Footwedge;832559 wrote:I have also read that the Taliban desperated wanted to turn him over through a "deal" but the US was not in the mood to work out "deals". Now with that said, I can't verify this information with declassified memos....so I can't claim it to be factual.

If the Taliban desperately wanted to turn bin laden over they should have immediately arrested him. They did not and in the end were defiant enough to go to war over the fate of bin laden. No deals, unconditional surrender. Its the same terms we had the last time our nation or its territories were attacked.

Mr. Bush demanded in his speech before members of Congress that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, release imprisoned Americans, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps. These demands are not open to discussion, Mr. Bush said. "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."

The Taliban envoy added that his government was ready if necessary to defend the country against American attack.

"If they want to show their might, we are ready and we will never surrender before might and force," Zaeef said. "According to Islam, the blood of anyone who spies for the enemy or sympathizes with it in time of war must be shed."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

majorspark;832568 wrote:If the Taliban desperately wanted to turn bin laden over they should have immediately arrested him. They did not and in the end were defiant enough to go to war over the fate of bin laden. No deals, unconditional surrender. Its the same terms we had the last time our nation or its territories were attacked.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

What does that gave to do with the Taliban attacking us on 9-11? They didn;y attack us on 9-11....and they DID denounce that were responsible for 8-11.

Given the imminent pounding that were about to receive, it makes sense that they would at least covertly attempt to save their hide. Again, I have no proof that they did so.

I'm not saying that the Taliban reminded people of the Red Cross. They were brutal people in how they ran their country. My point to WB was that they did not attack us on 9-11. Al Quada did.

Footwedge;832528 wrote:

Writerbuckeye;831651 wrote:As noted, he could have walked away from all that once the Taliban attacked the US -- but he did not.

That means he CHOSE to remain as part of an organization at war with the US.

He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, so far as I'm concerned.

The truth is that the Taliban did not attack us. What they did was provide a safe haven for bin Ladin and his minions. There is a difference.

Precisely. People confuse the Taliban and AQ pre 9-11. AQ attacked us on 9-11. Only after we invaded Afghanistan did AQ and the Taliban join forces to fight a common enemy in their eyes.

majorspark;832554 wrote:The Taliban also refused to turn over bin laden after it was known that he planned and ordered the 9/11 attacks from within their sovereign state borders. Their refusal was an act of war. It made the Taliban government in Afghanistan accomplices in the attack.

I don't really see how it makes them accomplices. I believe it makes them our enemy, but if they did not help plan or carry out the attack I don't see them as accomplices.

dwccrew;832917 wrote:Precisely. People confuse the Taliban and AQ pre 9-11. AQ attacked us on 9-11. Only after we invaded Afghanistan did AQ and the Taliban join forces to fight a common enemy in their eyes.

Don't be fooled. Pre 9/11 the Taliban knew who was operating in their territory and why. They sympathized with bin laden's cause. If they did not he would have been persona non grata. They knew of his declaration of war against the United States. It was public knowledge.

dwccrew;832917 wrote:I don't really see how it makes them accomplices. I believe it makes them our enemy, but if they did not help plan or carry out the attack I don't see them as accomplices.

By saying their actions make them our enemy, are you saying their actions were an act of war?

The Taliban government in Afghanistan was a totalitarian regime. Like all totalitarian regimes government "minders" accompany political agitators such as bin laden anywhere they go. The Taliban leadership admitted they had direct communication with Taliban security personnel that traveled with bin laden. The Taliban were aware of who came in and out of bin laden's inner circle. Perhaps they chose to keep themselves willfully ignorant of the details, but knowing how totalitarian regimes work I have my doubts. Regardless in the end the Taliban chose to use armed force to prevent the apprehension of bin laden. Thus implicating them in the act of war.

Say you own a home. An individual helped you in securing the purchase of that home. He helped you with the down payment. Later he asks to if you can help him out. He has found himself to be in some legal trouble. He needs a place to stay until it blows over. The authorities are making it hard for him to find a place to stay. You share his distaste for the "man". Though not wanting any trouble with the "man", you allow him to stay at your home. You keep a close eye on him. You notice radical individuals coming and going. Meetings, rehearsals, and training events. All geared towards a confrontation with the "man".

You could take no chances and just kick this individual out now and live happily ever after oppressing your wife. But you just can't. You sympathize with his cause against the "man". The leader of the local home owners association who share your sympathies may just kick you out. So you let him stay. In fact you want him to stay.

Breaking news the local police station has been blown up by a suicide bomber. Now the local bank is leveled. A bomb laden bus attack was thwarted on city hall. In the aftermath its all pointing to the individual you have harbored in your home. The authorities begin to surround your home. They ask for you to peacefully surrender the individual in your home for trial. They have no beef with you. Fuck you is your response. I will resist your efforts to take him with the force of arms. One could argue on the complicity of prior acts. You are now complicit in the act. You are now an accomplice in the crime.

I just got around to reading this thread, wasn't there one about this earlier when Johnny's dad got a NYT editorial page?

I can't believe anyone could be so stupid to think this kid doesn't deserve every second of his jail sentence, if anything he got off light. At any rate I'm positive we discussed this here before, of course this failure's father (who is a failure in his own way) should be given 100% credence.

I was correct, Lindh's daddy's NYT column was up in May, and was overwhelmingly criticized by those of all political persuasions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/opinion/22lindh.html

majorspark;834011 wrote:Don't be fooled. Pre 9/11 the Taliban knew who was operating in their territory and why. They sympathized with bin laden's cause. If they did not he would have been persona non grata. They knew of his declaration of war against the United States. It was public knowledge.



By saying their actions make them our enemy, are you saying their actions were an act of war?

The Taliban government in Afghanistan was a totalitarian regime. Like all totalitarian regimes government "minders" accompany political agitators such as bin laden anywhere they go. The Taliban leadership admitted they had direct communication with Taliban security personnel that traveled with bin laden. The Taliban were aware of who came in and out of bin laden's inner circle. Perhaps they chose to keep themselves willfully ignorant of the details, but knowing how totalitarian regimes work I have my doubts. Regardless in the end the Taliban chose to use armed force to prevent the apprehension of bin laden. Thus implicating them in the act of war.

Say you own a home. An individual helped you in securing the purchase of that home. He helped you with the down payment. Later he asks to if you can help him out. He has found himself to be in some legal trouble. He needs a place to stay until it blows over. The authorities are making it hard for him to find a place to stay. You share his distaste for the "man". Though not wanting any trouble with the "man", you allow him to stay at your home. You keep a close eye on him. You notice radical individuals coming and going. Meetings, rehearsals, and training events. All geared towards a confrontation with the "man".

You could take no chances and just kick this individual out now and live happily ever after oppressing your wife. But you just can't. You sympathize with his cause against the "man". The leader of the local home owners association who share your sympathies may just kick you out. So you let him stay. In fact you want him to stay.

Breaking news the local police station has been blown up by a suicide bomber. Now the local bank is leveled. A bomb laden bus attack was thwarted on city hall. In the aftermath its all pointing to the individual you have harbored in your home. The authorities begin to surround your home. They ask for you to peacefully surrender the individual in your home for trial. They have no beef with you. Fuck you is your response. I will resist your efforts to take him with the force of arms. Making you complicit in the act. You are now an accomplice in the crime.

Meh, I'd say you aren't an accomplice to the crime but you have committed a seperate, new, crime. It's all really semantics.

And actually, the more I think about this the less upset I am. I mean, I don't think he's a terrorist per se like most of you do but at the same time I can see how he was at best naive in thinking what he was doing was right. Plus I'm not really cool with fighting literally for one's religion anyway so he gets points off for that too. I'd be far more upset if it were life imprisonment or the death penalty involved.

"Please actually read the thing if you're going to comment on it because without reading it we'll just have a bunch of you talking about how he was a terrorist. Which if you read the article isn't the case."

Did you read the article? Who wrote it? God IWP sometimes you post good stuff but how did you get bamboozled into this? This is nothing more than a failed parent's attempt to whitewash the situation. And where were you in May when Lindh did his American apology/BS tour?

FYI for those who are interested, the Taliban was declared off-limits by the Clinton administration in 1999:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/clinton_13129.asp

Manhattan Buckeye;834024 wrote:"Please actually read the thing if you're going to comment on it because without reading it we'll just have a bunch of you talking about how he was a terrorist. Which if you read the article isn't the case."

Did you read the article? Who wrote it? God IWP sometimes you post good stuff but how did you get bamboozled into this? This is nothing more than a failed parent's attempt to whitewash the situation. And where were you in May when Lindh did his American apology/BS tour?

Didn't know anything about the situation until I read the article.

The more I think about it the less I give a shit about Lindh.

You should read it again, and the NYT article I posted. Lindh's father is misrepresenting much, if not outright lying, about practically every fact. I'll give the NYT credit for this, they gave him a short column, it appears in the UK they gave him a lot more rope to hang himself.

I actually think Frank is worse than his son, he was an incompetent father (who the HELL lets their 17 year old son go to Yemen by himself?) and his efforts to rewrite history are nothing short of pathetic. Being the son of him makes Johnny a sympathetic figure in itself. It would make more sense to me to let them both split the 20 years.

I Wear Pants;834023 wrote:Meh, I'd say you aren't an accomplice to the crime but you have committed a seperate, new, crime. It's all really semantics.

Do you think the Taliban regime prior to 9/11 was totally ignorant of why bin laden was operating within their state? Do you think they were unaware of his declaration of war against the United States? The Taliban leadership admits they had security personnel attached to him. For good reason. They did not want a political agitator stirring up any trouble. As long as he did not stir up any domestic trouble they were more than willing to harbor him. A muslim fighter that helped them defeat the atheist communist pinkos. A mutual distaste for American influence in the Middle East and American support for Israel. I'll wager the farm the Taliban regime had at least intelligence bin laden was up to something big if not direct knowledge of it. I guarandamntee you when the first plane hit the tower the Taliban leadership knew damn well where the finger would be pointed and who was responsible.

I Wear Pants;834023 wrote:And actually, the more I think about this the less upset I am. I mean, I don't think he's a terrorist per se like most of you do but at the same time I can see how he was at best naive in thinking what he was doing was right. Plus I'm not really cool with fighting literally for one's religion anyway so he gets points off for that too. I'd be far more upset if it were life imprisonment or the death penalty involved.

I don't think he was a "terrorist" either. I doubt his intentions were to harm civilians. He is a citizen of the US under their jurisdiction captured while fighting for an enemy force. Legally it puts him on a different footing. From what I understand of the case his sentence should be lenient.

Oh no, the Taliban were definitely aware of something I'm sure of that.

I should have clarified that I was commenting on the analogy you used and not on whether the Taliban were at some level involved or complicit in the 9/11 attacks.