To be clear,
@ill has now shown that he falsely thought:
* All Muslim nations are a monolith and none of them dislike Osama
Never said this but keep pointing out how others are lying on your words . You stated the US couldn't try him because Afghan only offered to allow him to be tried by Muslim courts. Which ones? Anyones guess seeing as the articles you posted have multiple options available. So no, Muslim nations are not a monolith and not everyone of them liked Osama....just his message and goals.
* Many Muslim nations could have gone after Osama and failed to do so
Thats...true. Saudi's tried and failed. Sudan didnt have the power so they asked him to leave. Youre whole shtick is that us infidels shouldn't bring him justice so i'm here rolling with that. If you want to try him in a Muslim court, there was plenty of time to do so. His terror acts against other nations started before his attacks on us.
* The USA had been trying to get Osama since the 1980s, rather than since 1997
Sure. I can admit I didnt have my breakfast yet and was off by a decade. Key word in your sentence should be "actively". The gist of everything Ive said still holds true. Congrats on the technicality, you get a big W!
* Nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt didn't also want to get Osama themselves
They did....and for some reason they couldn't get him. Could it be his money, power, and influence? The same money, power, and influence that got him into Sudan and then into Afghanistan. The same money, power, and influence that had Pakistan playing both sides? And if they wanted him and couldn't get him, seems like we did them a favor, no?
* We put Osama on a "most wanted terrorist list" in the mid-80s
* The embassy bombings had occurred in the mid-80s
* The USA had been going at Osama since the 1st Gulf War
Lies
* Osama declared war on the USA around the 1st Gulf War
Here's another big W for you. He OFFICIALLY declared jihad in 1996. Except he went to war with America years prior.
Link
Osama Bin Laden: Building Al Qaeda
In 1988, bin Laden created a new group, called al Qaeda (“the base”) that would focus on symbolic acts of terrorism instead of military campaigns. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia to step up fundraising for this new and more complicated mission. However, the comparatively pro-Western Saudi royal family feared that bin Laden’s fiery pan-Islamist rhetoric might cause trouble in the kingdom, and so they tried to keep him as quiet as they could. They took away his passport and spurned his offer to send “Afghan Arabs” to guard the border after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Then, adding insult to injury, they sought help from the “infidel” U.S. instead. Furious about being snubbed, bin Laden vowed that it was al Qaeda, and not the Americans, who would one day prove to be “master of this world.”
https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/reaction-to-9-11
Early the next year, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for the more militantly Islamist Sudan. After one more year of preparation, al Qaeda struck for the first time: A bomb exploded in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, that had housed American troops on their way to a peacekeeping mission in Somalia. (No Americans died in the blast, but two Austrian tourists did.)
Osama bin Laden: Worldwide Jihad
Emboldened, bin Laden and his associates embraced violent jihad in earnest. For example, they trained and armed the Somali rebels who killed 18 American servicemen in Mogadishu in 1993. They were also linked to the 1993 bombing of New York’s
World Trade Center; the attempted assassination of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarek in 1995; the bombing of a U.S. National Guard training center in Riyadh that same year; and the truck bomb that destroyed the Khobar Towers, an American military residence in Dharan, in 1996.
* The Afghan Taliban sheltered Osama for two decades
Ok, only one decade. You win again! The key point here is the Afghan Taliban actively sheltered him. They welcomed him into Afghanistan, kept him there, protected him, and as much as you claim they were willing, they never handed him over or tried him in court or any other peaceful resolution you can come up with.
* The Afghan Taliban didn't have any access to Osama in 2001, only the ISI did
Both did? Youre making shyt up again. ISI was brought into the convo cuz they protected him after he left Afghanistan....voluntarily...not cuz the Taliban or Afghan government asked him to. And Pakistan was an ally on the war on terror AFTER 9/11. Dunno why you keep bringing up that reference point as a magical time where ALL things changed by Pakistan pretended to be an ally the entire time. In actuality they played both sides, aka why bin Laden wasn't caught and why we had to enter foreign soil to depose of him.
Not only do most of those statements display incredible ignorance of geopolitics and history, several are mutually contrdictory. But this is what the Dunning-Kruger Effect does - it convinces people that no matter how little they know, no matter how ignorant they are, they are more right and know more than everyone else. People like this don't even think they have to learn or study anything, why would you need to get informed if you're always right already without being informed?
He's making definitively statements on what it's possible for the USA, the Taliban, and Osama to have done in 2001 while showing he doesn't have a fukking clue what any of the three were already doing in 2001.
That's all you can muster after being caught in numerous false statements that prove you didn't have the slightest fukking clue what was going on?
The combination of your stubbornness and arrogance is remarkable.
That moral high horse you ride on is comical to me. I dont find validation from internet forums. You're making statements that are ludicrous and calling me crazy.
From your own articles:
"All they got to do is turn him [bin Laden] over, and his colleagues and the thugs he hides, as well as destroy his camps and [release] the innocent people being held hostage in Afghanistan," Bush said.
Bush rejected any negotiations as a Taliban leader suggested the Afghan government would be willing to discuss surrendering bin Laden to a third country if the United States provided evidence of his guilt and stopped bombing.
There's no need to discuss it," Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Just turn him over. … There's nothing to negotiate about. They're harboring a terrorist and they need to turn him over."
“No one in the US government took these [offers] seriously because they did not trust the Taliban and their ability to conduct a proper trial.”
Given these conditions, the insecure regime in Afghanistan
might have been susceptible to international pressure,
perhaps even to the point of turning Osama bin Laden and his top associates over to international justice, which is more than the invasion accomplished.
These are from post 222 and from various articles within that post.^
And yet you still cling to this idea that a potential deal could have potentially been made that could have potentially worked for all parties involved and then potentially al-Q would just disappear and potentially the victims would get justice. Whole lot of potential. Now, lets talk PROBABILITY. What is the probability of your utopian outcome? My personal estimate would be under 5%. You're welcome to think its higher. Imagine giving a chance to something with a 5% change of success when homeboy flew planes into your buildings, has a worldwide jihad against your citizens, has bombed multiple embassies, supported x,y,z other terror networks and attacks. From your own articles, Afghanistan MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUSCEPTIBLE and PERHAPS would have done something....but they didnt. They knew who he was and what he did, and they harbored him. They didnt give him up when bombs started dropping. They didnt bother giving up intel when he left their territory. The probability of the Taliban complying is minimal so when you want to make nonsense statements about what the US, Afghanistan, and Taliban "might potentially" do in 2001 at least base it in reality.
Let's add another false statement to the mix. The USA
has never labeled the Afghan Taliban as a terrorist group, not in 2001 and not now. And we haven't done that explicitly because we want to negotiate with them and have done so. Bush's refusal to negotiate in 2001 wasn't even in line with his own State Department's policy.
Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means...
www.state.gov
Congrats on another big Win!! You are technically right on the labeled part.
They are however a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity.
Link
For all intents and purposes, the Taliban is a terror group. Notice that Terrorist designation above.
"There is no doubt that the Taliban occasionally attacks civilians intentionally, not accidentally, and that's the definition of terrorism," said James Dobbins, a former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "And, thus, the designation would be accurate enough. The question is whether or not it would serve the U.S. and Afghan government purposes for that step to be taken."
Link
So again, congrats on the technical win. They are a terror group and I wrongly labeled them as official. In reality though, they are a terrorist group and are governed and treated as such in every case outside of negotiating peace between them and the Afghan government, which is the main driver in why they are not officially labeled.
How is it a "cop out" to point out that we had a different pathway to achieve the exact thing we were attempting to achieve and had failed miserably in doing so?
If you made that claim about the Iraq war or something, Id be on board. You're making it on Osama and al-Q. There's no peaceful route that could have been reasonably taken to pacify him and his network. Osama's jihad wouldn't end until all infidels leave Muslim land, til Israel is no more, etc etc. Thats not worth your version of peace.
The most embarassing thing for you is that you're proven that you knew NOTHING of the geopolitical situation, the terrorism situation, the Osama situation, anything. You got literally all your facts wrong. Yet you still insist you are right, more right than people who know far more about the situation than you, without feeling you need to actually know anything about what was going on.
You were already called out for that logical fallacy and misrepresentation of my position once, going to double down again?
Yeah, you're an idiot.
It's incredible that you try to portray me as ignorant of geopolitics and naive, yet you yourself don't think you need to do th slightest historical study or understand anything at all about the situation in order to confidently assert that you know all the answers. And when confronted with your misunderstandings and falsehoods, you do nothing but double down.
Can you at least assert that your attack on all 46 Muslim states, your claim that any of them could have gone after Osama and failed to do so, was completely ridiculous? That it showed you don't have the slightest understanding of those nations, of Islam, or of Osama?
The irony. You keep attacking people on your intellectual high horse like you're a moral authority. No one here really gives that much of a fukk. I don't get my validation from strangers on the internet, especially ones that are doing the most to defend actual bad guys. You're out here writing god damn college dissertations on every little tidbit. Like bro we dont give a fukk. Its really not that serious. You keep saying people lying and misrepresenting you yet you continue to do the same thing. Your world view is so distorted that you're finding every excuse possible to not kill Osama. Bad guys exist. Sometimes they need to be dealt with. Its that simple so stop complicating it. If you want to go on an anti-war rant feel free to talk about Iraq and you'll have plenty of support. Pretending Osama deserved anything besides death is a joke and disrespectful as fukk to the victims. Your gross insistence that some potential deal could have been made to get Osama is a pipe dream and doesnt end al-Qaeda, its network, or its attacks.
when he’s not posting pages of Twitter threads his other commentary is 
en.wikipedia.org
