That was after the bombing had already begun and it had to be a "country that wouldn't come under US pressure".
I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh.
I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh.
Given the context of also asking for bombing to stop, that seems like they were trying to stop the US from using military pressure to force their will on Afghanistan. The deal wasn't even considered, who knows what they were actually trying to negotiate.
>I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh
History has now shown the US was willing to torture people associated with al Qaeda, and execute Bin Laden then desecrate his corpse. They were absolutely right to distrust the US there.
Afghanistan wasn't more trustworthy, the amount of trust necessary was far lower.
I think that addresses your accusation. I barely understand what you consider "utterly transparent" in my comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I believe the above post wanted to drill down why it was hard for Afghanistan to give him over.
After that the Pakistan discussion can happen if energy exists.