why did bush deny to talk about giving LAden to a neutral country???

[halik]

I dont get it

 

[worth]

Hint: use the forum's search feature.

 

[777joee]

Remember his speach? His terms were not negociable. He did give them one more chance last week and still no responce. I think it is great that he is sticking to his word!😀

 

[Amused]

<<why did bush deny to talk about giving LAden to neutral country???>>

Is this English?

 

[syf3r]

i think it has a lot to do with the fact that the taliban is full of sh!t... they're looking to negotiate with us, when we have a no-negotiating policy with terrorists... and the fact that their story changes on a daily basis:
1. we don't know where he is
2. we might know where he is
3. we definitely know where he is
4. we suddenly don't know where he is again
5. we won't turn him over
6. we might turn him over if you agree to our demands
7. if we can find him, maybe we'll turn him over
8. we have no idea where he is
9. oh, now we know where he is again...

they're playing games...

syf3r.

 

[jlee75]

because there is no negotiation about handing over bin laden to the US. it's a firm stance.

they say thy will hand over bin laden to neutral country if we stop bombing their country. but they didn't say anything about destroying their training camps. therefore the no negotiation part.

 

[UglyCasanova]

no negotiations. they had their chance, twice.

 

[Amused]

We have to remember that we don't want JUST bin Laden. We want his whole organization and everyone affiliated with it.

 

[StageLeft]

no negotiations. they had their chance, twice.

They probably still have it in some sense. I think taliban should be taken from power regardless. But bush's offer was only if they hand over laden and all of his men - not just him himself - the taliban seem to think bin laden is particularly important. He is to an extent but he is only one guy leading thousands of others. We need more than just him.

 

[worth]

They had their time, they should make their time.

 

[ElFenix]

repost!

 

[halik]

dont we want justice over all? The right way to do that is hand him over to international court

 

[bozo1]

<< The right way to do that is hand him over to international court >>


None of which will extradite him unless we take the death penalty off the table. That is NOT going to happen.

 

[Amused]

His crimes are against the US, therefore we are the ones who should try him.

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< The right way to do that is hand him over to international court >>


None of which will extradite him unless we take the death penalty off the table. That is NOT going to happen. >>




LOL...you can get stoned to death for cheating over there, but damm, kill 6000 people and you're safe. 😉

 

[Jzero]

Because the Taliban's definition of a "Neutral Country" is as trumped up and screwy as their interpretation of the Quran. By "Neutral Country" the Taliban means "An Islamic country that will not even listen to what the US has to say." They are willing to push for US isolation but are unwilling to allow Islamic isolation.

They're not talking about handing these guys over to a UN-sponsored war-crimes tribunal a la the one in The Hague. They're talking about a trial by an Islamic run country. There's little chance of him getting a fair trial in the US, but there is even less of a chance of a fair trial in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Jordan, or any other country where a religion is allowed to dictate law above common sensibilities.

There really is no such entity as a neutral country in this regard. Some countries may not be participating for or against the Taliban, but based on what the Taliban seems to say, there are Islamic countries and Infidel countries and nothing in between.