That is because they could capture him. If they could have easier killed him, they would have done that. He was on the run in a country they ran. Its a totally different situation.
You're just arguing from ignorance. Unless you have evidence that they "would have done that," you can't use such a claim to advance your position. Do you have historical evidence that the Bush administration would rather systematically killed OBL than captured him?
I think if you are going to argue on the basis that if the US could have had OBL dead pre 911 they would have said no, then you are on pretty irrational ground.
What? What are you talking about? The sources you linked to all talked about trying to negotiate a handover, except for your Counterpunch article. I see you've dropped back to using that source exclusively, discarding the India Globe. The consensus of your own sources goes against your conclusions.
Yes, if that were possible. But it wasnt, as has been shown here many times in articles posted. The US wanted a trial in NY or nothing. But he was offered to be killed. There is no excuse for not accepting the death of a man who is the biggest single human threat to civilian life in your country, for many yrs.
Except that the US has specific policies against using assassination.
There is no source about wanting a trial in "NY or nothing," and that makes no sense at all. Your sources have said either the US or a third-party, but
not an Islamic court. I fail to see how that is unreasonable.
Come on dude, you said you read the article, i dont ask a lot
Drop the condescending crap. I read your articles, and I don't agree with you. I fail to see the corroboration for the "they handed his head on a silver platter" aspect.
You've also backed well away from your other sources, that all disagree with that aspect of the Counterpunch article. I find this telling. If your sources don't integrate, that means you have a discrepency to clear up, which you've failed to do as of yet.
There were no doubt negotiations to do this. There were also those to have him killed.
Based on? The Counterpunch's source? Any corroboration?
My mistake, of course, I forgot the year.
In any case, OBL was still being sought in connection to it.
Again, please tell me in what world, when the main non gov threat to civilian life in your country for decades is offered to you on a platter, do you say "No thanks". Your american; how can you accept your government doing this? Please tell me?!
The world in which he wasn't actually being "offered to you on a platter." You're moving to goalposts around by shifting sources, but failing to corroborate the unique information from the new sources. What you
have corroborated shows nothing with respect to a "head on a platter."
To be honest, I could care less if Osama is killed or brought to trial or dies of cancer in some God-forsaken rat hole. I want his
organization to be rendered impotent and him to be somehow brought to justice. Given my druthers, I would prefer to see him brought on trial in international court and sentenced accordingly.
As which "above?"
a) It would have been a hindrance
b) How can it be explained, within the OT scheme. I dont think it can; it is inexplicable.
a) How? You haven't yet explained this, but maybe you will in this post... let's see.
b) How can what be explained? This doesn't seem to connect to what I said.
Note- I am not saying this would have killed AQ or stopped 911. Just as I have said.
So why even bring it up? You suggest that not taking OBL's "head on a platter" is somehow suggestive of government culpability in 9/11, yet you systematically fail to either prove the "head on a platter" part and outright suggest 9/11 might happen anyway. Is this really the best kind of evidence you have?
The US/UK are occupying armies in a foreign country; they have no rights and all attacks on them are, within the framework of international law, justified.
Actually, the rights they have are governed by treaties established between various global entities.
Dont fall for propaganda where these people are called terrorists; people who blow themselves up in a market place in Baghdad is one thing attacking an occupying army is something that Americans should be able to appreciate as an integral part of their heritage.
I said that there is a fine line between insurgency and terrorism. That line is generally one of targetting, but the two are drawn from the same ideological pool. It has to do with methodology and psychology, not semantic games.
The IRA or FARC are better comparisons for the American Revolution - the motivation was more similar. The Afghan resistance, along with HAMAS and their ilk, has more of a religious undertone to the organization, with the whole fatwa/Jihad deal. The simplistic comparison between events separated by over two hundred years is cute, but not particularly helpful to our current debate.
Funding for sure; organisation, since his death would throw AQ into a degree of chaos; confidence as well.
Proof of this? Do you have any cases in which the death of a leader of a cell-based terrorist group caused the group to be thrown into chaos?
If you mean the creation of new cells would be hampered, then I agree. But we're talking about a cell that was already in place and ready to go. They didn't need additional funding by early 2001, and they had their mission in place.
If they see that their leader is dead, what will that do for them? If AQ is the glue that bound the hijackers together, through a variety of means, the death of the head and founder would necessarily weaken that.
No, that is utterly at odds with the psychology displayed by extremist groups like AQ. To the contrary, the
ideology is the glue that holds the group together, which is why they are able to survive over such long periods of time.
A group held together by a leader is something like, say, the Waco cult. Those groups tend to dissolve or weaken if their leader or leadership dies. On the other hand, ideological extremist groups are bonded by something that transcends one person or group of people.
If anything, the loss of a leader to the enemy is something that would bolster the resolve of the terrorist groups. Obviously this is speculation, as it never happened, but it is speculation more consistent with the psychology of the group, and the past behavior displayed by this and similar groups. Would you say, for example, that the death of key Al Qaeda personnel has stopped their operations in Afghanistan?
Tell me why you think this name was conceived for the war. You understand it was a political, not a media construct?
Well, if you really want to get anal about it, the term goes back a ways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror#Historical_usage_of_phrase
Your focus on the specific phrase used isn't very useful to you. It makes it sound like you're playing with semantics when the specific phrase is unimportant. What matters are the realities underlying it.
In this case, there are certainly ideologically motivated groups opposed to the political, military, and social aspects of the Western world. Those groups are willing to use terrorist tactics to harm the West. Ergo, there is a de facto "war with terrorism" whether we acknowledge it or not. This has been the case for decades, although general public awareness of the specifics is relatively recent.
As above! Seriously, why do you think this term was conceived by the Bush admin?
Because it makes for nice sound bytes, and the term is a no-brainer. What would you prefer: "
The war against anti-Western ideologically-motivated religious and quasi-religious fanatical groups that have their roots in a particularly militant branch of the Islamic religious community?"
At that time there was not a declared WOT. Now there is, so why are there so many despicable terrorists living in asylum with Bush/Cheney imprimatur?
"Imprimatur?" Good one, I like it. Much better than the plebian "sanction," or is this one of those words used more outside the US?
The existence of a "declared" war on terror is a meaningless mental construct, because the "war on terror" is not an actual, declared war. It is a phrase to describe a reality that exists regardless of what you call it.
Over time, I think the US has been getting a little bit better about supporting repulsive people to further our ends. If you think otherwise, you need to study history a little more.
You want to see some real nasty stuff, look back at the American expansion in the 1800's. Now
that was brutal. Of course, every other expanding nation at the time did it, and some of them made the US look positively glowing by comparison.
Hell, we treated a large chunk of
our own citizens like sub-human dirt fit only for oppression for a long time. The history of many nations is far from glowing.
Errrr.... Hmmm. Ok, well let's start with Operation Condor. Please read up on that, or let me know if you want a heads up.
How does this contradict what I said? Condor seems to more be a case of certain elements of the US government looking the other way more than anything else.
Besides which, I said "generally refrain." I have never claimed the US is a perfect angel that has never done anything wrong. Also, Condor took place from a period of nearly sixty to a period of nearly thirty years ago, and doesn't seem to have involved direct, sanctioned US terrorist action, which is what I actually said.
Recent terrorist Activity prior to 9/11/2001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut_barracks_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Military_activity_and_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings (Sorry, I got the '98 date from the Embassy Bombings, not the Cole)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_March_2001_BBC_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_August_2001_Ealing_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_city_bombing (Yes, domestic terrorism is still terrorism)
September 11th raised public awareness to a new level, mostly because it was the first large-scale attack the US had experienced. That doesn't mean that this sort of thing had never occurred in the past.
Does not require, but is all the more effective for it.
How so? What about when that person dies?
Oh come on... The same could be said for Saddam, found in what, 3 weeks?
Nine months, actually. If you count from the date of invasion. US invaded on 3/20/2003, and Saddam was captured on 12/13/2003. That is almost exactly nine months.
Three weeks? Where do you get this stuff?
Its been 6 1/2 yrs, he's been in Tora Bora!!! Its not like he could be anywhere on the face of the earth. And Bush has said himself- he doesnt care where he is anymore!!! Unbelievable! Forget 911, what about everything else! Is it water under the bridge? How do you explain this, other than by my reasoning?
Bad luck, bad intelligence, lack of intelligence, lack of political cooperation, instability in the region, mountainous terrain, cave systems, lack of security and police in the region, limited US resources.
That's a pretty decent start. You really think the best possible explanation for not finding one person in a highly contested area is government collusion?
Yes, he was at the Battle of Tora Bora. So what? He escaped, and again you think the best explanation is government help? Do you have evidence of that, or is it just a guess?
But he was nonetheless found in weeks. OBL nowhere near found, after years.
I would really love to see how you got three weeks from nine months.
Look at them as unrelated. One pointing to trial; the other to death. And do read it, and tell me what you think and why
I think the one pointing to death is uncorroborate at this point, and that suggests it is much less likely to be true. I think the bulk of the sources you have actually cited to prove your point do precisely the opposite.
This is because there are multiple lines of reasoning that ultimately arrive at the conclusion that there was some negotiation for an OBL hand-over, but it was not likely that the Taliban was sincere, and it is possible they couldn't actually deliver him. In any case, the conditions imposed were unacceptable to the US, and very likely were imposed as political delaying tactics.
You're fallen back on the Counterpunch article because it is the only one that even remotely supports your current claims.
