Why did the Bush administration blame OBL for 9/11 instead of Saddam?

[More Than A Feeling]

Since they ultimately ended up with a conspiracy anyway to frame Saddam for WMD, why not skip that and pin 9/11 on him? Wouldn't Bin Laden be a big waste of time and unnecessary distraction if they didn't either genuinely believe it was him, or they didn't want it to be him but couldn't ignore that fact?

[deconstruct911]

1. Why does Afghanistan produce 90% of the worlds opium for heroin

and not Iraq?

Why are we still dealing with the opium trade when it would literally be cheaper to buy it all and burn it? Think about it, might help answr your question "why Bin Laden" why "Afghanistan."

[SDuderstadt]

2. Do you seriously not believe that...

we were attacked by bin Laden and Al Qaeda on 9/11?

[jakeXT]

3. He's probably still waiting

http://web.archive.org/web/20050205072717/http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/5012.htm

QUESTION: Are you absolutely convinced that Usama bin Laden was responsible for this attack?

SECRETARY POWELL: I am absolutely convinced that the al-Qaida network, which he heads, was responsible for this attack. You know, it's sort of al-Qaida -- the Arab name for it is "the base"-- it's something like a holding company of terrorist organizations that are located in dozens of countries around the world, sometimes tightly controlled, sometimes loosely controlled. And at the head of that organization is Usama bin Laden. So what we have to do in the first phase of this campaign is to go after al-Qaida and go after Usama bin Laden. But it is not just a problem in Afghanistan; it's a problem throughout the world. That's why we are attacking it with a worldwide coalition.

QUESTION: Will you release publicly a white paper, which links him and his organization to this attack, to put people at ease?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think, in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack. And also, remember, he has been linked to earlier attacks against US interests and he was already indicated for earlier attacks against the United States.

[SDuderstadt]

5. You guys have got to be...

fucking kidding.

[deconstruct911]

6. The thing is

if they knew all the 93 bombers before it happened, do YOU seriously think I should believe they knew even less about 9/11?

I know for sure they knew of the plot in advance and did nothing and then covered it up.... So how can I take the OCT seriously, SDuderstadt?

[SDuderstadt]

7. Bullshit, dude...

Your idea of "proof" differs greatly from mine.

[deconstruct911]

8. Call ripley's

Sduderstadt just realized we don't agree!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFD71039F934A15753C1A965958260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6DF1138F93BA15753C1A965958260
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmcidzFa4hg

Maybe because sometimes I actually have facts to support my claims, and sometimes you don't.....

[SDuderstadt]

9. Dude...

Let's take the first NYT link. Can you explain how, specifically, that supports your claim?

[deconstruct911]

10. Maybe we should take another look at my claim:

"if they knew all the 93 bombers before it happened, do YOU seriously think I should believe they knew even less about 9/11?"

[zappaman]

12. well, they are different cases

If I know a bank is going to be robbed tomorrow in NY, should I know a bank is going to be robbed in NY next year?
Do you really believe it's impossible that our law agencies fucked up and missed this?

[deconstruct911]

14. Not impossible

but I think all 4 links should be put into context before you conclude they missed it. Apparently Salem also mentions "Operation Bojinka" where the intelligence community allegedly first learned of the plot to use airliners as missiles on prominent targets is the US...

[reinvestigate911]

17. why did bin laden initially DENY responsibility for the attacks?

the terror attack that IMMORTALIZED him...
the terror attack that terror organizations around the world scrambled to take credit for...

what purpose would it serve to deny it?

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US

[SDuderstadt]

18. Because admitting it would have gotten him thrown out of...

Afghanistan.

Duh.

[reinvestigate911]

19. But isn't that why we're occupying Afghy now?

Because the Taliban provided bin Laden safe harbor so he could establish terrorist training camps... right, "dude"?

Don't look now, but I'm pretty sure that your amazing powers of critical thinking just misfired.

[SDuderstadt]

20. You need to educate yourself about...

the terms under which the Italian extended bin Laden.

The level of ignorance about the actual facts of 9/11 on the part of many "truthers" is nothing less than stunning.

[reinvestigate911]

21. hmm? The "Italian"?

Care to clarify this statement and how it's relevant to the discussion at hand?

You need to educate yourself about the terms under which the Italian extended bin Laden.

Are you fucking high?
The "Italian"? How they "extended bin Laden"?

It's beyond ironic that you're lecturing me on the "actual facts of 9/11".

You're funny, "dude".

[SDuderstadt]

22. It's called the auto-correct feature on an...

Android smartphone, dude. It was supposed to be the "Taliban". Do you deny they imposed conditions upon bin Laden when he was expelled from the Sudan.

Do you honestly deny this, dude?

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. Not according to one of your fellow debunkers...

He seems to think the Taliban would have protected bin Laden. They kept demanding concete PROOF that bin Laden was involved and they would turn him over. Then they offered to turn him over to a neutral 3rd country. One of your fellow debunkers claimed that no proof would have been good enough and the Taliban would never turn him over.

So how do feel about that? Do you think the Taliban would have turned him over if Bush had provided concrete evidence that bin Laden was involved?

[SDuderstadt]

24. No...

"being expelled" does not equal "being turned over to the U.S."

You can trust the Taliban if you'd like, Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. So they would just kick him out of the country for breaking their laws

but they wouldn't turn him over for prosecution for breaking those same laws??

Noam Chomsky: No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

On October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.

Specifically, as the Guardian writes:

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn 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" ...

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/11/chomsky-no-evidence-that-al-qaeda.html

You can trust the Bush Administration if you want to, too, dude. I sure as hell wouldn't.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Stupid strawman, Ghost...

I said nothing about trusting the Bush administration.

There are multiple problems with the "Taliban said they would turn bin Laden over with proof claim. But, you can buy it uncritically if you want.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. Thanks for defining your previous post

.. because I said nothing about trusting the taliban. You always mentions all these "problems" or "flaws" or "mistakes", yet you never show any proof of them. How about you back up your assertion with some kind of actual proof, evidence, link.. something, hell ANYTHING, besides just your naked assertions.

Thanks in advance

[SDuderstadt]

28. Ghost...

I never once said that you trusted the Taliban...I said that you can trust them if you want to. Do you see the difference?

Simple question, Ghost. Did you subject that claim to any degree of critical scrutiny whatsoever? Icm willing to bet you didn't.

[Ghost in the Machine]

29. Can you ever answer a simple question without dissembling or distracting?

I never once said YOU trusted the Bush Administration, I said you could trust them if you wanted to. I turned your own words around on you, and suddenly it's a strawman? I even showed you evidence of WHY you shouldn't trust them.

You said "There are multiple problems with the "Taliban said they would turn bin Laden over with proof claim."

I asked you for evidence, or proof, of these problems. You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now would be a good time to do so. Just your saying so doesn't make it so.

As for your "simple question".... sorry, you don't get any more answers until you start providing some yourself. You always seem to want to answer a direct question, or request, with a question or request of your own. Either back up your assertion like you were asked to in the previous post, or admit that "you ain't got dick", as you like to say.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Dude...

First, you need to prove that the Taliban did offer to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. That's your claim, not mine.

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. More dissembling and distracting, instead of proving your claim, doesn't work with me, dude

You already KNOW they offered, or you wouldn't have said there were "problems" with the offer. You're getting ridiculous, dude, but I'll toss you a bone here:

Zaeef reiterated the Taliban insistence that it would not turn over bin Laden without receiving evidence of his participation in the Sept. 11 attacks on America, and he called again for talks with the United States, which President Bush already has rejected.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-worldtrade-taliban-chi,0,7225586.story

The Taliban have offered to hand over Bin Laden before but only if sufficient evidence was presented. Bin Laden is wanted both for the September 11 attacks and for masterminding the bombings of two US embassies in East Africa in 1998 in which 224 people were killed. He is also suspected of involvement in other terrorist attacks, including the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last year.

But until now the Taliban regime has consistently said it has not seen any convincing evidence to implicate the Saudi dissident in any crime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

Your next reply shouldn't contain anything but your proof of your assertions. No more distractions, no more questions, no more dissembling. Anything other than you backing up your assertions will expose you as nothing more than a nusiance/distraction operative bent on derailing discussion. That's just how it is, and how it's going to be. It's time for you to either shit or get off the pot, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Here are my exact words, Ghost

"There are multiple problems with the "Taliban said they would turn bin Laden over with proof claim."

Talk about dissembling. Duh.

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. What are these problems? Why can't you answer a simple fucking question?

Yeah, talk about dissembling, alright...

[SDuderstadt]

34. Ghost...

YOU'RE the one that made the initial claim. I am asking you for proof of YOUR claim. Do you stand by it or not? Do you notice the material contradictions in the various accounts?

What I am asking you is whether you subjected the claim to any sort of critical scrutiny or just bought it hook, line and sinker.

Please quit pretending that I made the initial claim, because all you're trying to do is shift the burden if proof.

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. Pure bullshit, SDude, pure bullshit....

YOU made the claim that admitting responsibility "would have gotten him kicked out of Afghanistan".

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-21-11 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Because admitting it would have gotten him thrown out of...
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 09:26 PM by SDuderstadt
Afghanistan.

Duh.

YOU haven't backed up that claim. Here's the catch, dude.. if bin Laden would have admitted it, that would have been concrete proof enough for the Taliban to turn him over to the US, would it not? YOU are the one claiming they would have just kicked him out of the country instead. Back that claim up. Now.

"Do you notice the material contradictions in the various accounts?"

There were no "material contradictions". Try using some of those "logic" and "comprehension skills" you always tell others to use. The reports are from different time frames. Bush demanded they turn him over. They said "give us evidence". Bush said "turn him over or we start bombing". They still demanded evidence. Bush started bombing, saying "we don't need to discuss guilt or innocence, we know he's guilty". Given this, the Taliban then offered to either try him under Islamic Law (if they were provided evidence), or turn him over to a neutral 3rd country to try him. Why would they do that, dude? Two reasons: 1. To stop the bombing... 2. The US has already declared him guilty without evidence or a trial, thus assuring he would never get a fair trial anyways.

"What I am asking you is whether you subjected the claim to any sort of critical scrutiny or just bought it hook, line and sinker."

I already told you, you don't get to ask any more questions until you start answering the ones that are asked of you. Answering a question with a question isn't an answer, it's a distraction.


"Please quit pretending that I made the initial claim, because all you're trying to do is shift the burden if proof."

I have already shown, above, that you did in fact make the initial claim that started this sub-thread. The only one here shifting any burden of proof is you, dude. That has been made perfectly clear. You have exposed yourself for everyone to see. Quit dissembling and distracting and start providing some answers and proof of your assertions.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Simple question, Ghost...

do you deny that the Taliban imposed conditions upon bin Laden when he was expelled from the Sudan and Afghanistan took him in?

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. Do you understand english?

I told you, no more questions until you provide answers to questions that have already been asked of you. Cease your dissembling/distraction tactics and answer the fucking question.

Thanks

[SDuderstadt]

38. I apparently understand English better than you...

Ghost.

I'm asking you a clarifying question, which you won't answer, because it undermines your bluster. You're in no position to dictate conditions.

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. Apparently you don't, hence all your dissembling and distraction

Prove your initial claim that the Taliban would have simply kicked bin Laden out of Afghanistan. You won't because you can't. Dissembling, distraction and factual inaccuracies seems to be all you have.

I have to step out for a while, hopefully you can come up with your proof by the time I return. ( I only tell you this because I had to go pick up my daughter from school one day and, during my absense, got accused of either running away, or being "feverishly searching google" for something to back up my claim)


Peace,

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

41. Ghost...

Apparently you missed what I said.

Take your time.

[deconstruct911]

39. This is certainly a strange one

The Taliban definitely imposed conditions on Bin Laden to secure Afghanistan from NATO occupation...

What do make of Mullah Omar's decision to ban opium cultivation in late 2000?

[More Than A Feeling]

13. Isn't that a little like suggesting that

Hurricane Katrina was deliberately planned because Mike Brown couldn't possibly be less competent than James Lee Witt?

[deconstruct911]

15. Sure

but it's also logical to assume if they had fairly specific knowledge about a car bombing at the WTC it's unlikely they would have virtually no knowledge about a significantly more complex operation at the exact same place.

[SDuderstadt]

16. More bullshit...

Please elaborate on why that would be true.

[More Than A Feeling]

11. I hadn't considered the opium yet,

but it seems like its in the same category as Afghanistan's mineral wealth, and raises the same issues:

"Why not in the 80's when we were friendly with the people because we weren't Soviets?" Why not a bargain with the Taliban in exchange for ending sanctions?"

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. the names sounded the same to Bush