Taliban & Bin Laden Conspiracy

[truthlogic]

This is:

1) the first time you've asked me this question.

2) the first time I've heard Saudi mentioned.

 

the reason why this is THE FIRST time you heard this is because you FAILED to watch the entire interview with the Taliban ambassador, and failed to read the articles.

 

which show that if the USA could not provide evidence for bin ladens Gilt the Taliban were willing to compromise and hand him over to " Saudi Arabia " which i quote is a "great ally and friend of the USA "

 

 

 

 

Am I certain that I believe the Taliban ONLY offered to hand bin laden over to Saudi?

 

No. Because I don't believe the Taliban ONLY offered to hand bin laden over to Saudi. I don't think they offered to do that at all.

 

 

you comment above suggests that all the news paper reports , all the media reports, the 45min or so long interview with the Taliban ambasadoor are all lies?

 

in your little world of dosxuk the taliban did not offer & were not capable of handing bin laden over pre and post 9/11 .

 

how can i argue with some one like that?

 

i say the sky is blue here look , you say no its not!

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2tiI384SP0

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

 

 

 

 

 

Which makes it an odd choice of destination considering the Taliban were not willing to hand him over to any where with close links to the US.

 

saudi arabia is very close with usa and uk!

and yes they did offer to just GIVE him to the saudi regime ( you would have known that if you researched into this before posting.

 

 

 

Your turn:

Are you, TRUTHLOGIC, CERTAIN that if the US had agreed to the handover, the Taliban were in a position to actually hand bin laden to the US immediately?

.

 

no USA ignored Taliban when they offered him,

this is evident by all the links i have gave.

 

Again the Taliban were in the most suited position than any other power in the world at that time to discuss Bin laden.

 

 

 

I don't believe for one moment that they were in such a position, and that their tactics were more about keeping themselves on the good side of the US than actually trying to help the US.

 

 

well typical you made up your mind without even looking at the evidence,

 

but your comment is very silly , how can you keep on the good side of a regime which has you under sanctions and that only sends cruise missiles to you?

 

 

Furthermore:

Are you, TRUTHLOGIC, CERTAIN that if bin laden had been handed over, the US would not have invaded Afganistan? which is the complete premise of this thread.

 

 

if BUSH agreed to bin laden hand over we would not have 9/11 - afgan war - iraq war etc

[Tony]

if BUSH agreed to bin laden hand over we would not have 9/11 - afgan war - iraq war etc

 

You need to put that silly idea out of your head. It is a made up fact.

[Bassman62]

its funny how Rootsbooster and others AWALYS take a pop at us for using video evidence via youtube,

 

claiming it is not a proper source

 

however BBC , CNN and other media outlets have repeatably over and over again ALSO used youtube vids as their sources!

 

any comment on that?

 

 

( i bet the youtube discredit tactic will not be used from today onwards will they root )?

 

What is a Zionist?

[Bassman62]

if BUSH agreed to bin laden hand over we would not have 9/11 - afgan war - iraq war etc

 

Have you read 'Enid Blyton's' documentry about the 'Famous Five'?

Rumour has it that one of them committed 'The Brighton Trunk Murder', although a friend told me she had a sister twice removed (to the funny farm) who knew somones cousin who wasn't there but saw it all.

[Karis]

no karis i did not twist anything. its actually your narrow minded view of the world which is being picked at..

 

 

I'm *pretty* sure you're the one whose comments are being picked at. You would have to be exceptionally deluded to think otherwise.

 

Can't you stick to posting on Youtube? There are plenty more braindead suckers on there who are willing to lap this stuff up.

 

That said, it's a miracle anyone takes you seriously when you so blatantly lack objectivity?

 

Luckily, if you're trying to convince anyone on here of anything, all you're managing to do is look exceptionally foolish! So keep it up!

[quisquose]

Had to start this thread due to a number of users who still believe that the invasion of Afghanistan was due to the Taliban refusing to hand over Bin laden . ( A Media Created LIE )

 

A lie? Yes, most certainly.

 

A media created one? More like a truthlogic one if you ask me.

 

I never recall the refusal, or promise, to hand over Bin Laden had much to do with the invasion. I recall it was about dismantling the Al-Qaeda terrorist organisation and the Taliban regime, which are pretty much the same anyway.

[dosxuk]

Nope, I didn't watch the video, because I don't have hours and hours to spare chasing up whether what you say is true or not. I, suppose stupidly, thought you might have mentioned the fact that they had offered to hand him to Saudi and not the US somewhere amongst your ranting about the American's not taking him.

 

you comment above suggests that all the news paper reports , all the media reports, the 45min or so long interview with the Taliban ambasadoor are all lies?

 

1) The Taliban are not a country, and therefore do not have an ambassador. They only have representatives.

2) I didn't say they were lying. I simply said I don't believe they only offered to hand him over to Saudi. Which is also what you're saying. You say they offered to hand him over to the US. Are you accusing them of lying?

 

in your little world of dosxuk the taliban did not offer

 

Where did I say that?

 

& were not capable of handing bin laden over pre and post 9/11 .

 

I don't think they had him in custody, and I also think if the US had agreed, they would have had to start a manhunt to find and capture him.

 

how can i argue with some one like that?

 

Don't bother trying to argue, you can't convince me like that. If you post links to reputable sources and explain your viewpoint sensibly, you may convince me. My opinion is not swayed by people posting rants or repeating themselves over and over again, it is swayed by reputable, verifiable evidence.

 

i say the sky is blue here look , you say no its not!

 

That's because it's gray.

 

 

 

Your turn:

Are you, TRUTHLOGIC, CERTAIN that if the US had agreed to the handover, the Taliban were in a position to actually hand bin laden to the US immediately?

no USA ignored Taliban when they offered him,

this is evident by all the links i have gave.

 

Again the Taliban were in the most suited position than any other power in the world at that time to discuss Bin laden.

 

That is NOT the question I asked. Please re-read the question and try again.

 

well typical you made up your mind without even looking at the evidence

 

Which evidence? You have posted nothing which shows that the Taliban were in a position to actually offer Bin Laden to anyone. Just because they were the controlling faction in that area of the world doesn't mean they knew exactly where he was and had sufficient control of him in order to give him to anyone.

 

[but your comment is very silly , how can you keep on the good side of a regime which has you under sanctions and that only sends cruise missiles to you?

 

So, if you were under sanctions and kept getting attacked, would you not offer your opponents something they wanted in order to reduce those things?

 

 

 

 

 

if BUSH agreed to bin laden hand over we would not have 9/11 - afgan war - iraq war etc

 

Really? You honestly believe that? You really think just by handing over Bin Laden, Bush Jr would've decided he wasn't going to finish Daddy's work in Iraq off?

[vResistance]

There was an inquest recently. During that time R4 had many interviews with survivors, one lady in particular I recall describing the behaviour of the bomber. There was a Newsnight special with many survivors, and family members of those murdered, on the programme. There was a series of programmes, called "Voices from 7/7" in which one of the survivors recalls being sat opposite Mohammad Sidique Khan. Did you listen to any of these programmes? Have you bothered to listen to any of the testimonies of the survivors?

 

In your fantasy world, these survivors are liars because they fail to mention that the bombers are not those identified in the inquest.

 

EDIT1. Here's a link to the "Voices From 7/7" programmes:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9477887.stm

 

At least 3 survivor's describe seeing the bombers, with 2 referring to them by name. The woman I heard on R4's Today programme described the bomber's appearance and behaviour in detail. None of them question the actual identities. Which must make them liars in your fantasy scenario.

 

EDIT2.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8255801/77-bomber-had-sweat-dripping-down-his-face.html

 

 

 

In your fantasy world witnesses like Anita Dybek-Echtermeyer are liars as well.

 

Yes i've seen those statements,from what you said I thought a new one had appeared that saw him detonate the bomb.

 

There is enough footage of the alleged bus bomber to prove he was in London and probably on the bus playing his part in Peter Powers training exersise imagining tha same scenario at the same time on 7/7.

There is footage of him apparently making phone calls after the others had supposedly detonated their bombs on the trains.

 

Up to then the official line was that power surges had caused the explosions,if he knew real bombs had gone off then he may not continue his journey as instructed,to be on the bus pre-rigged with explosives.

 

However not being able to contact his friends and hearing rumours real bombs had gone off had become nervous and agitated explaining his behavior witnessed by those people.

 

Not long before he was eating a 'maccy d's' burger...Actions of an extremist suicide bomber ?.

If he had extremist views he had done a bloomin good job of hiding it previous.

 

The so called ring leader had done community work with the police and had been befriended by a Leeds MP,even had a tour of the houses of parliament.

 

The perfect patsie ?

[Frank Sidney]

invading a sovereign nation for one man is a stupid , murderous action!

 

but the fact remains when the taliban tried to negotiate with the usa Pre and post 9/11 there were ignored.

 

no one in the administration even bothered to speak with them never mind discussing if they would or could hand him over.

 

But who knows, he may have not been in Afghanistan. He was caught in Pakistan so he may have been there the whole time anyway...

 

And if it took the USA a decade to find him maybe the Afghans couldn't have handed him over if they wanted to..

[dosxuk]

Up to then the official line was that power surges had caused the explosions

 

Would that be because, generally, if there is an explosion on a tube train, knocking out the power to the tracks, it's generally because of a power surge and not a suicide bomber perhaps?

 

However not being able to contact his friends and hearing rumours real bombs had gone off had become nervous and agitated explaining his behavior witnessed by those people.

 

Would someone carrying a bomb, who's plan to catch the Northern Line failed, and desperately trying to think up a way to escape the attention of the Police and either get rid of his bomb or blow it up also not appear nervous and agitated?

 

Not long before he was eating a 'maccy d's' burger...Actions of an extremist suicide bomber ?.

 

No, a suicide bomber would stand outside the train station going, "anyone know where I can get rid of this bomb?", not hiding in a shop while they rethink their plan.