# Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041 "2009-05-20T03:24:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/641 "2009-06-16T19:27:48Z")
If I’m following **ivan** ’s reasoning, not capturing bin Laden is not for what he would reveal if captured, but because his continued freedom perpetuates our excuse to pursue the real, unstated goals of the invasion. (That may not be what he meant at all. “They don’t really want him alive” can be taken multiple ways.) There is also this: > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Yes. One catch is that it is necessary to include all the relevant data. > Another catch, in a question of war and peace, involves the form argumentum ad baculum, which I’ve brought up before. It confounds Occam’s Razor. > How? it takes a little wriggling, but: > Ask the question: Why did we invade Afghanistan? > A: They refused to turn over Bin Laden, so they had it coming. > > If x accepts P as true, then Q. > Q is a punishment on x. > Therefore, P is not true. > So in the presence of an argumentum ad baculum, the simplest explanation isn’t necessarily the best. Do you see what I mean? I don’t see what you mean. If P was proven, we wouldn’t need Occam. Occam’s Razor applies when something is not proven, to select the simplest case from those that are possible. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/642 "2009-06-16T20:11:01Z")
Seems to me before entertaining arguments about _why_ the attack were staged (including discussing who profited from it and who needed it as an excuse and whatnot), the major stumbling block remains _how_ it was staged. I’ve yet to see any plausible evidence the mainstream sequence of events is false. Similarly, in Kennedy threads I don’t give a fuck about theories involving Castro or the mob or the CIA or Nixon or whatever. Just summarize what happened in the hour immediately prior to the shooting and the hour immediately after, and the evidence of same. Anything else is a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/643 "2009-06-16T21:32:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Interestingly, the U.S. showed absolutely no interest in Afghanistan between January 20, 2001 and September 11, 2001. None. It even declined to get involved, (either supporting or opposing), the actions of other nations regarding Afghanistan during that period. This argues strongly that it required an external event to bring U.S. attention to Afghanistan. (Had the U.S. wanted to play with a pipeline, it would have made more sense to actively interfere in Afghan politics, thus making the WTC/Pentagon attacks look like “Afghan” revenge, making a clearer case that we should invade Afghanistan. Had Omar and his buddies handed over bin Laden when we asked, we would ave had no rationale to invade.) Your statement seems to be directly contradicted by the following: 3/15/2001 [http://www.janes.com/security/international\_security/news/jir/jir010315\_1\_n.shtml](http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml) > [@](#): > > Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia’s security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. “All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism,” he said. > [@](#): > > BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001. > US ‘planned attack on Taleban’ > > The wider objective was to oust the Taleban > > By the BBC’s George Arney > > A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/644 "2009-06-16T22:07:09Z")
[QUOTE=EasyPhil] Your statement seems to be directly contradicted by the following: [/QUOTE] I’m reading through your link and I’m coming up empty where you got the second quote from. I don’t see it anywhere on the page. Is it from a link on the page for the link you provided? Here is what is on the page from your link: > [@](#): > > India joins anti-Taliban coalition > > By Rahul Bedi > > India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. > > Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance’s capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries’ collaborative effort. > > The 13 February fall of Bamiyan, after several days of heavy fighting, threatened to cut off the only land route from Kabul to Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan. However, media reports indicate that Taliban forces recaptured the town on 17 February. > > India is believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defence advisors, including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing tactical advice in operations against the Taliban. > > Twenty-five Indian army doctors and male nurses are also believed to be treating Northern Alliance troops at a 20-bed hospital at Farkhor, close to the Afghan-Tajik border. The Statesman newspaper quoting Indian officials said the medical contingent is being financed from Delhi. > > Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban. > > Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia’s security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. “All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism,” he said. > > Military sources indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia. They also hinted at the presence of a small Russian force actively assisting Massoud in the Panjsher Valley. “The situation in Afghanistan cannot be ignored as it impinges directly on the 12-year old Kashmir insurgency,” an Indian military official said, adding that the Northern Alliance’s elimination by the Taliban would be “disastrous” for India. This is all from after the US invasion of Afghanistan and I don’t see how it contradicts what Tom was saying at all…in fact, it seems to really not have anything to do with anything under discussion. I can’t speak to your second quote since it doesn’t seem to be related to your link…did you forget the second link? Also, could you elucidate a bit on what you think the discrepancies are exactly, perhaps provide some minimal detail on where you are going with this? Just for drill, from the Wiki link I used several times earlier in the thread, here is the time table for Afghanistan post 9/11: > [@](#): > > 2001 September 11 September 11, 2001 attacks: Members of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization, headquartered in Afghanistan (As feared by USA), committed a series of terrorist attacks on the commercial and military centers of the United States. > > September 20 United States president George W. Bush demanded that the Afghan government turn over all resident al-Qaeda members to the United States and close all resident terrorist training camps. > > September 21 The government refused Bush’s ultimatum. > > October 7 War in Afghanistan (2001–present): The United States began an aerial bombing campaign against the Taliban. > > 2003 December 14 2003 loya jirga: A 502-delegate loya jirga (an attempt at a national council) was convened to consider a new Afghan constitution by US. > > 2004 October 9 Afghanistan holds its first democratic presidential elections. -XT ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/645 "2009-06-16T22:26:37Z")
There’s plenty of information that contradicts what **Tomndebb** said above all you have to do is look for it and I’m not sure why he didn’t. > [@](#): > > Interestingly, the U.S. showed absolutely no interest in Afghanistan between January 20, 2001 and September 11, 2001. None. Here’s some right here: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/) > [@](#): > > President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/646 "2009-06-16T22:32:14Z")
Seriously…this link talks about plans by the Bush administration to attack al-Qaida (which, you know, was in Afghanistan). The fact that he was only just getting around to this in September is a good indication of the low priority the Bush administration had concerning AQ…and, tangentially, the Taliban who were aiding and sheltering them. I’m not sure what you think this proves, except as a nitpick against Tom. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/647 "2009-06-16T22:38:20Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The point of the list of pipeline ‘players’ list isn’t to prove the petrochemical hypothesis, but to demonstrate a clear link between the Taliban and… well, something. You don’t seem to understand exactly what the phrase “a clear link” means. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/648 "2009-06-16T23:23:03Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Your statement seems to be directly contradicted by the following: I will admit that the first link indiucates that the U.S. provided some undetermined amount of intelligence and logistic support to countries actively opposing the Taliban during the summer of 2001. I had not been aware of that support, although I note that it was pretty much background stuff. The second quote ([taken from this BBC item](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm)) and the subsequent quote about Bush being “expected to” order direct confrontation with al Qaida, (not Afghanistan), are both anecdotes that were conveniently aired in the aftermath of the WTC/Pentagon attacks and look a lot like ass-covering. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/649 "2009-06-17T02:57:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The second quote ([taken from this BBC item](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm)) and the subsequent quote about Bush being “expected to” order direct confrontation with al Qaida, (not Afghanistan), are both anecdotes that were conveniently aired in the aftermath of the WTC/Pentagon attacks and look a lot like ass-covering. Ass covering for what? Are you trying to say that the administration of the time was trying to give the impression they were going to attack Afghanistan prior to 911? ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/650 "2009-06-17T03:02:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Seriously…this link talks about plans by the Bush administration to attack al-Qaida (which, you know, was in Afghanistan). The fact that he was only just getting around to this in September is a good indication of the low priority the Bush administration had concerning AQ…and, tangentially, the Taliban who were aiding and sheltering them. I’m not sure what you think this proves, except as a nitpick against Tom. > > -XT You’re all over the place, try re-reading the last couple of posts, the information that I provided directly contradicted what **tomndebb** said. This is no nitpick, he’s speaking matter of factly and in absolute terms about an item that has been contradicted by other information. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/651 "2009-06-17T04:16:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You don’t seem to understand exactly what the phrase “a clear link” means. 😛 Good one. One point for you. Let me clarify that. There is a true story of a $2 billion construction plan with the Taliban. It makes a splash and defines a set of relationships. Taliban guys in Texas, Argentinians in Afghanistan, all to make a buck. The list of ‘players’ gives a sense of scale to the web of transactions. A claim of ‘aiding and abetting’ by the Taliban to AQ should similarly have some examples. Not $2 billion worth? That’s ok- what do ya got? Analyze the data, map out the transactions, and you can get a sense of scale of the relationship. One point to Tomndebb for an article describing Omar talking to OBL. The link says they had a chat. > [@](#): > > Mullah Mohammed Omar, the cleric who founded the Taliban movement, had a chat with bin Laden. “We told him,” the mullah told TIME, “that as a guest he shouldn’t involve himself in activities that create problems for us.” Anyway, he added, “how can he do these bomb explosions when he’s sitting so far away?” Do you believe they had a face-to-face? Two points if you can prove that. Was it a telephone call? Still, good one! Let’s look at the ‘players’ in that article, no? -Osama Bin Laden -Embassy bombings -Saudi millionaire -Charitable and educational Islamic organizations -OBL’s headquarters -Jalalabad -computers, satellites -international news like TIME and CNN -Suspect #1 -‘heroic’ US military installation bombers -clerics -Saudi Arabia -Islamic front -US -Persian Gulf -Muslim radicals -mujahedin -Soviet Union -The Legend of OBL -Islamic terror groups -troops -safe haven, camps, finance, organization -Egypt, Algeria, Palestine, Phillippinnees, Jordan. -Sudan -US pressure -Islamist rulers -the head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al Faisal -black-turbaned Taliban leaders -Mullah Mohammed Omar, the cleric who founded the Taliban movement -Bin Laden’s lair -cozy relations with radical Islamists in next-door Pakistan -photos from their spy satellites -business as usual Now there are two examples. What do you think? Is the method worth a damn? I should add that as of 911, OBL must have been able to get the news that he had a giant bulls-eye painted on his ass. Being a mujahideen guerrilla terrorist agent instructor, he takes to the hills like Rambo on crack. In all seriousness, how are the Taliban going to catch him? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/652 "2009-06-17T04:38:16Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I don’t see what you mean. If P was proven, we wouldn’t need Occam. Occam’s Razor applies when something is not proven, to select the simplest case from those that are possible. The adjustments to make it fit are pretty much semantic, and so not an out-of-bounds stretch. Take it this way: If x is doing P, then Q Q is a punishment on x. Therefore, P makes you bad. Really bad. The point is that Q does not imply that x is actually doing P, or that x is bad. Take the reverse case that I didn’t treat. How does Occam’s Razor confound the argumentum ad baculum? Well, since Q does not imply P, than the simplest explanation is very simple: Q. Now do you see what I mean? ---
**Author:** ![Feek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Feek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Feek)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/653 "2009-06-17T04:48:43Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > **4) One or more of the four aircraft supposed to have been hijacked was empty and flown by remote control.** > Unlikely, but possible. I’ve read this whole thread, and was planning on lurking, but when I hear the “empty plane, remote controlled” hypothesis, it bothers me. It bothers me because my wife worked at TJX Corporation during 2001, and personally knew and worked daily with some of the people that died on the planes that hit the WTC. Since that time, I myself have met some of the families that were affected by this. If the planes were empty, what happened to those people? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/654 "2009-06-17T05:21:22Z")
A better formulation is: Therefore, P is cause for war. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/655 "2009-06-17T05:41:00Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The adjustments to make it fit are pretty much semantic, and so not an out-of-bounds stretch. > Take it this way: > If x is doing P, then Q > Q is a punishment on x. > Therefore, P makes you bad. Really bad. > > The point is that Q does not imply that x is actually doing P, or that x is bad. Let me see if I can put this back in the context of the thread. x = the Taliban government of Afghanistan P = harboring Al Qaida Q = The U.S. invades Afghanistan Is that correct, or at least a valid analogy? > [@](#): > > Take the reverse case that I didn’t treat. How does Occam’s Razor confound the argumentum ad baculum? > > Well, since Q does not imply P, than the simplest explanation is very simple: > Q. Given that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, you conclude that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. I don’t think anyone would argue with you there. > [@](#): > > Now do you see what I mean? Probably not. What conclusion are you trying to draw? In your argument, what is Q? And x and P while you’re at it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/656 "2009-06-17T06:22:27Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Ass covering for what? Are you trying to say that the administration of the time was trying to give the impression they were going to attack Afghanistan prior to 911? al Qaida, not Afghanistan, but sure. Not in some sort of devious wheels-within-wheels way like the _Bourne_ stories or _24_, but just in the sort of routine, “Hey! We were working on it.” way that most people and organizations react to disasters. You don’t find it just a little bit convenient that just after the attacks there is a story about how Bush was about to sign an order before the attacks but did not happen to get around to doing it? At any rate, as I already noted, that purported order was directed against al Qaida and not Afghanistan, directly. At some point, your conjectures begin to come off much like **ivan astikov** ’s game of whack-a-mole, where every refutation of any improbable scenario is simply met with a different improbable scenario. You folks just “know” that there had to have been a conspiracy by the U.S. government, you simply haven’t figured out which of the millions of possible conspiracies might have been the one used. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/657 "2009-06-17T06:30:01Z")
@ Robot Arm: You are intended to be convinced that the Taliban are guilty of harboring Al Qaeda because that is the simplest explanation for why they were attacked. But the US attacking them doesn’t imply that the Taliban actually were harboring AQ. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. If they weren’t, then the fact of the matter is that AQ is irrelevant to the issue of war with the Taliban’s Afghanistan. The argument collapses to Q. That is, war, period. The rest is an excuse/politics/exploiting the situation etc. The above could be debunked. It is one of several possible cases. It explains my interest in the question of whether or not the Taliban _could_ capture OBL if they tried. If they couldn’t, then the above case is more likely. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/658 "2009-06-17T06:46:14Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > It explains my interest in the question of whether or not the Taliban _could_ capture OBL if they tried. If they can’t, then the above case is more likely. In the thread it was already explained that in Sudan the Sudanese bowed to pressure from the US and other nations to expel Osama Bin Laden. Even if he could not be captured, it is clear that the Sudanese told Osama that the gig was up and that he would be hunted down if he did not leave. The Taliban IMHO was capable as the Sudanese on denying a safe heaven to Osama. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/659 "2009-06-17T06:56:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > In the thread it was already explained that in Sudan the Sudanese bowed to pressure from the US and other nations to expel Osama Bin Laden. > > Even if he could not be captured, it is clear that the Sudanese told Osama that the gig was up and that he would be hunted down if he did not leave. > > The Taliban IMHO was capable as the Sudanese on denying a safe heaven to Osama. The difference is that OBL had attempted to destroy the government of Sudan, or at least take out some of its prominent members. Sudan didn’t need any pressure to take an anti-OBL position. OBL demonstrated a potential to attack a government itself. This dangerous dude hides out in Afghanistan, where the government already has one civil war on its hands, and probably more (mujahedin originating) factions ready to erupt into conflict if provoked. They aren’t necessarily in a position to dictate all the terms of the situation. For instance, the $5 million bounty on OBL’s head from the US probably wasn’t enough incentive to risk getting on this guy’s target list. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/660 "2009-06-17T08:31:02Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The difference is that OBL had attempted to destroy the government of Sudan, or at least take out some of its prominent members. Sudan didn’t need any pressure to take an anti-OBL position. > > OBL demonstrated a potential to attack a government itself. This dangerous dude hides out in Afghanistan, where the government already has one civil war on its hands, and probably more (mujahedin originating) factions ready to erupt into conflict if provoked. They aren’t necessarily in a position to dictate all the terms of the situation. For instance, the $5 million bounty on OBL’s head from the US probably wasn’t enough incentive to risk getting on this guy’s target list. That only works by forgetting that it was also mentioned that the Taliban offered to send Bin Laden to another Islamic nation. I have to agree that the Taliban had a way to get to Bin Laden. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=34)