If that were the real situation then the taliban could have taken Bin Laden into custody and hand him over for trial in a neutral country (say the Netherlands alike Lockerbie trial, or somewhere like China or India)
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.
Yeah and the Taliban were willing to protect the guy who committed one of the worst terrorist atrocities in memory. Funny how it's totally understandable according to you why the Taliban wouldn't trust America, but somehow America isn't afford the same understanding by people like you.... Utterly transparent from you I'm afraid.
If Afghanistan trusted the US and the US proceeded to torture and execute Bin Laden, they would have no recourse. If the US trusted Afghanistan and Afghanistan proceeded to not cooperate then the US could then start the invasion.
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.