General Discussion

WingDinger

(3,690 posts)

40. UM, yes yes there was.

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:52 PM

May 2012

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-07/us/ret.us.taliban_1_abdul-salam-zaeef-surrender-bin-taliban-offer?_s=PM:US

The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law.

The offer came as the United States massed forces in southwest Asia for a possible strike against Afghanistan if the Taliban refuse to surrender bin Laden. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer and repeated U.S. demands that bin Laden be turned over unconditionally.

--------------------------------
Same tactic as in WW2 Japan. Insist on unconditional surrender of Emperor, then, when they agree, up the ante and demand more, till they balk.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Are We In Afghanistan? [View all] rhett o rick May 2012 OP

lithium & opium think May 2012 #1

Why did we EVER go there? WingDinger May 2012 #2

Had we not gone in, Bin Laden wouldn't be dead today TBMASE May 2012 #10

Bogus. He would have lost his head. WingDinger May 2012 #14

If you don't remember that, you must not TBMASE May 2012 #15

The Taliban were willing to hand over Bin Laden, but, he would be tried under Sharia law. WingDinger May 2012 #23

Of course...they attacked the symbol of an Eastern religion TBMASE May 2012 #26

Um, mostly none of our business. WingDinger May 2012 #27

We didn't invade because they blew up ancient relics TBMASE May 2012 #28

How does an offer to turn him in, equal harboring? WingDinger May 2012 #30

Shock and Awe was Iraq TBMASE May 2012 #31

Well, it certainly wasnt awe shucks. WingDinger May 2012 #32

There was no offer to hand him over to anyone TBMASE May 2012 #39

UM, yes yes there was. WingDinger May 2012 #40

I think we're in Afghanistan still because it's in close proximty to Pakistan....... TheDebbieDee May 2012 #3

Two reasons theaocp May 2012 #4

I should have included that of course. nm rhett o rick May 2012 #7

correct answer. paulk May 2012 #36

It needs enemies to wage wars sad sally May 2012 #5

I'm glad someone still gets it. RC May 2012 #12

The problem with this argument TBMASE May 2012 #17

Tell us more about how alqaeda was created. rhett o rick May 2012 #35

I vote for c, d, and the M-I-C. unhappycamper May 2012 #6

Someone needs to look "tough on Islam" kenny blankenship May 2012 #8

Afghanistan has rare-earth minerals. Follow the money. saras May 2012 #9

So do we call that imperialism? nm rhett o rick May 2012 #22

Reason I asked above it that I am studying imperialism in my West. Civ class. rhett o rick May 2012 #24

One rationalization Vattel May 2012 #11

PR for politicians who are afraid to admit we lost the war. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #13

American imperialism MadHound May 2012 #16

I agree with a touch of "we want to be close to Pakistan". nm rhett o rick May 2012 #18

TAPI pipeline. mmonk May 2012 #19

The CIA funds it's operations on that fine Afghan poppy sarcasmo May 2012 #20

At this point I think it's all about leaving the semblance of a pro-American central government RZM May 2012 #21

e. It did not work out so well when we abandoned them last time. ieoeja May 2012 #25

So you seem to be saying that imperalism is for their best interest? rhett o rick May 2012 #29

I'm saying that when the Afghan government requested our assistance last time... ieoeja May 2012 #33

Afghanistan isn't even a functioning country. The last elections were marred by widespread fraud. Selatius May 2012 #37

Bullshit, we set up puppet/client states to facilitate exploitation of resources TheKentuckian May 2012 #38

Here's the Canadian government's bold answer. Prometheus Bound May 2012 #34