[QUOTE=EasyPhil]
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
[/QUOTE]
I’m all over the place??? Let me repeat that…:p:p:p
You have GOT to be kidding. Man, you have been all over the place for the entire thread, going in every direction you can think of to try and make your bizarre theories work. You post a link to a supposed document that Bush was GOING to sign (as Tom says, convenient that, ehe?) about attacking AQ…and then wave your hands about that this proves that Tom overstated his case.
The fact that Bush (in theory) was only getting around to thinking about AQ enough to consider signing some document to start dealing with them 9 months(!!) after he was sworn in sort of indicates that they weren’t exactly a number one (or number 100) priority on his list…and this assumes that this wasn’t simply ass covering on Bush et al’s part (which I find MUCH more convincing). Oh, I’m sure the document was real…but I question that Bush was poised to sign it only days before the attack. Most likely he had intelligence types looking into AQ and threats from Eastern Mongolia and putting together position papers to be discussed when it was a slow day around the WH.
In the months before 9/11 ObL and the Taliban had called attention to themselves and probably got themselves pushed up the priority list. In March the Taliban dynamited the Buddhas of Bamyan, ancient art treasures. On September 9 al Qaida suicide bombers assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud, head of an anti-Taliban militia.
It isn’t clear that AQ is responsible for the assassination of Massoud. The story I read suggested it also might have been the Pakistani ISI, or yet another group… can’t remember now. I could find the link if you’re interested.
Or proven. It would be interesting to see the demonstration of that link.
But still, I have to agree with you. They might not share their intel, but they must have their reasons to think so. The only alternative I can think of is conspiracy logic.
I forgot to reply to this point.
The Taliban might have been more vulnerable. Remember, they were at the bottom of the world in terms of infant mortality, life expectancy, per capita income, etc. They were engaged in an ongoing civil war. They might have been the strongest warlord group, but they weren’t operating from a position of strength in relative global terms. Of course, Sudan isn’t the envy of the world either.
I’ve tilted at windmills. In my case, it was because it was an entertaining, but obviously fruitless, pastime, and I gave it up long before it became obvious that I was trading in lies to support a nonsensical claim.
Try2B, you long ago abandoned “tilting at windmills” and have adopted “pissing into the wind” as your MO. I am obviously more than twice your age, or I wouldn’t bother supporting you. Learn more about politics, realpolitik, religion, world history, structural engineering, etc. It seems dismissive, but an education into all of the above, and more, can turn you from “an obvious crank” to “someone we should listen to.”
When I first started arguing with troothers (probably before that term was even coined), I would try to tell them that a couple years at college would dispell their fear, misunderstandings, etc. You can’t learn a little science, world history, politics, and critical thinking skills and still believe this mess. The fallacies and junk science are laughably obvious to someone who has a little education in how to recognize them. They would always reply, though, that college just “indoctrinates” you, fills your head with lies, is controlled by the government etc :rolleyes:. It must be a frightful, lonely existence, thinking the whole world is out to get you.
Yes, there is that.
Part of that deal was presentation of evidence by the US that Bin Laden was responsible for 911. The Bush answer was, ‘We know he’s guilty. Hand him over.’ This supports the ‘go to war regardless’ hypothesis.
If OBL had the influence to incite Afghan factions into rebellion against the Taliban, this evidence might have been the thing needed to prevent that. That is, other powers in the region that had the same question would be persuaded that OBL wasn’t worth the trouble. Unless I’m mistaken, the consensus is that the Taliban weren’t aware of the 911 plot. It was apparently a big secret.
And remember, the ultimatum was given on 10/07/01. Plenty of time for OBL to hide out. Unless you think the Taliban should have apprehended OBL long before (as sufficient cause for war), or can prove they were engaged in material support of AQ. For instance, if as a Ramadan 2000 gift Omar sent to Bin Laden 10,000 AK47’s, it doesn’t really matter if they could catch OBL afterward. Evidence like that would force me to abandon my questioning of the motives for war against the Taliban.
As for the offer to send him to another country- well, nobody knows where he was in the first place. If OBL was already in Pakistan, the Taliban could claim credit for ejecting him.
You sound sure that the Taliban had a way to get OBL. If you think I’m ignoring some relevant evidence, please point it out. I’m really not stuck on any particular conclusion here.
ETA: The operable word is “obvious.” If Professionals “obviously” connect with you, be grateful, as they have not only craziness, but “If it’s wrong I’m fired” practicality supporting them. If Normals “obviously” connect with you, be suspicious. Normals can support conspiracy theories simply because their lives are otherwise boring. People who deny the basic facts can be tossed into the “to be ignored” born. Those who deny the scientific facts because they are “obviously” false are, er, obviously crazy. The only thing denying that fact is that we of the SDMB are not supposed to promote such claims, obvious as they may be,
The structural engineering bit suggests I’m a proponent of the demolition theory. I’m not.
As for the rest, I’m looking into it. I haven’t claimed to be the supreme expert on these things. I have some questions, people here seem to have made it their hobby or job to know the answers.
Not to mention that the JFK conspiracy theories have been going on for four and half decades, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have people taking them seriously after a century.
(Although to be fair, I suspect Try 2B meant this thread can’t go on forever.)
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive]
Part of that deal was presentation of evidence by the US that Bin Laden was responsible for 911. The Bush answer was, ‘We know he’s guilty. Hand him over.’ This supports the ‘go to war regardless’ hypothesis.
[/QUOTE]
The fact that all the evidence pointed to him, and he admitted it himself…well, that’s sort of convincing, ehe? Regardless, I don’t see it supports the ‘go to war regardless’ hypothesis…whether ObL was guilty or not, the Taliban could have easily turned him over.
The Taliban weren’t aware (from any evidence I’ve ever seen) of the plot. So what? They were still aiding and abetting AQ and ObL, and when asked to turn them over refused. End of story. Why this is so hard for you to grasp is beyond me.
What is your evidence that ObL hid out? What is your evidence that the Taliban tried to put their hands on him but couldn’t? What is your evidence that the Taliban wouldn’t know exactly where he was, given that he was hiding out in their territory? What is your evidence that the Taliban, failing to put their hands on him, decided to avoid embarrassment(?) and go to war with the US instead of saying ‘sorry guys, we can’t find him…give us more time!!’
You continually ask for cites and proof, and then when it is presented simply hand wave it away as not being conclusive…and then you use conjecture to bring up more things you want evidence about to convince you. Your turn…what do you base the little flight of fantasy and hand waving in the paragraph here on?
Even if HE wasn’t in Taliban territory (and I ask again, what do you base this conjecture on), there were a lot of high ranking AQ members that were. If the Taliban couldn’t put their hands on ObL (which I seriously doubt, considering the close relationship between the Taliban and ObL…and AQ’s dependence on the Taliban during the run up to 9/11), they could put their hands on those high ranking members. Turning them over to the US and claiming they couldn’t find ObL would most likely have been sufficient to stop or at least postpone the US/allied invasion of Afghanistan and the systematic targeting of Taliban positions.
It’s moot anyway, as has been pointed out to you…the Taliban rejected the offer to turn over Bin Laden or high ranking AQ members. Unless you have evidence that they tried to catch him, and then tried to tell us that they couldn’t (nor catch any high ranking AQ members)…do you?
You seem to be…and you seemingly have ignored everything put before you thus far. Has ANY of it convinced you? Because it seems not to have phased you at all.
To me, this request is disingenuous. There IS no hard evidence that the Taliban could have captured Bin Laden, obviously. As I pointed out already, it’s a moot question that can’t be answered because they chose not to even try. Circumstantially though, when the Sudan (a much weaker and less rigidly organized government…and one that ObL and AQ were less dependent on) started making noises that if AQ and ObL didn’t leave they were going to turn them over to the US, well, ObL and AQ took it seriously enough to get out of dodge. In Afghanistan, AQ was almost completely dependent on the Taliban. Their bases were in Taliban controlled regions. They were outsiders in an extremely clannish area…without the explicit support of the Taliban they would have been toast. In fact, to this day, without the tacit or explicit support of the clannish Afghani and Pakistani peoples in those mountains they would be dead meat.
While I agree that Try2B was referring to this thread, in terms of the conspiracy itself, it can go on forever.
Take the Kennedy assassination. I’ve been pleased to see a growing list of programs, NOVA, NBC (I think) and some books, Case Closed for example, coming to the conclusion that the Warren Commission was correct and that Oswald acting alone killed Kennedy. The evidence using computer simulation and modeling is very convincing, leveling no doubt in my mind. But that’s been glaringly obvious to me for a long time.
But new folks, or younger ones coming to the table and reading the conspiracy theories for the first time get sucked in. And as we can see from this thread, this weed is impossible to kill. For once one part is killed, another branch grows right beside it. Hell, we’ve got a 14 page thread discussing if OBL is part of AQ and why we went after him in AF! This is accepted and obvious to 99% of informed people but here we are. Frankly, you just run out of steam. And if Try2B is just determined to believe that the Easter Bunny is behind a vast 9/11 conspiracy all evidence to the contrary, than that’s just the way it is. Bottom line is these guys don’t want to hear the truth. They just want to believe. And he’ll poison a new batch of people investigating this of the first time and the death spiral will continue.
It seems to me that the world post-9/11 is dividing into three groups: those who believe it was definitely all down to “those damn A-rabs”, those who think there is more to it than we are being led to believe, and those who have yet to be converted either way, or just don’t give a shit.
I find the most arrogant group to be the one that claims to have all the answers.
Make up some parameters. Place yourself in a group that you think makes you look good. Place everybody who keeps proving you wrong in a group that you think makes them look bad. Insult everybody in the group that keeps proving you wrong.
Just to be clear, ivan, you have absolutely no interest in what really happened in the US on 9/11/2001, do you?
Let me repeat that…:p:p:p