Read this story written on October 8, 2001 with direct quotes from Taliban officials. http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm
The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not, we will not side with him. We told [the Pakistan delegation] to give us proof that he did it, because without that how can we give him up?' (Independent, 19 Sept., p. 1) Three days later, Taliban Ambassador Zaeef said, 'We are not ready to hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence' (emphasis added, Times, 22 Sept., p. 1).
When US Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to publish a US dossier of evidence against bin Laden (an offer subsequently withdrawn), Ambassador Zaeef responded positively. 'The ambassador said it was "good news" that the US intended to produce its evidence against Mr bin Laden. This could help to solve the issue "otherwise than fighting".' (Independent, 25 Sept., p. 3)
On Sun. 30 Sept, the Taliban made another offer which was completely distorted and misrepresented by the Government and the media. The Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan said - in a quotation that appeared only in one newspaper, the Independent, and incompletely even there - 'We say if they change and talk to us, and if they present evidence, we will respect their negotiations and that might change things.' ('Bin Laden "hidden by Taleban", BBC News Online, 30 Sept.)
The Independent's front-page opened with the statement that the Taliban 'gave no indication they were prepared to hand him over.' This was flatly contradicted by the quotation eight paragraphs later of Mullah Zaeef, Taliban Ambassador: 'We are thinking of negotiation. [If direct evidence of bin Laden's involvement were produced] it might change things.' (Independent, 1 Oct., p.1)
Daniel Lak of the BBC commented that it was 'unlikely' that Mullah Zaeef was simply saying that bin Laden was under Taliban protection and 'the Americans can do their worst': 'The ambassador did ask the Americans, and it almost seems in a pleading tone, to start talks with the Taleban "because this might produce a good result"' ('Analysis: Decoding Taleban's message', BBC News Online, 30 Sept., 15:52 GMT)
Media Distortion
The most recent reported Taliban offer was noted in the Observer, but in a typically distorted fashion: 'Although most recent statements by Mullah Omar have been stridently defiant, there have been hints in recent days that the relentless diplomatic and military pressure on the Taliban is beginning to tell. On Friday [5 Oct.], senior [Taliban] officials offered to put Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect for the 11 September attacks in America, on trial in an Islamic court if given sufficient evidence.' (Observer, 7 Oct., p. 2) In fact, of course, such offers have been made throughout. In the same issue, it is claimed that whenever Mullah Omar 'detected any possible weakness in the statements of his envoys in Pakistan or elsewhere he was swift to countermand them. There would be no surrender'.
(p. 17) In the real world, Mullah Omar had made his position clear earlier (in the Guardian - the Observer's stable mate): 'We have told America that if it has any evidence, give it to the Afghan supreme court, or let the clerics from any three Islamic countries decide his case, or he could be placed under the observation of the organisation of the Islamic conference [representing 52 countries]. But these offers have all been rejected.' (21 Sept., p. 4)
The Taliban regime has not 'refused to hand over bin Laden'. Up until 1 Oct., the Taliban refused to to 'hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence' (Mullah Zaeef, Times, 22 Sept., p. 1, emphasis added). On 1 Oct., they agreed to bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan without evidence of his guilt.
The US has consistently brushed aside such diplomatic feelers. Ari Fleischer, White House spokesperson has said repeatedly, that there will be 'no negotiations, no discussions' with the Taliban. (Telegraph, 22 Sept, p. 1)
Media Propaganda
President Bush says 'I gave them a fair chance'. (Times, 8 Oct., p. 2) The reality is that he has rejected negotiations and nonviolent alternatives to war. Extradition from Afghanistan was possible, and may still be possible if the war is ended. The media have effectively suppressed evidence of the Taliban's offers, and have distorted the Taliban's position - thereby making war seem natural and inevitable. It is neither. Public pressure can help to force the media into more honest reporting, and help end this illegal and unnecessary war.
Originally posted by STANGI don't mind you reprinting my post, but you could have at least pointed people to the relevant thread and gave me credit as some of the words here are mine.
Read this story written on October 8, 2001 with direct quotes from Taliban officials. http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm
The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, O ...[text shortened]... lp to force the media into more honest reporting, and help end this illegal and unnecessary war.
Originally posted by STANGAnyone who believes it would have been possible to secure the extradition of Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan is simply delusional.
Read this story written on October 8, 2001 with direct quotes from Taliban officials. http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm
The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, O ...[text shortened]... lp to force the media into more honest reporting, and help end this illegal and unnecessary war.
Originally posted by STANGI thought you were banned....
Read this story written on October 8, 2001 with direct quotes from Taliban officials. http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm
The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, O ...[text shortened]... lp to force the media into more honest reporting, and help end this illegal and unnecessary war.
The US does not negotiate with terrorists, supposedly(looks at N Korea, Gaza, Israel, others).
Originally posted by xsWhich way is the best way to catch a rabbit? Track it down, sneak up on it and trap it? Or walk up to it with a marching band proclaiming to the whole forrest "we will catch you blah bla blah" and then when you are whithin 50 metres start throwing bricks at the area you "think" he is in?
[b]Anyone who believes it would have been possible to secure the extradition of Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan is simply delusional.[/b]
Originally posted by STANGThe only person being deceived about the Taliban is you STANG. It's called "spin doctering" The Taliban was an oppressive(extreamly so) regime.
Read this story written on October 8, 2001 with direct quotes from Taliban officials. http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm
The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, O ...[text shortened]... lp to force the media into more honest reporting, and help end this illegal and unnecessary war.
Originally posted by STANGTaliban was an opressive regime. Afghanistan was previously ruled by the people of Northern Alliance before it was invaded by the Taliban. The Taliban was an opressive government which tried to impose a strict version of the shariat or Islamic law on the Afghan people. Backed by Pakistan it fought the Northern Alliance and seized power in 1996. It should have been then that the International community should have rendered support to the northern alliance with arms etc to help it win its war. Instead it ignores the happening in the country . The US however might have had a chance to diplomatically get Osama out instead it makes an all out war for the wrong reasons and bungles losing Osama in the process.
Read this story written on October 8, 2001 with direct quotes from Taliban officials. http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm
The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, O ...[text shortened]... lp to force the media into more honest reporting, and help end this illegal and unnecessary war.
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry no1marauder,
I don't mind you reprinting my post, but you could have at least pointed people to the relevant thread and gave me credit as some of the words here are mine.
You're totally right. I'm stuck for time now days but you deserve full recognition for the research you do to support your arguement !
The opening post is a copy of your comment at
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=28467&page=4
Originally posted by STANGIn America if you kiss a girl or hold her hand in public you will not be lynched. In America you are free to shave your beard. In America after a long day of work you are free to have a beer, or a glass of wine. In America you can feel free to listen to whatever type of music you want, or Howard Stern if it appeals to you. American women are free to decide how much or how little clothes they wear. How is America oppressive? do tell.
America isn't ?