Ya know how some people complain about Clinton passing up chances to grab Osama? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 10-31-2003, 09:47 AM

Can't give you a link, you need to do a nexis search to find this. If you have access to LN, search for the headline.

Quote:

The Ottawa Citizen

February 5, 2001 Monday FINAL EDITION

SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A7

LENGTH: 410 words

HEADLINE: Taliban offers to send bin Laden away in return for recognition

SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen

DATELINE: KANDAHAR

BODY:
The Taliban authorities will consider sending Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born terrorist behind the World Trade Center bombing, to a third country if the West will recognize them as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

"We hope the new American administration will be more flexible and engage with us," said Abdul Wakil Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister, as new UN sanctions begin to squeeze the hardline group.

Mr. Muttawakil has written to President George W. Bush saying his administration is prepared to resolve the Bin Laden issue through negotiations.

General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military ruler, said the suggestion of sending Bin Laden abroad appeared workable. He added it was not clear which country might provide sanctuary to the world's most wanted terrorist but Yemen had been mentioned.Pakistan is the closest ally of the conservative administration.

Got this from Atrios.

fishin · 10-31-2003, 09:59 AM

Are there any credible sources for this other than "The Ottawa Citizen?"

Superbelt · 10-31-2003, 10:21 AM

Yes, In the WaPo Here is a secondary one that discusses the same things, and expands on stuff in the original I posted.

Ustwo · 10-31-2003, 10:31 AM

So they wouldn't give him to us, but 'send him away' so we wouldn't blow the crap out of them?

I dont' think so, nothing to see here.

Superbelt · 10-31-2003, 10:38 AM

You have an amazing knack for dismissing things that you don't like to hear. "Nothing to see here" indeed.

They wanted to give him to us. They would have done so through an intermediary nation. But they also wanted to save face and gain recognition. It's called aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula" They were apprehensive about handing a muslim over to the USA.

Read the second article.

irseg · 10-31-2003, 10:55 AM

So we're supposed to bend over and take it up the ass for the Taliban so that they can be restored to power and Osama just gets shuttled off to a third party.

Yeah, that's EXACTLY LIKE when various countries had him in custody, offered to turn him over to us so he could be brought to justice, and Clinton acquiesced.

Ustwo · 10-31-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

The Taliban authorities will consider sending Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born terrorist behind the World Trade Center bombing, to a third country if the West will recognize them as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

Sorry but the US isn't a third world country HENCE they weren't going to give him to US.

Quote:

General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military ruler, said the suggestion of sending Bin Laden abroad appeared workable. He added it was not clear which country might provide sanctuary to the world's most wanted terrorist but Yemen had been mentioned.Pakistan is the closest ally of the conservative administration.

You know its ok to be a left winger, but PLEASE for the love of god use your head when you do so. NOTHING in this says they would turn him over to the US, NOR does it mention his people in Afghanistan. I'm sorry but you are really grasping at nothing, but maybe if you repeat it to yourself enough you will believe the lie. Note the key word, SANCTUARY.

Quote:

sanc·tu·ar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkch-r)
n. pl. sanc·tu·ar·ies

1. A sacred place, such as a church, temple, or mosque.

2. The holiest part of a sacred place, as the part of a Christian church around the altar.

3. A sacred place, such as a church, in which fugitives formerly were immune to arrest.
Immunity to arrest afforded by a sanctuary.

4. A place of refuge or asylum.

2+2 = 5

onetime2 · 10-31-2003, 11:08 AM

Sanctuary, Sanctuary, Sanctuareee

Superbelt · 10-31-2003, 11:23 AM

Read. The. Second. Article.

Here, I'll repost it for you.

Washington Post article

And, irseg, I don't think we should have given in to the taliban and recognized them if they gave us Osama. This thread is aimed at the kind of people who would try to blame Clinton for 9/11 because he refused the same kinds of offers from Syria and Afghanistan to have Osama handed over.

I just wanted to show that, Bush did it too.

maximusveritas · 10-31-2003, 11:45 AM

Both Clinton and Bush could have certainly done more to prevent the 9-11 attacks.
Clinton first had chances to get Bin Laden in 1996, but at the time, we had no real evidence to tie him to any dead Americans. Still, more could have probably been done. After the Cole attack, Clinton finally got serious, but then chickened out because of the impending election. If not for that, we would have probably began a campaign against Al Qaeda in late 2000.
Instead, Clinton just passed the problem onto Bush who was more concerned with knocking down all of Clinton's proposals than actually getting on the job. Even if you question the sincerity of the Taliban's offer or the practicality of Clinton's plan to attack Al Qaeda, Bush should have done something.
I think if you're going to blame one, you have to blame the other as well.

Superbelt · 10-31-2003, 11:52 AM

True, and that is what the point for this is.

But I wouldn't call what Clinton did after the Cole "chickening out" Clinton didn't finish the action plan for dealing with Osama and al Qaeda until november, so he couldn't exactly start a pre-emptive war two months before he left office. He did what was right and gave Bush the information and means to carry it out rather than start a war and hand it off to someone else.

irseg · 10-31-2003, 12:33 PM

I agree with maximusveritas.

Clinton dropped the ball with Osama, BIG TIME. He really fucked up. Hell, he admitted his weak stance on terrorism was his biggest regret as president (only after 9/11, of course).

But that's no excuse for Bush to not take over before 9/11, either.

Food Eater Lad · 10-31-2003, 01:05 PM

You do not negotiate with terrorits.

Zeld2.0 · 10-31-2003, 10:10 PM

You don't publically.

On the other hand, i 100% guarantee you we have, and its a damn good possiblity we are. (to get our means of course).

guthmund · 11-01-2003, 12:04 AM

Quote:

originally posted by Food Eater Lad
You do not negotiate with terrorists.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
You don't publically.

On the other hand, i 100% guarantee you we have, and its a damn good possiblity we are. (to get our means of course).

The whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing, eh?

As long as it serves the purpose of the Republic, our government seems to have no problems associating themselves with terrorists. J. Stalin killed millions in his camps, yet we negotiated with him during World War II. We were all behind ol' Saddam until he no longer served our purpose. We sent $43 million to the Taliban via Afghanistan for curtailing the drug trade. We're trying to negotiate with North Korea, who are holding the world with threat of a nuclear program. So, to sit back and say we don't negotiate with terrorists is absurd because they're already at the table.

I'm not saying these are all bad things. Hitler had to be stopped; a lot of opium comes out of Afghanistan; Saddam was a full blown psycho and Kim Jong Il isn't impressed solely with our military might.

Sometimes the overall good of society means having to deal with these guys, but to sit back and bask in denial is a dangerous trend.

Macheath · 11-01-2003, 01:07 AM

Both administrations failed because the modern western intelligence community has an ongoing problem with human intelligence. They need to get themselves into the Arab mindset just like TE Lawrence did and stop mollycoddling neoconservative shills and technocrats who think they know everything.

Food Eater Lad · 11-01-2003, 06:25 AM

We didnt send money to the taliban, we sent money to the UN witch then gave it to the Taliban. We gave the money as a forgein aid package for humanitarian purposes. So are you saying that the evil Taliban used the money the UN gave them improperly, and that is the US's fault?

Get your facts straight.

filtherton · 11-01-2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
We didnt send money to the taliban, we sent money to the UN witch then gave it to the Taliban. We gave the money as a forgein aid package for humanitarian purposes. So are you saying that the evil Taliban used the money the UN gave them improperly, and that is the US's fault?

Get your facts straight.

But other than that you agree that the us supports terrorists when it suits us, right. Otherwise you would've tried to discredit eveything gothmund said instead of just one sentence worth of it.

Superbelt · 11-01-2003, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
We didnt send money to the taliban, we sent money to the UN witch then gave it to the Taliban. We gave the money as a forgein aid package for humanitarian purposes. So are you saying that the evil Taliban used the money the UN gave them improperly, and that is the US's fault?

Get your facts straight.

We send over 500 million a year directly to the dictator of Uzbekistan who is probrably a worse man than Saddam ever was in terms of torturing people in his country.

So yes, we do negotiate with terrorists. Constantly.

Food Eater Lad · 11-01-2003, 11:25 AM

LOL Superbelt, he has killed 100,000 a year? Has he? In fact I was just talking to my barber yesterday who still has family there who says that the man is loved, cause even though he is harsh, there is law and order. So forgive me if I Dont believe your infromation on Uzbekistan.

filtherton · 11-01-2003, 04:46 PM

FEL, do you seriously belive that the us doesn't deal with terrorists when it is convenient or when it serves our purposes? A simple yes or no answer will suffice, i don't want any strawmen.

Food Eater Lad · 11-01-2003, 05:01 PM

We have in the past, so does that make it right in the future?

Superbelt · 11-01-2003, 08:57 PM

Uzbekistan.

Human Rights watch page on Uzbekistan. Actually 9 pages on them.
Uzbekistan page

And this little nugget on prison torture/murder's
Torture death in prison

Uzbekistan's learder, Islam, is more brutal than Saddam. He just gets no press in america because he is our "ally"

Superbelt · 11-01-2003, 09:00 PM

Saddam was loved by his followers, but not the majority shi'ites.

This was from me about 2 months ago.

Quote:

Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death [...]

Hakimjon Noredinov ... became a human rights activist after a morgue attendant brought him his eldest son, Nozemjon. He had been left for dead by the security service but was still alive despite having his skull fractured. Nozemjon is now 33, but screamed all night since they split his skull open. He is now in an asylum, Mr Noredinov said. "People's lives here are no better for US involvement," he said.

"Because of the US help, Karimov is getting richer and stronger."

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....ght=uzbekistan

If you don't believe me, at least believe Human Rights watch, from the links I posted in my previous post.

Superbelt · 11-01-2003, 09:02 PM

Human rights watch photo essay's on Uzbekistan.

http://www.hrw.org/photos/2002/uzbekistan/

Food Eater Lad · 11-01-2003, 09:25 PM

And we go to war with Uzbekistan and then you claim we just want his oil.... He is sitting on huge untapped reserves. That and diamonds.

guthmund · 11-02-2003, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
We didnt send money to the taliban, we sent money to the UN witch then gave it to the Taliban. We gave the money as a forgein aid package for humanitarian purposes. So are you saying that the evil Taliban used the money the UN gave them improperly, and that is the US's fault?

Get your facts straight.

You should really calm down, eh? Not good for the ticker.

Here is a link to an article by Robert Scheer that was published in the L.A. Times.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/052201.htm

Here's the relevant part....

Quote:

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Here's a link to Votefreedom.org
http://www.votefreedom.org/blame.html

Again, the relevant text....

Quote:

In the terrorist attacks, buildings and lives were equally shattered. Yet just several months beforehand, the United States gave the Taliban a gift of 43 million dollars in aid. This was a bribe to the Taliban inducing them to say that growing poppy was now against the will of Allah. Do you think that perhaps a bit of this aid was diverted to their good pals in the hood – namely Bin Laden and company? Most certainly. Who then is also to blame for buildings being blown up?

But these are opinion pieces....so here's a link to a washington post story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
and the relevant text...

Quote:

Under intense international pressure, in June 2000, Taliban leader Mohammad Omar banned poppy cultivation, declaring that it violated the teachings of the Koran. The next year, poppy cultivation in Afghanistan plummeted to 185 tons, according to a newly released U.N. report. The United States, saying it welcomed the ban, in May announced a $43 million grant to help Afghan farmers.

Wonder who they gave it to?

Even Wil Wheaton has something to say...

http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/000927.php

And finally, the relevant text.

Quote:

How about that Super Bowl? I missed most of it because I was working, but I'm so glad that New England won...way to go Underdogs!
I did get to see this one commercial, that said that if you use drugs, you're supporting terrorism, which is nice, because I thought that giving 43 million dollars to the Taliban to kill opium poppies was supporting terrorism, but TV learned me good.

I don't know if they gave that money to the U.N. In all the articles I found, there was no mention. You may certainly be right, but I find it hard to believe that if that money was given to the U.N. that we had absolutely no influence on what it was to be used for.

Coincidentally, I find it ironic that you tell me to "get my facts straight" yet fail to provide any links for independent confirmation of your facts.

Peetster · 11-02-2003, 05:47 AM

I find it interesting that a discussion on who failed to nab Osama has been hijacked into a thread on Uzbekistan. The Uzbekistan discussion would have made a great thread by itself. Unfortunately, the original topic was abandoned. I suggest bringing the thread back to its original topic and, if someone is interested, starting a new thread on Uzbekistan.

This thread's "Hijack Award" is a tie, split evenly by filtherton and Superbelt:

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
But other than that you agree that the us supports terrorists when it suits us, right.

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
We send over 500 million a year directly to the dictator of Uzbekistan who is probrably a worse man than Saddam ever was in terms of torturing people in his country.

Please try to stay on-topic.

Superbelt · 11-02-2003, 07:01 AM

Well, I did start the thread.

And I brought Uzbek up because FEL told us "We do not negotiate with terrorists", So I felt it important to show we did. Then of course, I had to validate my claims that the Uzbek's are as bad as I said they were. I don't wanna go farther with that. I even linked to my older thread in here about Uzbekistan if anyone wants to add to that.

Here, I'll do it again
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....ght=uzbekistan

10-31-2003, 09:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	Are there any credible sources for this other than "The Ottawa Citizen?" __________________ liberals rule. phhtt.

10-31-2003, 10:21 AM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes, In the WaPo Here is a secondary one that discusses the same things, and expands on stuff in the original I posted. Last edited by Superbelt; 10-31-2003 at 10:24 AM..

10-31-2003, 10:31 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So they wouldn't give him to us, but 'send him away' so we wouldn't blow the crap out of them? I dont' think so, nothing to see here. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-31-2003, 11:08 AM	#8 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Sanctuary, Sanctuary, Sanctuareee __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-31-2003, 10:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You have an amazing knack for dismissing things that you don't like to hear. "Nothing to see here" indeed. They wanted to give him to us. They would have done so through an intermediary nation. But they also wanted to save face and gain recognition. It's called aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula" They were apprehensive about handing a muslim over to the USA. Read the second article.

10-31-2003, 10:55 AM	#6 (permalink)
irseg Junkie Location: Florida	So we're supposed to bend over and take it up the ass for the Taliban so that they can be restored to power and Osama just gets shuttled off to a third party. Yeah, that's EXACTLY LIKE when various countries had him in custody, offered to turn him over to us so he could be brought to justice, and Clinton acquiesced.

10-31-2003, 11:23 AM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Read. The. Second. Article. Here, I'll repost it for you. Washington Post article And, irseg, I don't think we should have given in to the taliban and recognized them if they gave us Osama. This thread is aimed at the kind of people who would try to blame Clinton for 9/11 because he refused the same kinds of offers from Syria and Afghanistan to have Osama handed over. I just wanted to show that, Bush did it too.

10-31-2003, 11:45 AM	#10 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Both Clinton and Bush could have certainly done more to prevent the 9-11 attacks. Clinton first had chances to get Bin Laden in 1996, but at the time, we had no real evidence to tie him to any dead Americans. Still, more could have probably been done. After the Cole attack, Clinton finally got serious, but then chickened out because of the impending election. If not for that, we would have probably began a campaign against Al Qaeda in late 2000. Instead, Clinton just passed the problem onto Bush who was more concerned with knocking down all of Clinton's proposals than actually getting on the job. Even if you question the sincerity of the Taliban's offer or the practicality of Clinton's plan to attack Al Qaeda, Bush should have done something. I think if you're going to blame one, you have to blame the other as well.

10-31-2003, 11:52 AM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	True, and that is what the point for this is. But I wouldn't call what Clinton did after the Cole "chickening out" Clinton didn't finish the action plan for dealing with Osama and al Qaeda until november, so he couldn't exactly start a pre-emptive war two months before he left office. He did what was right and gave Bush the information and means to carry it out rather than start a war and hand it off to someone else.

10-31-2003, 12:33 PM	#12 (permalink)
irseg Junkie Location: Florida	I agree with maximusveritas. Clinton dropped the ball with Osama, BIG TIME. He really fucked up. Hell, he admitted his weak stance on terrorism was his biggest regret as president (only after 9/11, of course). But that's no excuse for Bush to not take over before 9/11, either.

10-31-2003, 01:05 PM	#13 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	You do not negotiate with terrorits.

10-31-2003, 10:10 PM	#14 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	You don't publically. On the other hand, i 100% guarantee you we have, and its a damn good possiblity we are. (to get our means of course).

11-01-2003, 01:07 AM	#16 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Both administrations failed because the modern western intelligence community has an ongoing problem with human intelligence. They need to get themselves into the Arab mindset just like TE Lawrence did and stop mollycoddling neoconservative shills and technocrats who think they know everything.

11-01-2003, 06:25 AM	#17 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	We didnt send money to the taliban, we sent money to the UN witch then gave it to the Taliban. We gave the money as a forgein aid package for humanitarian purposes. So are you saying that the evil Taliban used the money the UN gave them improperly, and that is the US's fault? Get your facts straight.

11-01-2003, 11:25 AM	#20 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	LOL Superbelt, he has killed 100,000 a year? Has he? In fact I was just talking to my barber yesterday who still has family there who says that the man is loved, cause even though he is harsh, there is law and order. So forgive me if I Dont believe your infromation on Uzbekistan.

11-01-2003, 04:46 PM	#21 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	FEL, do you seriously belive that the us doesn't deal with terrorists when it is convenient or when it serves our purposes? A simple yes or no answer will suffice, i don't want any strawmen.

11-01-2003, 05:01 PM	#22 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	We have in the past, so does that make it right in the future?

11-01-2003, 08:57 PM	#23 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Uzbekistan. Human Rights watch page on Uzbekistan. Actually 9 pages on them. Uzbekistan page And this little nugget on prison torture/murder's Torture death in prison Uzbekistan's learder, Islam, is more brutal than Saddam. He just gets no press in america because he is our "ally"

11-01-2003, 09:02 PM	#25 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Human rights watch photo essay's on Uzbekistan. http://www.hrw.org/photos/2002/uzbekistan/

11-01-2003, 09:25 PM	#26 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	And we go to war with Uzbekistan and then you claim we just want his oil.... He is sitting on huge untapped reserves. That and diamonds.

11-02-2003, 07:01 AM	#29 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Well, I did start the thread. And I brought Uzbek up because FEL told us "We do not negotiate with terrorists", So I felt it important to show we did. Then of course, I had to validate my claims that the Uzbek's are as bad as I said they were. I don't wanna go farther with that. I even linked to my older thread in here about Uzbekistan if anyone wants to add to that. Here, I'll do it again http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....ght=uzbekistan