Military Brass To Fall On Their Swords To Cover Obama's Inept Afghan War Making?

[larryJ]

Back before dirt, I had (still have but don't listen to much anymore) a shortwave radio.  I could listen to radio stations from all over the world.  It was really interesting to hear international opinions about the U.S. as opposed to the American news radio.  

Larryj

[larryJ]

Anmar, thanks for posting the links and providing documentation for me.  I followed the links and read all of them.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think you might have missed some of the points.

First, it is a fact that previous to 9/11 prior administrations were after Bin Laden.  You are reading these posts as those in charge before 9/11 failed to do their job in working with the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden and that would have prevented 9/11.  They did not want to "surrender" Bin Laden to the United States, they wanted to try him in a Islamic court where, probably in most opinions, he would have a received a slap on the hand for his transgressions which was not acceptable to the U.S.  The Taliban were asking for a cessation of bombing in return for this "favor".  

Second, I think you need to separate the fact that all this talking back and forth between the Taliban and the Americans are in many ways unrelated to 9/11.  The question?  If Bin Laden had been tried in an Islamic court, and punished in some way, would 9/11 still have happened.  If the Taliban punished him in any way other than killing him, would 9/11 still have happened?

Go back and read your links again with a different look and see if you still believe as you do.

Larryj

[Anmar]

Anmar, thanks for posting the links and providing documentation for me.  I followed the links and read all of them.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think you might have missed some of the points.

First, it is a fact that previous to 9/11 prior administrations were after Bin Laden.  You are reading these posts as those in charge before 9/11 failed to do their job in working with the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden and that would have prevented 9/11.  They did not want to "surrender" Bin Laden to the United States, they wanted to try him in a Islamic court where, probably in most opinions, he would have a received a slap on the hand for his transgressions which was not acceptable to the U.S.  The Taliban were asking for a cessation of bombing in return for this "favor". 

Second, I think you need to separate the fact that all this taling back and forth between the Taliban and the Americans are in many ways unrelated to 9/11.  The question?  If Bin Laden had been tried in an Islamic court, and punished in some way, would 9/11 still have happened.  If the Taliban punished him in any way other than killing him, would 9/11 still have happened?

Go back and read your links again with a different look and see if you still believe as you do.

Larryj

Larry, the first time they asked that he be tried in an Islamic court.  I mentioned in my post that Bush rejected the offer and that i dont fault him for that.  I agree with the decision, i don't think it would have been fair to the victims of 9/11 that he be tried in Afghanistan.  However, the second time they offered him up, they did not make that stipulation.  The taliban were so terrified of the bombings that had begun a few days prior that they just wanted to get rid of him.

I'm not implying that the Taliban wanted to rid themselves of Bin Laden before 9/11.  They made 2 offers, both in the month after the attack. 

If Bin Laden had been tried in an Islamic court, and punished in some way, would 9/11 still have happened.  If the Taliban punished him in any way other than killing him, would 9/11 still have happened?

I'm not sure how i understand how the Taliban were supposed to punish Bin Laden for 9/11 before 9/11 actually happened.  Maybe i'm reading your post incorrectly.

I don't think his capture or assasination pre-9/11 would have stopped the attack.  It's my understanding that Bin Laden is not the mastermind in the organization, he's a figurehead and a financier.  I still believe that he is not the actual goal for this war.

[Diane Amberg]

I thought Bin Laden's main appeal was his  funding. He had /has so much money he could buy off anybody anywhere. Is that no longer true?

[larryJ]

My apologies, Anmar, I was confusing myself reading your posts.  After going back and reading them again and rereading the links, I can see where I was mistaken.

You were stating that previous to 9/11 there were no efforts to take out Bin Laden by the previous administrations.  And, that the offers to give him up were post 9/11.  I had thought you said the offers were made prior to 9/11.

I will try to pay more attention.

Larryj

[Leonardcrl]

Hi:  I've been a lurker on this thread and have found it to be interesting & entertaining

But I'm coming out of the shadows now in the interest of pouring a little gasoline on the embers .  Yesterday (16 Oct. 2009) the on-line edition of Foreign Policy magazine published a 9 page article by Steve Coll on a strategic approach that U.S. security establishment might be considering. I've posted a link on my seldom visited web site which will lead you to it.  For those of you who read it I'm sure it will stir the pot.

As a balancer for those of you who might think I'm a flaming liberal stalking horse here is another link to an audio archive on the San Antonio NPR station.  The only law school who has a center focused on terrorism is here at St. Marys University.  The director of it's Center of Terrorism Law gave the talk in the audio and I was in the audience.  I'm sure you will find the talk interesting. 

Now back into the shadows 

[Diane Amberg]

A good read.Thanks.