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



## Madeline (Oct 30, 2010)

> After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> 
> After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> 
> ...



Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden - Asia, World - The Independent


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 30, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> >
> > After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> >
> ...



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.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 30, 2010)

> 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?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > 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.
> >
> ...



"We" didn't know about it? You mean YOU didn't. Quelle surprise!


----------



## American Horse (Oct 30, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > 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.
> >
> ...


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.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

American Horse said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > RGS wrote:
> ...



It wasn't secret. It was all over the media. By "we", Maddie means she didn't know and assumes the rest of the country is as dumb as she is. Fortunately, we aren't.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

It was denied by the Bush admin


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> It was denied by the Bush admin



What was denied?


----------



## uscitizen (Oct 30, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > RGS wrote:
> ...



I have never seen a picture of Glen Beck that young.

He myst dye his hair now.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Gee, I must be right. USC is whining about Beck.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 30, 2010)

In the Middle East and surrounding cultures hospitality is of huge importance.

If someone is a "guest" in your land. 

You are honor bound to protect them no matter what.


And example of this can be found in the Bible.

There is the story of Lot and how the towns people of Sodom demanded he turn over to them the two guests in his house.

As you may remember; Lot refused at the peril of him and his family's lives. And even offered his daughters in their place.


The Taliban where just following their cultural norms.

And they were quite willing to turn over Osama if they had been presented evidence of Bin Ladens alleged guilt.

Plus they wanted guarantee of fair treatment for him. 


Given the mood in the U.S. at the time. A third party location seemed a logical to the Taliban.

And they would have fulfilled their duty as a host in their culture.

Sources say the Taliban made this offer also before the bombing.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> In the Middle East and surrounding cultures hospitality is of huge importance.
> 
> If someone is a "guest" in your land.
> 
> ...



Yep. Unfortunately for them, they should have just handed the SOB and his cohorts over. We don't play 'bible stories' with terrorists.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> ...



What he said.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



It's not reading that is the problem. It's using the comprehension skill at the same time as the reading skill. 

It appears that the only person who didn't know about this is Maddie. Not "We" at all.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 30, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > In the Middle East and surrounding cultures hospitality is of huge importance.
> ...


So Bush made the correct decision?

And Bin Laden is currently located.........................?????????


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

I see NOTHING in this post to indicate this was the first the OP ever heard of the story.






Madeline said:


> > After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> >
> > After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> >
> ...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

It appears truthmatters needs spoonfeeding.... again.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

Please point out where the OP says this is news to them?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> I see NOTHING in this post to indicate this was the first the OP ever heard of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who said it had to be in the OP?

Her next post had this:



> 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.



Not our fault that you have problems comprehending things.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

where did she say she never heard this before?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> where did she say she never heard this before?



The implication is there. She asked why it was kept a secret. She asked why we didn't know about it in 2001.

It wasn't kept a secret. We did know about it in 2001. By deductive reasoning it is apparent that Madeline recently found out about this. Maybe not today...but recently.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

You see your side seems to do this all the time.

You read something and then THINK it says one thing when it doesnt say what you seem to think it does.

She was laymenting that we did not know this in 2001.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You see your side seems to do this all the time.
> 
> You read something and then THINK it says one thing when it doesnt say what you seem to think it does.
> 
> She was laymenting that we did not know this in 2001.



We did know this is 2001.

Swing and a miss TM.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You see your side seems to do this all the time.
> 
> You read something and then THINK it says one thing when it doesnt say what you seem to think it does.
> 
> She was laymenting that we did not know this in 2001.



And we are pointing out that WE DID know it in 2001. I thought it was only Maddie who didn't. It appears this major news event passed you by too. 

How embarrassing for you both.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

Proove you knew this in 2001


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Proove you knew this in 2001



Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | World news | guardian.co.uk



> Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
> 
> guardian.co.uk, *Sunday 14 October 2001* 22.19 BST


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden

Second week of bombing begins; 
Media visits village hit by missile

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington


Monday, 15 October 2001





There I just did it for you


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden
> 
> Second week of bombing begins;
> Media visits village hit by missile
> ...



I already did it cupcake.

Really, you need to pay attention.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

You guys were right , she could have known about it in mid october 2009.

I commited the same mistake I had accused you all of.

I thought Cali had said the FIRST time she heard of it and she did not.

I blew it , I fucked up, I slap my forehead in self admonishment.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

Lets do remember that this was a mere six weeks AFTER 911 and many people of the world (not just Americans) were in a depressive haze at the implications for the entire world of a war that looked like 911.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)




----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You guys were right , she could have known about it in mid october 2009.
> 
> I commited the same mistake I had accused you all of.
> 
> ...



Truth, it was covered in 2001. News organizations across the world were talking about it. 


Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | World news | guardian.co.uk

^^^ Note the date the story ran.

_9.30pm update: * Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt 
* Second week of airstrikes starts 
* Taliban urges US to halt bombing

*guardian.co.uk,	 Sunday 14 October 2001 22.19 BST*
Article history
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".
_

Maddie is wrong. WE knew about it. She didn't. Maddie thinks that, if she doesn't know something, it didn't happen. That is her problem, don't make it yours.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

What NO recognition of a humanbeings ability to admitt a mistake?

Look guys we are all human and fuck up once in awhile , the ability to admitt a mistake used to count for something in this culture.

Will any of you have the guts to EVER admitt your mistakes?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> What NO recognition of a humanbeings ability to admitt a mistake?
> 
> Look guys we are all human and fuck up once in awhile , the ability to admitt a mistake used to count for something in this culture.
> 
> Will any of you have the guts to EVER admitt your mistakes?



We do. Only you're so busy labeling those people as liars that you don't see them. You bitch about people calling you a liar. Yet you are the one who uses that word more often than anyone. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is, according to you, a liar.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

I see the right now feels that admitting a mistake is not a good quality?

Please tell me I'm wrong about this?

Do you see admitting a mistake as a possitive thing ?


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

I call people liars when they lie.

perfectly acceptable thing to do


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> What NO recognition of a humanbeings ability to admitt a mistake?
> 
> Look guys we are all human and fuck up once in awhile , the ability to admitt a mistake used to count for something in this culture.
> 
> Will any of you have the guts to EVER admitt your mistakes?



OMG  you want a prize for admitting you made a mistake ?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> 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.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

I wish the ability to admitt a mistake meant something in this society.

It was something Americans used to value for good reason


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I call people liars when they 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?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



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 (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Please tell me I'm wrong about this?



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


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 30, 2010)

What could have been a good thread.

Is now just a pissing contest.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > What could have been a good thread.
> ...


How so???


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell me I'm wrong about this?
> ...



And you have never made a mistake?

Or is it you will never admitt a mistake?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Of course I make mistakes.

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


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



That it was new information that was just released.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

I still dont think the OP said that one


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Now you need to provide proof of what you claim.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 30, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


This was on the news way back in 2001-2002

What part is "new" information?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Is your computer incapable of scrolling up?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2010)

no she says she wished she knew it in 2001


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> no she says she wished she knew it in 2001



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

Mistake 3.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > 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.
> >
> ...



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


----------



## California Girl (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > RGS wrote:
> ...



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 (Oct 30, 2010)

American Horse said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > RGS wrote:
> ...



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


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > RGS wrote:
> ...



Who cares what other people claimed. We're discussing your mistakes.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

Go right ahead and discuss my admitted mistake.

Its on the record that I was evil enough to admitt one.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Go right ahead and discuss my admitted mistake.
> 
> Its on the record that I was evil enough to admitt one.



You've made three alone in this thread.

Mistake #4 is now thinking you only made one.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

Did she claim she did not know this until now?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Did she claim she did not know this until now?


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

You were also wrong huh?

will you admitt it?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You were also wrong huh?
> 
> will you admitt it?



Where was I wrong?


Mistake #5. Remembering things that were never said.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Right here


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



Thats not me.

Fail #6.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

You are right it was not you.

That is another mistake on my part.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> That is another mistake on my part.



It's OK. We're used to it.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> ...



Seriously.

Anyone who's been following this, knew that Bush gave the Taliban a short window before the invasion of Afghanistan to give up Bin Laden. They played games..and at a time where the stakes were pretty serious. This was one fight Bush did not want..because there was no real "upside" to it..and the Taliban flipped him the finger..essentially. Even if every thing this article says is true, was there any reason for the Bush administration to trust them? None I can see.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I see NOTHING in this post to indicate this was the first the OP ever heard of the story.
> ...



Sure seems  you were telling me you agreed.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Mistake #7: Not reading the whole thread.



RadiomanATL said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > where did she say she never heard this before?
> ...


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

I just prooved you were in on the claim that she never heard it till she posted it.
Why would you defend an arguement you did not agree with?
You are now NOT admitting to your mistake.

Why am I not surprized.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> I just prooved you were in on the claim that she never heard it till she posted it.
> Why would you defend an arguement you did not agree with?
> You are now NOT admitting to your mistake.
> 
> Why am I not surprized.



And I just proved through deductive reasoning that this was recent news for Madeline.

IOW: You haven't proved that it was a mistake.

Keep trying though.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > You were also wrong huh?
> ...



You were wrong in ASSUMING she did not know until now.

You have not proven she said she did not know.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Oh, but I have.

Just because you don't like the proof, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Mistake #8.


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 30, 2010)

You joined the claim and prooved nothing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You joined the claim and prooved nothing.



Ok lets play your stupid game, what did she mean when she said WE did not know in 2001?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 30, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You joined the claim and prooved nothing.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/139498-taliban-offered-us-bin-laden-in-2001-but-bush-said-no-thankies-3.html#post2909698


----------



## High_Gravity (Nov 24, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > 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.
> >
> ...



I knew about this, I remember hearing it on the news after 9/11. The Taliban were doing a song and dance, they never intended to really just hand over Bin Laden, they wanted proof that he was guilty and to try him in an Islamic court, where he would be found not guilty anyways. Plus if he was tried at the Hague he would not get the death penalty because in Europe the death penalty is out lawed. The Taliban were never serious about turning in Bin Laden or Al Qaeda because if they wanted to do it they could have just done it, they consider Binny and his Al Qaeda posse guests in that country and will fight to protect them.


----------



## RespectForVets (Dec 5, 2010)

Bush blew 9/11. I don't blame it on him, but maybe if was not on vacation it wouldn't have happened. He was more concerned about golf that day.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 5, 2010)

RespectForVets said:


> Bush blew 9/11. I don't blame it on him, but maybe if was not on vacation it wouldn't have happened. He was more concerned about golf that day.



I think you're confusing Bush with Obama.... Bush was at a kindergarten, reading to little kids when 9/11 broke. 

You're rapidly losing the respect I have for one particular 'vet'.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 22, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> >
> > After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
> >
> ...



same thing happened under Clintons watch.two different countrys offered to extradict him to the us and Clinton told them to back off.It was all over the news back in 98 showing a general come on and say that they had cornered him and could take him out or capture him and he said right there on live world wide news that Clinton told him and his unit to back off of him and do nothing.Looks like he was being set up as a patsy for 9/11 as far back as then.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 22, 2010)

RespectForVets said:


> Bush blew 9/11. I don't blame it on him, but maybe if was not on vacation it wouldn't have happened. He was more concerned about golf that day.



Of course he was more concerned about Golf.Sports is about ALL Bushwacker was ever concerned about while president.


----------

