On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:32:48 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:02:14 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


If you could point me to those "conditions", I would be most
appreciative. I truly don't remember any realistic conditions ever being
offered. I do remember Mullah Omar at one point, denying that the
Taliban even knew where Bin Laden was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...575593,00.html

A "secret" meeting which was never acknowledged by the Taliban, and an
"offer" given by someone who was under obvious political pressure, and
who, in all likelihood, was not authorized to make.

It's not sounding all that valid. The other key statement:

"However, it is unclear whether the Taliban would have the ability to
seize Bin Laden and hand him over".

...pretty much underlines our reasons for not seriously considering
these "offers".



Only through the news media's lack of daily coverage, do you perceive
the search for Bin Laden as "on the back burner". The search is
on-going. But it's tough to do, since most experts agree that his likely
hiding spot is in Pakastani territory where we don't have license to
search.

I believe it must be on the back burner. Bin Laden is still free. This
is the most powerful country on the planet. If, bin Laden was a top
priority, there is no way he would still be free 3 years after 9/11.

You underestimate the resourcefulness of a single person hiding on a
relatively large planet, with sympathetic supporters. We aren't Star
Fleet, we can't simply search for bio signs and beam them up.


We don't have a license to search Pakistani territory? So, the following
words, given by Bush to Congress and the American people, were just so
much Bush Bull****? Doesn't the man ever mean what he says?

" And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists."

The Pakistani's claim to be with us, but insist that THEY be the ones
to search in their country.

And let's be realistic. We don't have enough military to take on the
entire Wahabbi Muslim world at once.



" From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Pakistan is not "harboring" terrorists, at least not officially. If
you want to make the claim that they are, then you also add
credibility to the claim that most of those countries are linked
together in a network of terrorism which operates independently from
their respective governments.

Dave