How many of you believe in conspiracy theories?

[Sultan]

1998
United States and Taliban meeting regarding Osama Bin Laden

During secret meetings with U.S. officials in 1998, top Taliban officials discussed assassinating or expelling Osama bin Laden in response to al Qaeda's deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, according to State Department documents. [3]


2000
United States and Taliban meeting regarding Osama Bin Laden

United States and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.

He quoted Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil as saying:

"You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him".

"The message was: 'There is willingness to talk about handing over bin Laden', and the aim of the Taliban was clearly to win the recognition of the American Government and the lifting of the boycott," he said, referring to the international isolation of the Taliban. [4]

So both Bush AND Clinton could have stopped an assh0le before he killed thousands more after he killed hundreds in the embassy bombings. How weird that he was allowed to operate freely till 9/11, AND he's still somewhere out there.

 

[Genx87]

I vaguely remember reading about these meetings but the Taliban balked when it came time to deliver the goods.
In your two above examples however I fail to see either item has anything to do with Bush.

 

[Perknose]

Believe in conspiracy theories? Well, why do you ask (looks around nervously).

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I vaguely remember reading about these meetings but the Taliban balked when it came time to deliver the goods.
In your two above examples however I fail to see either item has anything to do with Bush.

The implication is that if Bush cared about terrorism before 9/11 he apparently could have made an agreement with the Taliban.

They probably wanted too much though, for Clinton or Bush (if he paid any notice) to accept. The US would have had to recognize a repressive theocracy and end sanctions and diplomatic pressure against them.

 

[ahurtt]

Ok but what's the conspiracy? Yes it sucks if he was allowed to keep operating up to 9/11 but what are you proposing is the reason why he was allowed to? You have outlined some suspicious happenings but you haven't provided any "theory."

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Genx87
I vaguely remember reading about these meetings but the Taliban balked when it came time to deliver the goods.
In your two above examples however I fail to see either item has anything to do with Bush.

The implication is that if Bush cared about terrorism before 9/11 he apparently could have made an agreement with the Taliban.

They probably wanted too much though, for Clinton or Bush (if he paid any notice) to accept. The US would have had to recognize a repressive theocracy and end sanctions and diplomatic pressure against them.

ok? But the two examples that are shown are from Clintons era?
And it is tough to deal with the Taliban considering we never recognized them as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.

The bottom line is the Taliban were not about to just give OBL up no matter who was talking to them.

 

[Lemon law]

One thing ignored here----and its basically proven fact------Mullah Omar I think his name was sort of
the spirtual head of the Tailban-----initially he did not care one way or the other about Bin Laden.
And was ready to deport him to the US-----then Bin Laden provided Omar with some intel that saved
Omar from an assination plot------and followed up on 9/10/01 with a sucessfull assination of the Northern Alliance leader Massoud. By then, Omar thought Bin Laden was a fine fellow.

The rest is history-----conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen--spin them in what ever way you want.

But pay some attention to facts.

 

[irwincur]

The only reason I could believe this is that the Taliban wanted to stay out of the limelight. They knew that bin Ladin was a potential risk to their culture. Thye knew that an attack on the US (any direct attack) would provoke us into funding the opposition at best, all out war at worst.

They were right. They should have sold him down the river if they had the chance.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Funny that they did not dump him afterwards.

They would have bought themselves a lot of goodwill.

 

[Helenihi]

$10 says the Taliban thought making a promise would make them some friends and when they actually looked into it they realized they didn't have a chance in hell of actually grabbing Bin Laden. What's that? He has his own army and three quarters of our army thinks he's a prophet?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
$10 says the Taliban thought making a promise would make them some friends and when they actually looked into it they realized they didn't have a chance in hell of actually grabbing Bin Laden. What's that? He has his own army and three quarters of our army thinks he's a prophet?

But it does give us all an insight into political horse-trading, Afghani style. He was a Saudi, forget the pan-Islam part. All politics is local. If the price had outweighed the risks, they would have done it and never looked back.

 

[envy me]

Most of the time the conspiracy theories make more sense then the stories we get from the government. For example: The Controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Sultan
1998
United States and Taliban meeting regarding Osama Bin Laden

During secret meetings with U.S. officials in 1998, top Taliban officials discussed assassinating or expelling Osama bin Laden in response to al Qaeda's deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, according to State Department documents. [3]


2000
United States and Taliban meeting regarding Osama Bin Laden

United States and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.

He quoted Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil as saying:

"You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him".

"The message was: 'There is willingness to talk about handing over bin Laden', and the aim of the Taliban was clearly to win the recognition of the American Government and the lifting of the boycott," he said, referring to the international isolation of the Taliban. [4]

So both Bush AND Clinton could have stopped an assh0le before he killed thousands more after he killed hundreds in the embassy bombings. How weird that he was allowed to operate freely till 9/11, AND he's still somewhere out there.

How could Bush have stopped him? This all happened under Clinton, Bush didn't take office until 2001.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: envy me
Most of the time the conspiracy theories make more sense then the stories we get from the government. For example: The Controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11

Actually, that story, like the vast majority of conspiracy theories, makes much LESS sense than the official explanation. Most of them seem to require a truly astounding level of organization, intelligence and ability to keep secrets from the conspirators...while also having them make silly mistakes and choices that make their conspiracy significantly more complicated and difficult to carry out. Most of them simply do not pass the basic test of being able to answer more questions than they create. This doesn't mean they MUST be wrong, of course, but I wouldn't put money on it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Sultan
1998
United States and Taliban meeting regarding Osama Bin Laden

During secret meetings with U.S. officials in 1998, top Taliban officials discussed assassinating or expelling Osama bin Laden in response to al Qaeda's deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, according to State Department documents. [3]


2000
United States and Taliban meeting regarding Osama Bin Laden

United States and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.

He quoted Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil as saying:

"You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him".

"The message was: 'There is willingness to talk about handing over bin Laden', and the aim of the Taliban was clearly to win the recognition of the American Government and the lifting of the boycott," he said, referring to the international isolation of the Taliban. [4]

So both Bush AND Clinton could have stopped an assh0le before he killed thousands more after he killed hundreds in the embassy bombings. How weird that he was allowed to operate freely till 9/11, AND he's still somewhere out there.

How could Bush have stopped him? This all happened under Clinton, Bush didn't take office until 2001.

Presumably, if the Taliban was willing to deal with Clinton's government, they would have been willing to deal with Bush's as well. If you buy the story at all, that is.

 

[judasmachine]

I think it was a lose/lose situation, and no american president wanted it on their record. Yes they'd be able to parade obl around in shackles, but the taliban as legit was too much. They should have seen 9/11 coming. Every attack was getting bigger and closer, or at least more brazen. They should have seen it coming, both clinton and bush. a vote of no confidence is in order. Bastards one and all.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: envy me
Most of the time the conspiracy theories make more sense then the stories we get from the government. For example: The Controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11

Actually, that story, like the vast majority of conspiracy theories, makes much LESS sense than the official explanation. Most of them seem to require a truly astounding level of organization, intelligence and ability to keep secrets from the conspirators...while also having them make silly mistakes and choices that make their conspiracy significantly more complicated and difficult to carry out. Most of them simply do not pass the basic test of being able to answer more questions than they create. This doesn't mean they MUST be wrong, of course, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Well not to start a flame war or anything but, wasn't there like 9 different accounts of what Bush said he saw, and what he was doing during 9/11.. One of those accounts being watching the first plane hit. I mean if the leader of the country is that much of a dumbass that he has 9 different versions of the story, then he is either one dumb bastard or he is hiding something. Nothing will change the fact people died, so beleive what you want. Even if the conspiracy theories end up proving right, Bush will never go to trial for his crimes so it's just a waste of energy anyways.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: envy me
Most of the time the conspiracy theories make more sense then the stories we get from the government. For example: The Controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11

Actually, that story, like the vast majority of conspiracy theories, makes much LESS sense than the official explanation. Most of them seem to require a truly astounding level of organization, intelligence and ability to keep secrets from the conspirators...while also having them make silly mistakes and choices that make their conspiracy significantly more complicated and difficult to carry out. Most of them simply do not pass the basic test of being able to answer more questions than they create. This doesn't mean they MUST be wrong, of course, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Well not to start a flame war or anything but, wasn't there like 9 different accounts of what Bush said he saw, and what he was doing during 9/11.. One of those accounts being watching the first plane hit. I mean if the leader of the country is that much of a dumbass that he has 9 different versions of the story, then he is either one dumb bastard or he is hiding something. Nothing will change the fact people died, so beleive what you want. Even if the conspiracy theories end up proving right, Bush will never go to trial for his crimes so it's just a waste of energy anyways.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to defend Bush...and I certainly wouldn't argue too strongly against him being a dumbass. I'm just saying that in the search for the truth, conspiracy theories are probably not a good place to look.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: envy me
Most of the time the conspiracy theories make more sense then the stories we get from the government. For example: The Controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11

Actually, that story, like the vast majority of conspiracy theories, makes much LESS sense than the official explanation. Most of them seem to require a truly astounding level of organization, intelligence and ability to keep secrets from the conspirators...while also having them make silly mistakes and choices that make their conspiracy significantly more complicated and difficult to carry out. Most of them simply do not pass the basic test of being able to answer more questions than they create. This doesn't mean they MUST be wrong, of course, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Well not to start a flame war or anything but, wasn't there like 9 different accounts of what Bush said he saw, and what he was doing during 9/11.. One of those accounts being watching the first plane hit. I mean if the leader of the country is that much of a dumbass that he has 9 different versions of the story, then he is either one dumb bastard or he is hiding something. Nothing will change the fact people died, so beleive what you want. Even if the conspiracy theories end up proving right, Bush will never go to trial for his crimes so it's just a waste of energy anyways.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to defend Bush...and I certainly wouldn't argue too strongly against him being a dumbass. I'm just saying that in the search for the truth, conspiracy theories are probably not a good place to look.

Agreed.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: envy me
Most of the time the conspiracy theories make more sense then the stories we get from the government. For example: The Controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11

Only to dopey people

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I vaguely remember reading about these meetings but the Taliban balked when it came time to deliver the goods.
In your two above examples however I fail to see either item has anything to do with Bush.

Well there Dubya fanboy, if there was the possibility of a deal in 2000, then little Bushy boy could have sealed the deal in January 2001 when he took office. However, it wouldn't have ever happened, because even if our government did meet with the Taliban and they agreed (which the full reality is probably not explained or known by the OP) the Taliban would never have followed through.

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: envy me
Most of the time the conspiracy theories make more sense then the stories we get from the government. For example: The Controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11

Ummmm.... implosions (controlled demolition as you called it) don't look like that. They also don't cause damage more than about 10 feet outside the footprint of the building that is demolished. I've been to the site. There was damage for 3 blocks. That is way more than any "controlled demolition" in history.

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: envy me
I mean if the leader of the country is that much of a dumbass that he has 9 different versions of the story, then he is either one dumb bastard or he is hiding something.

I'll take option A.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: morrisbj

Originally posted by: Genx87
I vaguely remember reading about these meetings but the Taliban balked when it came time to deliver the goods.
In your two above examples however I fail to see either item has anything to do with Bush.

However, it wouldn't have ever happened, because even if our government did meet with the Taliban and they agreed (which the full reality is probably not explained or known by the OP) the Taliban would never have followed through.

I agree. There were numerous times in the 90s when we probably could have killed Bin Laden.


In one instance, we didnt want to take out a Saudi sheik in the attack, for diplomatic reasons.

Ironically, had it been Bush instead of Clinton who had decided not to, every nutjob in here and around the world (not to mentiont the media) would be claiming Bush sacrificed our national security for the sake of saving his Saudi business partners.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

From the start the Bin Laden saga is completely bogus: the powers that be let Bin Laden bomb the embassies (the ambassadors said that they knew they were going to be bombed, but that the CIA did absolutely nothing); they never wanted to catch him. He was the tool necessary to justify the huge budgets of the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, which should have been slashed after the end of the cold war. Kennedy was killed because he wanted to end the cold war.
By the way, Yugoslavia refused to join NATO after the end of the cold war, that is why the CIA funded all the extremists to help start a civil war to then take control of the pieces.
Japan was provoked into attacking the US, and Hitler was funded by the US powers that be, that managed to take control of Europe and Japan. That is called strategy, or building an empire.