The Already Tired Argument of Bin Laden's Guilt

by dubla 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dubla

  there has been several threads since the start of the war on afghanistan (and before it), concerning the issue of bin laden's guilt. many have seen the obvious, that he and those who harbor him, are guilty, and that the attacks on afghanistan are completely justified if not the only choice for the u.s. still others claim the ridiculous notion that "evidence" should have been presented to the taliban first, and a "trial" should have been held for bin laden before any actions were taken. i realize most readers on this forum could care less, and the fact remains that the few of us who have argued these points are pretty tired of talking in circles. i thought id post this anyway, in case not everyone has seen it. its a link to the new evidence released by the british government proving almost unequivically bin laden's guilt, and also showing that even had the u.s. presented evidence to the taliban, all signs show they wouldve taken no actions against their golden boy bin laden (the report shows that evidence was presented to them in the past, for the 98 bombings, yet they refused to take action against him). anyhow, if anyone is interested, click here >>> http://www.number-10.gov.uk/news.asp?newsID=3025

  after reading this report (there is a summary version, and the full text version), if youd still like to make some preposterous suggestion that we "shouldve" done this or "shouldve" done that, or a suggestion of bin ladens possible innocence, please feel free.

  aa
• 

  Mum

  All I could think of watching the news this morning was, "Hey, you attack the United States of America and we'll show you! We'll come over there and make your country a decent place to live."

  Thanks for the post.

  Seize the day, and put the least possible trust in tomorrow. - Horace

  I have learned to live each day as it comes and not to borrow trouble by dreading tomorrow. - Dorothy Dix
• 

  zerubberballz

  Innocent or not Dubla,
  Omah Bin Laden is a great hero in the eyes of many and nothing will change that or the facty that the terrorist got away with what they did on Sept 11.

  Salmin Rushdi's new book 'Fury', released only a few weeks before the attacks on the USA, has some eyeopening insights into the nature of anger and the social cultures in which it breeds.

  I think American citizens need to accept what happened and not look for a show trial or anything external to 'bring closure' if they continue desperately seeking solice other than in themselves they won't find it. My sincerest hope is that the war on terrorism extends into every nook and cranny of the earth and world leaders get serious and forge some basic changes in world governance to bring peace and security to us all. Hold tight your idealism, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

  unclebruce, trying not to get exited about things he has no power to change.
• 

  Seeker

  I've assumed bin Laden has been guilty from the beginning. But that's the problem, it's only been an assumption. The proof Bush said he would show us has never shown up. When he spoke to the American people shortly after 9/11 and said the evidence was overwhelming, it turned out he was lying to us. After that speech, senior officials in the government and the military admitted anonymously to the press that they did not yet have the evidence they needed. So much for Bush bringing a new moral tone to the country...

  Just yesterday I read this news account of fresh evidence. Once again, it sure sounds like it, but still nothing definitive as that article makes clear. As I said, bin Laden is clearly behind it, or at the very, very least fully in support of it, and that's enough for me. But I've been annoyed and amused at how the politicians have lied to us yet again.
• 

  Simon

  I think bin-laden was behind the attacks (he has admitted or claimed it on video tape hasn't he?) and while the principle of having trials etc... is great in theory and works for normal citizens & crimes it isn't always practical where terrorism & wars are involved. I also think that whether the Taliban are or aren't sheltering bin-laden that their regime appears to be guilty of many, many human right violations and perhaps being replaced would help the ordinary people.

  There are times when you have to go to war and fight for peace.

  However, I think the 'war' is a convenient distraction for Bush. Do a search on the internet for Bin Laden, George Bush, Oliver North, Iran Contra, BCCI ... it seems that there are lot's of dodgy dealings been going on and the presidents are always deep in it.
• 

  pettygrudger

  For those interested, in his most recent video release, Bin Laden has taken responsibility for his organization in the WTC attacks. Evidence is no longer needed, he has fessed up.
• 

  fodeja

  For those interested, in his most recent video release, Bin Laden has taken responsibility for his organization in the WTC attacks. Evidence is no longer needed, he has fessed up.

  If I were a violent and well-known anti-American maniac interested in becoming (or staying) a leadership figure of an extremist movement, I'd take responsibility, too. I'd take responsibility for every criminal act against Americans committed anywhere, unless it's clear that someone else did it.

  I'm absolutely convinced that the guy is in full support of that mass murder; he or some of his comrades may have even trained and supplied the terrorists. I'm just wondering: if he was directly involved and knew everything about it (possibly giving direct orders), why didn't he confess right away, preferably the minute it happened, for increased effect? Why did he wait so long? Doesn't make sense to me.

  If Bin Laden didn't exist, he would have to be invented - he's a face, he's a target, he's a figure to be ridiculed and hated. There's nothing scarier than an invisible, faceless, shapeless enemy lurking "somewhere out there".

  f.
• 

  dubla

  zerubberballz-

  i think you misunderstood my stance, but then again i dont think you were involved in our previous discussions on the topic, so its natural for you to jump to conclusions.

  I think American citizens need to accept what happened and not look for a show trial or anything external to 'bring closure' if they continue desperately seeking solice other than in themselves they won't find it.

  i agree 100%. for me, the war in afghanistan if far from closure, but merely the beginning. i do believe the actions are justified, but in no way do they provide any solice for americans.

  My sincerest hope is that the war on terrorism extends into every nook and cranny of the earth and world leaders get serious and forge some basic changes in world governance to bring peace and security to us all.

  this is my hope as well, and i am not an idealist.

  seeker-

  After that speech, senior officials in the government and the military admitted anonymously to the press that they did not yet have the evidence they needed.

  "anonymously"? sounds like a line from the enquirer. the fact is, we will never know for a fact how much evidence they did or did not have. my guess is that they did indeed have overwhelming evidence right from the very beginning, too sensitive to release to the public, and maybe even too sensitive to release to these anonymous "senior" leakers. but like i said, we will never know.

  simon-

  .....while the principle of having trials etc... is great in theory and works for normal citizens & crimes it isn't always practical where terrorism & wars are involved.

  EXACTLY.....this is precisely what ive been saying all along. courtroom trials have their place, but when someone declares war on a nation, its not always that simple and neatly packaged.

  aa
• 

  dubla

  fodeja-

  . I'm just wondering: if he was directly involved and knew everything about it (possibly giving direct orders), why didn't he confess right away, preferably the minute it happened, for increased effect? Why did he wait so long? Doesn't make sense to me.

  afghanistan has been his private little palace for some time now. he funds the taliban, and in return he has full run of the countryside, setting up terrorist training camps and getting full government (if you can call the taliban that) support along the way.

  so why did he wait so long to confess? my guess is that he fully realized the impact and implications of what he and his army had just carried out. he no doubt knew that once evidence linked al qaeda to the bombings, that afghanistan and his own little govt. (the taliban) would no doubt feel the wrath of the u.s., and his personal paradise would come under attack. he was delaying the inevitable i guess. or maybe he thinks the u.s. is so naive that they wouldnt have ever linked him to the attacks. weve seen the taliban use this same manuever/tactic. whether they believed us to be naive, or were just stalling, they definitely layed lies across the board many times when we were trying to get them to surrender bin laden. notice when the real truth came out, from the taliban and from bin laden: after the attacks on afghanistan had begun. i tend to lean toward the "stalling" theory myself, perhaps preparing and recruiting troops in the meantime, setting up strategic locations and hiding places. this makes more sense, as i doubt bin laden and the taliban are that stupid to think we wouldnt eventually discover the entire truth. furthermore, it is my belief that the taliban and al qaeda are actually one party, all involved in the planning and carrying out of the attacks in one way or another.

  these are merely my theories, for which i have no hard backing. certainly this would answer the question that was puzzling you if true, or i could be all wet.

  If Bin Laden didn't exist, he would have to be invented - he's a face, he's a target, he's a figure to be ridiculed and hated.

  nah, we wouldnt have to invent him, weve always got hussein.

  aa
• 

  pettygrudger

  Bin Laden has regularly not declared his involvement till many months after any attack (i.e. the Embassy bombings & the U.S.S. Cole).

  Its his trademark - he tells the entire world he's gonna do "something", then "something" happens & he claims innocence until it suits his purpose to come out & admit it. Why now? Don't know - can only assume that he has figured out the whole world isn't going to war, that they've figured out that this isn't a Muslim/Christian situation (at least I hope they've figured this out).