Taliban Offered Us Bin Laden in 2001 But Bush Said "No Thankies"

[California Girl]

I call people liars when they lie.

perfectly acceptable thing to do

Actually, truth, you call them liars when they voice an opinion. An opinion cannot be a lie.

Go look at the places where I call someone a liar, I then give my reasoning fro calling them such.

You call me a liar all the time and refuse to EVER present the evidence I have lied about anything.

There is a very important differance, cant you see that?

I call you a liar because you lie about other people lying. Jeeeez, do you have a sense of humor at all? It's a fucking joke, you humorless fool. I'm trying to make you see how stupid you look when you call everyone a liar simply because you don't like what they say.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Please tell me I'm wrong about this?

You're wrong. Often. I too see this as a good thing

 

[Sunni Man]

What could have been a good thread.

Is now just a pissing contest.

 

[RadiomanATL]

What could have been a good thread.

Is now just a pissing contest.

It was a thread built on a faulty premise. No-go from the beginning.

 

[Sunni Man]

What could have been a good thread.

Is now just a pissing contest.

It was a thread built on a faulty premise. No-go from the beginning.

How so???

 

[Truthmatters]

Please tell me I'm wrong about this?

You're wrong. Often. I too see this as a good thing

And you have never made a mistake?

Or is it you will never admitt a mistake?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Please tell me I'm wrong about this?

You're wrong. Often. I too see this as a good thing

And you have never made a mistake?

Or is it you will never admitt a mistake?

Of course I make mistakes.

But we're discussing yours. And the higher frequency with which you make them compared to other people.

 

[RadiomanATL]

What could have been a good thread.

Is now just a pissing contest.

It was a thread built on a faulty premise. No-go from the beginning.

How so???

That it was new information that was just released.

 

[Truthmatters]

I still dont think the OP said that one

 

[Truthmatters]

You're wrong. Often. I too see this as a good thing

And you have never made a mistake?

Or is it you will never admitt a mistake?

Of course I make mistakes.

But we're discussing yours. And the higher frequency with which you make them compared to other people.

Now you need to provide proof of what you claim.

 

[Sunni Man]

It was a thread built on a faulty premise. No-go from the beginning.

How so???

That it was new information that was just released.

This was on the news way back in 2001-2002

What part is "new" information?

 

[RadiomanATL]

And you have never made a mistake?

Or is it you will never admitt a mistake?

Of course I make mistakes.

But we're discussing yours. And the higher frequency with which you make them compared to other people.

Now you need to provide proof of what you claim.

Is your computer incapable of scrolling up?

 

[RadiomanATL]

How so???

That it was new information that was just released.

This was on the news way back in 2001-2002

What part is "new" information?

Exactly.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I still dont think the OP said that one

The OP said it in her next post. Using that information it becomes apparent that it was being posted because it was thought to be new information.

Another mistake by you.

 

[Truthmatters]

no she says she wished she knew it in 2001

 

[RadiomanATL]

no she says she wished she knew it in 2001

No. She wonders why "we" never knew this in 2001.

Mistake 3.

 

[California Girl]

no she says she wished she knew it in 2001

Her exact words: I'm more disturbed that we never knew this in 2001 than by whether it was a missed opportunity.

We did. She did not. Get it now?

 

[Truthmatters]

RGS wrote:

Read your own link, they did not offer to give him up. They offered to let us try to prove to them, a biased source, that he was involved in terrorism. In other words even though the WORLD had seen his tapes declaring Jihad, had seen his tapes taking credit for terrorist attacks, the Taliban wanted some more proof he was a terrorist.

It was a political ploy to stop the bombings. There is no reason to believe they ever intended to actually turn him over.

I can understand your POV, RGS. I'm more disturbed that we never knew this in 2001 than by whether it was a missed opportunity. Why was this kept secret? I am unsure whether it would have been wise to at least explore the possibility of bin Laden being sent to a third country for trial, mebbe for a week. (The exploring of the idea, not the trial.) I could have lived with bin Laden being tried at The Hague, as long as after, he was executed.

What would a week have cost us in "dignity" compared to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Middle Easterners and the loss of life for thousands of American soldiers?

Yes she said we and then some claimed she didnt know until now.

 

[California Girl]

RGS wrote:

Read your own link, they did not offer to give him up. They offered to let us try to prove to them, a biased source, that he was involved in terrorism. In other words even though the WORLD had seen his tapes declaring Jihad, had seen his tapes taking credit for terrorist attacks, the Taliban wanted some more proof he was a terrorist.

It was a political ploy to stop the bombings. There is no reason to believe they ever intended to actually turn him over.

I can understand your POV, RGS. I'm more disturbed that we never knew this in 2001 than by whether it was a missed opportunity. Why was this kept secret? I am unsure whether it would have been wise to at least explore the possibility of bin Laden being sent to a third country for trial, mebbe for a week. (The exploring of the idea, not the trial.) I could have lived with bin Laden being tried at The Hague, as long as after, he was executed.

What would a week have cost us in "dignity" compared to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Middle Easterners and the loss of life for thousands of American soldiers?

Yes she said we and then some claimed she didnt know until now.

Exactly when she knew is not the point. The point is that she claimed that 'WE' did not know in 2001. In fact, WE did know. Clearly, she did not. That's ignorance on her part - the rest of the nation is not necessarily as ill-informed as Maddie.

 

[Truthmatters]

RGS wrote:

Read your own link, they did not offer to give him up. They offered to let us try to prove to them, a biased source, that he was involved in terrorism. In other words even though the WORLD had seen his tapes declaring Jihad, had seen his tapes taking credit for terrorist attacks, the Taliban wanted some more proof he was a terrorist.

It was a political ploy to stop the bombings. There is no reason to believe they ever intended to actually turn him over.

I can understand your POV, RGS. I'm more disturbed that we never knew this in 2001 than by whether it was a missed opportunity. Why was this kept secret? I am unsure whether it would have been wise to at least explore the possibility of bin Laden being sent to a third country for trial, mebbe for a week. (The exploring of the idea, not the trial.) I could have lived with bin Laden being tried at The Hague, as long as after, he was executed.

What would a week have cost us in "dignity" compared to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Middle Easterners and the loss of life for thousands of American soldiers?

Was it really a secret? I seem to remember it at the time; but maybe that's what comes of living in the present rather than reading about things on forum boards ten years after the fact.

I still dont see where she claimed she did not know about it until ten years after.