saw the same quote you did evidently, saying they would agree to give up bin laden to a "neutral country". i was browsing some articles today, and according to this article, it seems the taliban are unwilling to give up bin laden to the u.s., or any other country for that matter.

  >>> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011012/ts/attack_taliban_leader_dc_1.html

  also, in your little scenario that the u.s. supposedly should have at least considered, would the taliban also have given up ALL of al qaeda still in afghanistan, to a "nuetral country"?

  aa
• 

  Seeker

  aa,

  They must have changed their minds, as you say, for I also remember their offer to have a neutral country try him. Must have been a week or two ago when it was said. It was during the time when the Taliban was making one offer after another to meet and talk and discuss proof and evidence, and Bush kept saying Nope.
• 

  dubla

  seeker-

  They must have changed their minds, as you say

  oh, i dont say they change their minds at all. i said they say one thing one week, and the opposite the next, but i think it has nothing to do with anyone changing their minds. my theory is that the taliban are directly involved in the sep 11 attacks, and their changing stories are nothing more than blatant lies attempting to play the u.s. govt. as fools.

  It was during the time when the Taliban was making one offer after another to meet and talk and discuss proof and evidence, and Bush kept saying Nope.

  one lie after another yep. bush said nope every time, as well he shouldve. the u.s. has taken the stance that they will not negotiate with terrorists (and the taliban is treated no different than the actual terrorists they harbor), and why should we negotiate with the people that just leveled nyc? they had ample opportunity to rid their country of terrorism, but they didnt. why? becuase bin laden owns the taliban, financially. click the link i posted, and youll see they all but admit that is their reasoning behind harboring him and his network. its all about money for them, not justice.

  aa
• 

  Seeker

  aa,

  I don't think the Taliban are innocent. In fact, I seem to be one of the few around here who knew of them for the past few years with their awful edicts against women. It's been one of my pet causes to educate people on the terrors of their rule.

  But you asked about this statement that they would give up bin Laden to a neutral country. Whether they meant it or not, I was just pointing out that I also heard this reported.
• 

  dubla

  seeker-

  But you asked about this statement that they would give up bin Laden to a neutral country. Whether they meant it or not, I was just pointing out that I also heard this reported.

  fair enough, im not disputing whether or not the statement was made. it just seems that throughout your comments, and paths, that the idea has been "bush shouldve shown them evidence", or "bush shouldve negotiated with them and found a more just way to go about this". personally, i think thats preposterous, as ive stated many times over. that last link i posted, in my mind, shows they never had any intention of cooperating with bush on any negotiations. they kept asking for evidence, yes. who wouldnt stall in the face of attack?

  aa
• 

  Seeker

  aa,

  Yes, I do think Bush should have presented some (not all, some) evidence against bin Laden to the Taliban. No, I don't trust the Taliban, I don't like the Taliban, I hope they die off the face of the earth. So why do I think Bush should have done that? Because there are much larger, long-term issues at stake. Primarily, we need to get the other Arab states to help us fight terrorism, and if Bush had gone the extra mile it could have helped defused some resentment that we now see happening in certain Arab countries. In other words, I think Bush's actions caused things to be a little worse than they had to be.

  No, I don't think we will get the Arab countries to like us; I'm not that naive. All I meant is that this could have been handled in a better way, a way that could have removed one of the criticisms lobbed against us (fairly or unfairly). Since we are dealing with a complex issue, and will do so for many years, with many countries, the area of public opinion is important. That is where future terrorists may come from if we do things in a ham-handed manner.

  Does that help you understand better where I am coming from on this issue? I am 100% against the Taliban, and in favor of the military action being taken at this time. If I also criticize the actions taken by the U.S., it doesn't take away from that previous sentence. It just means I want to improve the actions we take, and that's all.
• 

  pettygrudger

  Of course Bin Laden himself is innocent in only a small sense. It is very well known how he runs Al-Queda. He does not actually "do" anything. His soldiers are taught in the camps everything they need to know about terrorist type activities (how to make bombs, etc. etc. etc.) and after they are trained, he sends them out into the world to bring sacrifices to Allah. Period...he never actually even talks to many of these "sects" in different countries (kinda like the CEO of a large corporation - doesn't "directly" give orders to the line worker in one of the plants). They all work amongst themselves. I'm not saying he didn't "know" of the impending attack, my point is that he may have had little/nothing to do w/the actions or plans made. This is how these types of groups remain so dangerous. That doesn't leave him blameless, and I'm sure the wealth of intelligence information they do have points directly to many "members" of that organization. This leaves the blame squarely at the hands of Bin Ladin, who called "Jihad" a long time ago. And, as I said in previous posts, and was finally seen w/this last message from his lieutenant, when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, it took Bin Ladin's organization 6 months to accept in a small token way the blame.

  What interests me is how quickly now the Al-Queda is taking responsibility in their backhanded way. The U.S.S. Cole took 6 months, this time less than 1. Perhaps because the Clinton administration did not do MORE in 1998, they knew they could get away with something like they did 9/11/01?
• 

  Seeker

  Perhaps because the Clinton administration did not do MORE in 1998, they knew they could get away with something like they did 9/11/01?

  I don't think that is accurate. Clinton, after all, did send in missle strikes against bin Laden, missed, and got roundly criticized.

  I read an in-depth article about the military over the past ten years, and the main point was that the lesson of the Gulf War stuck: Americans wanted no-casualty wars from a distance. That thought hampered the military the rest of Bush Sr's term and all of Clinton's term. Both Republicans (except for McCain) and Democrats agreed with the approach taken at that time, because it was the national mood. Recall how some political candidates of the time were running on a platform of isolationism, again a mood among some at that time.

  It is only the hypocrisy of politics that is causing people now to retroactively criticize Clinton for his military actions in this manner. At the time, not too many were complaining. How quickly we forget for the sake of political hate.
• 

  pettygrudger

  Thanks Seeker - thought I was going to get REAMED for my last entry. I don't think our news media was very clear back in 1998 on what truly was at stake w/the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. And yes, I agree that all politicians involved were more interested in popular opionion than they were in taking care of national interests. Of course Americans want "no casualty wars", what sane thinking people wouldn't (unless you happen to think you'll get alotta virgins in the process! lol). The Iraq/Kuwait situation just lulled Americans into thinking that concept was a reality. Before that, it had been many a year since America was involved in "true" military situations, it has been easy for people such as myself, who were only children during Vietnam, and never realized the true ramifications of the "cold war", to be lulled into stupidity.

  Actually, everyone who knows me calls me a "bleeding heart democratic liberal", so i wouldn't call it political hate. America elects our government officials to KNOW what's going on, and to protect & serve our country. America in the last 20 years has stripped the CIA & FBI down to bone skeleton crews, and no one paid any attention. Clinton's administration only took bare boned tactics in dealing w/this extremist group, and then completely dropped the ball in paying attention in the last 3 years that followed. Alot of the things being done now, if they had been started 3 years ago would have surely helped to prevent 9/11 IMHO. Because the U.S.S. Cole was so far away from the shores of America, and because the media plays easily into the hands of the politicians, most Americans were not aware what message was truly being sent.