NEWS: The Grievances of Al Qaeda

That's a complete lie, or to be kinder, completely wrong. You can't say something like that without backing it up.

The Saudis asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden in 1998, the Taliban refused. The US made an ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden in 2001, the Taliban refused.

However, the Sudanese offered to hand Bin Laden over in the early 90's, but Clinton refused because he couldn't see how he could be proscecuted in a court of law. This is why treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue is insane.



[Edited on Jul 14, 2005 by stockula]

Oh, the irony...

*Bookmarks post*

I'll be kind, and assume you haven't backed up any of your assertions because you couldn't be bothered.

Look here.

Edit to boldface characters.

[Edited on Jul 15, 2005 by waldo]

1. You dont link to your source.

2. If this is true, can't you see why this is unacceptable? Bin Laden plots and finances an attack on US soil. The US wants him for the crime he committed. The Taliban say, "Well, we'll send him to another country. How about that?"

Imagine another country asking the same thing of a killer apprehended in their territory, who committed crimes in America. America wants him extradited to face justice. Other country says "Well, what if we send him to a disinterested 3rd country and have him stand trial there?" That's absurd. Especially in light of the mind-boggling crime Bin Laden perpetrated. The Taliban were not in a position to negotiate or demand anything, and they paid for their stupidity.

I most certainly did link to my source. Not to the actual paragraph, true. But I'm sure you can scroll down without my help.

The problem with extradition, so far as I undertand it, is that you have to provide evidence. Just demanding the guy isn't good enough. The Taleban demanded evidence, Bush wouldn't supply, so they offered an extradition elsewhere.

Now, think of what would have happened if the Taleban had coughed up.
1) bin Laden would have gone on trial in the USA.
2) The Taleban leadership would have been discredited in the eyes of Islamist extremists.
3) No American servicemen would have died in Afghanistan.
4) America's reputation wouldn't have been damaged by excesses in Bagram.
5) You'd have saved shitloads of tax dollars.

All of those are bonuses. Aren't they, stock?

And meanwhile, large chunks of Afghanistan are still run by warlords, and bin Laden is out there somewhere.
Because GWB posed for his audience instead of getting the job done.



[Edited on Jul 15, 2005 by waldo]

And why not a symbolic release of white doves too?

There can't be a trippier piece of bullshit in print.

Osama Bin Laden wasn't, isn't, and never will be going to trial anywhere by any means other than the Manuel Noreiga Express. *rolls eyes*

Oddly enough many countries are happy with international criminals being tried in international courts. The US's hatred of an international court is an odd, and disappointing, stance.

oh the pointless comments

And why not, exactly?

Did you have a point here? If so, what was it?

The fact remains, Bush had the chance to see bin Laden in American custody, and he blew it.

We don't like international courts because we prefer that people be tried in America for crimes committed in American jurisdiction.

Nope. Read what you posted:

He would have never been in American custody. Clinton had the best chance to see bin Laden in American custody, but he passed it up because of a lack of evidence to try him.

And the fact that we don't want international law to apply to Americans...

International law is not confined by the Constitution, so it should not be applied to anyone under the jurisdiction of the American government.

Most people would agree that countries should have whatever laws they want active within their borders. Sadly not the US government, who pressured countries such as the Chez Republic to change the laws in their own countries to be what suited the US. Namely not fully signing up to the international court.

To imply that Western foreign policy is not in meaningful and specific ways related to the actions of Al Qaeda is just silly.

Hitchens makes many good points in regard to the Muslim fundamentalists desire to take us back to the 7th Century (whereas Christian fundamentalists only want to take us back to the 17th), but much of what we did in the Cold War to fight the "spread of communism" added to the choices and decisions made in the reconfiguration of the middle east after the 1st and 2nd WWs, are at the roots of the situations that we face today.

Besides, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda or the war on terror. The basis for the war in Iraq was established in 1992 and was on the agenda of the Bushies when they took office in 2001.

Terrorism or Guerilla warfare is multidetermined and related to many facts and circumstances. But it is usually a tool used by the less powerful to get back at or weaken the more powerful. Lest anyone forget, the actions engaged in my the "revolutionaries" post 1776 were terroristic and included many of the same means that are used to day, though considerably lower tech.

This is not an apology for murder, it is only an acknowledgement of simple fact. They are wrong and we are wrong. The only innocent parties here are the civilians killed in New York, Madrid, London, Tel Aviv, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and Iraq.