Osama Bin Laden offers Truce to the U.S.

[Formula1]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/19/D8F7RDH00.html

It seems the Bin Laden has offered a truce with the U.S. Gov't.

Either way i still think he should be hunted down. It seems that one of his top men could have been killed in the village bombing in pakistan. So what do you all think, should the US gov't consider this?

The US has the truce
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-19-voa86.cfm

[thewizeard]

another one...what' s up this time, has his cel phone run out of power?

[j2k4]

It seems the Bin Laden has offered a truce with the U.S. Gov't.

Either way i still think he should be hunted down. It seems that one of his top men could have been killed in the village bombing in pakistan. So what do you all think, should the US gov't consider this?

Can't think of a reason why we should.

Have you changed your mind about 9//11? :huh:

[JPaul]

It seems the Bin Laden has offered a truce with the U.S. Gov't.

Either way i still think he should be hunted down. It seems that one of his top men could have been killed in the village bombing in pakistan. So what do you all think, should the US gov't consider this?

Can't think of a reason why we should.


To stop people dying.

Surely one must at least listen to what the other is saying.

You must know by now that you will never actually "win", so all that will happen is that you will sacrifice the lives of your young and spend billions of your assets, which could be spent elsewhere. Unless of course you are getting the money back thro' rebuilding contracts and the young soldiers are dispensable.

I totally agree that one must not bow to terrorism, however one must also be able to compromise. I once again refer you to the situation in the north of Ireland.

[twisterX]

^^ Good point

[thewizeard]

You are right JPaul and even when one should win, one still loses. However I expect the conditions for " his " truce, will be unacceptable so the carnage is set to continue.

[JPaul]

You are right JPaul and even when one should win, one still loses. However I expect the conditions for " his " truce, will be unacceptable so the carnage is set to continue.
Indeed, I agree entirely.

However it is surely better not to pre-judge, but to listen, then to decide on the best way forward.

[DanB]

$$$$/££££ all round JP what does it matter, the people in power will never be touched


btw £>$

[j2k4]

Just how do you suppose a "negotiation" with UBL would take place?

Should he be invited to the U.N.?

How would one go about stipulating concessions by Al Qaeda?

Let's say UBL wants us to clear out of the mideast so he can have a free hand to establish Islamic theocracies throughout the region?

What promises could/would he make to guarantee any concessions he himself might make?

We clear out, he moves in...what then?

Does he heel to the U.N.?

How would this work?

Say what you like about Bush; do you find UBL honorable/trustworthy enough to negotiate with?

Or do you enter into negotiations strictly on the chance he might be?

Huh?

Huh?

:huh:

[maebach]

good point.



I tihnk if bush agrees to the truce, americans will never forgive him.

[j2k4]

good point. if bush agrees to the truce, americans will never forgive him.

Not quite my point.

Truces have terms.

What would they be?

UBL says, "Remove coalition forces from the mideast and I will not attack America or it's allies?"

What else would he have to offer?

What if Bush offered a truce to Bin Laden?

[JPaul]

Just how do you suppose a "negotiation" with UBL would take place?

Should he be invited to the U.N.?

How would one go about stipulating concessions by Al Qaeda?

Let's say UBL wants us to clear out of the mideast so he can have a free hand to establish Islamic theocracies throughout the region?

What promises could/would he make to guarantee any concessions he himself might make?

We clear out, he moves in...what then?

Does he heel to the U.N.?

How would this work?

Say what you like about Bush; do you find UBL honorable/trustworthy enough to negotiate with?

Or do you enter into negotiations strictly on the chance he might be?

Huh?

Huh?

:huh:

Good to see you haven't pre-judged, but have chosen to actually discuss things.

[maebach]

good point. if bush agrees to the truce, americans will never forgive him.

Not quite my point.

Truces have terms.

What would they be?

UBL says, "Remove coalition forces from the mideast and I will not attack America or it's allies?"

What else would he have to offer?

What if Bush offered a truce to Bin Laden?

the last statement was my point, I should edit that.

[ahctlucabbuS]

What he offers is clearly untouchable for the US Gov. thus justifying future acts of terrorism for him and his followers.

[JPaul]

What he offers is clearly untouchable for the US Gov.
How does one know, until one has listened to the proposal.

[hobbes]

To me, the proposal is just words on a piece of paper.

We don't trust him, he doesn't trust us and there is absolutely no empowered group to enforce any transgressions of said treaty.

Just paper and ink, nothing more.

[Seedler]

Hm...Who'd win in a fight? Bush or big Ben? oh wait, new poll idea me likes!

[j2k4]

Just how do you suppose a "negotiation" with UBL would take place?

Should he be invited to the U.N.?

How would one go about stipulating concessions by Al Qaeda?

Let's say UBL wants us to clear out of the mideast so he can have a free hand to establish Islamic theocracies throughout the region?

What promises could/would he make to guarantee any concessions he himself might make?

We clear out, he moves in...what then?

Does he heel to the U.N.?

How would this work?

Say what you like about Bush; do you find UBL honorable/trustworthy enough to negotiate with?

Or do you enter into negotiations strictly on the chance he might be?

Huh?

Huh?

:huh:

Good to see you haven't pre-judged, but have chosen to actually discuss things.

Ummm...pre-judged...riiiiiiiiiiiiight. :huh:

Has someone commandeered your account?

[Busyman]

He's gotta be blowin' smoke.

Wtf are the terms?

Sounds like bullshit to say he was reaching out and was snubbed.:dry:

[JPaul]

Good to see you haven't pre-judged, but have chosen to actually discuss things.

Ummm...pre-judged...riiiiiiiiiiiiight. :huh:

Has someone commandeered your account?
Do you think, for a second that OBL is more of a terrorist, or more determined than the IRA, UDA etc. Their campaigns ran for 40 years, killing and maiming countless housands. In Ireland, the Uk mainland and elsewhere in the world. There was no military or law enforcement solution which could have stopped that.

So the parties sat down and talked, you sent some really good chaps to assist in that process. It went on for months and still goes on .... but, how many lives has it saved. The re-generation and economic growth in Belfast is tremendous and children are being born and growing up to be taught that terrorism is a sad part of their history, not a way of life.

We've already obliterated a couple of countries, overthrown a regime, put our own form of government in place and secured the mineral assets we need from one of their major sources. Enough already, lets try talking about it.

I however you need more revenge, or you don't actually want to stop (for some other reason) then carry on bombing innocents to get to your targets.

[chalice]

This situation is vaguely comparable to that in N Ireland. However, the IRA never offered a truce to the British Government or the opposing terrorist factions in the North of Ireland.

The British government were (happily or not) obliged to seek some sort of public resolution simply because it had become impossible not to acknowledge Sinn Fein as a legitimate political party with mandates and a clear willingness to compromise. They should have never given us civil rights in the 60's. Sinn Fein would be illegal and unelectable unless half a million Ulster protestants, in a moment of madness, ticked the wrong box.

I can see no provision set in place to bring OBL's olive branch (genuine or contrived) to bear on a political stage. I would sadly suggest that this is merely an attempt to garner global sympathy.

"I tried to shake the bully's hand but he was too busy beating the bejasus out of me."

I hope I'm wrong though.

[Formula1]

It seems the Bin Laden has offered a truce with the U.S. Gov't.

Either way i still think he should be hunted down. It seems that one of his top men could have been killed in the village bombing in pakistan. So what do you all think, should the US gov't consider this?

Can't think of a reason why we should.

Have you changed your mind about 9//11? :huh:

For the contrary, no, I haven't.

[j2k4]

Can't think of a reason why we should.

Have you changed your mind about 9//11? :huh:

For the contrary, no, I haven't.


Then why bother with Bin laden?

Why, if he is not guilty, is he not saying, "Hey, I didn't bomb your fucking buildings!", rather than offering a "truce"?

[Formula1]

For the contrary, no, I haven't.


Then why bother with Bin laden?

Why, if he is not guilty, is he not saying, "Hey, I didn't bomb your fucking buildings!", rather than offering a "truce"?

Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for many other terrorist attacks, such as the Kenyan Embassy bombing. Oh wait lemme guess, since they arent american, they don't count eh?

[j2k4]

This situation is vaguely comparable to that in N Ireland. However, the IRA never offered a truce to the British Goverment or the opposing terrorist factions in the North of Ireland.

The British government were (happily or not) obliged to seek some sort of public resolution simply because it had become impossible not to acknowledge Sinn Fein as a legitimate political party with mandates and a clear willingness to compromise. They should have never given us civil rights in the 60's. Sinn Fein would be illegal and unelectable unless half a million Ulster protestants, in a moment of madness, ticked the wrong box.

I can see no provision set in place to bring OBL's olive branch (genuine or contrived) to bear on a political stage. I would sadly suggest that this is merely an attempt to garner global sympathy.

"I tried to shake the bully's hand but he was too busy beating the bejasus out of me."

I hope I'm wrong though.


Chalice more-or-less makes my point.

The opposing sides in Ireland were more aptly termed legitimately representative of those who held the political reins.

I don't think the same could be said of Bin Laden, nor is there a like faction opposing him.

He operates with the tacit approval of certain countries (that is to say, he has his "fans") but is not recognized as legitimate by any.

Also, he and Al Qaeda are truly a multi-jurisdictional enterprise.

I don't recall your Irish laddies operating in such a way as to exert wholesale influence on (inter-)continental politics.

[j2k4]

Then why bother with Bin laden?

Why, if he is not guilty, is he not saying, "Hey, I didn't bomb your fucking buildings!", rather than offering a "truce"?

Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for many other terrorist attacks, such as the Kenyan Embassy bombing. Oh wait lemme guess, since they arent american, they don't count eh?

Sure they count, but if this is the case, why isn't (for example) Spain carrying the ball?

[Busyman]

This situation is vaguely comparable to that in N Ireland. However, the IRA never offered a truce to the British Goverment or the opposing terrorist factions in the North of Ireland.

The British government were (happily or not) obliged to seek some sort of public resolution simply because it had become impossible not to acknowledge Sinn Fein as a legitimate political party with mandates and a clear willingness to compromise. They should have never given us civil rights in the 60's. Sinn Fein would be illegal and unelectable unless half a million Ulster protestants, in a moment of madness, ticked the wrong box.

I can see no provision set in place to bring OBL's olive branch (genuine or contrived) to bear on a political stage. I would sadly suggest that this is merely an attempt to garner global sympathy.

"I tried to shake the bully's hand but he was too busy beating the bejasus out of me."

I hope I'm wrong though.


Chalice more-or-less makes my point.

The opposing sides in Ireland were more aptly termed legitimately representative of those who held the political reins.

I don't think the same could be said of Bin Laden, nor is there a like faction opposing him.

He operates with the tacit approval of certain countries (that is to say, he has his "fans") but is not recognized as legitimate by any.

Also, he and Al Qaeda are truly a multi-jurisdictional enterprise.

I don't recall your Irish laddies operating in such a way as to exert wholesale influence on (inter-)continental politics.
OBL operates under bullshit.

He says Islam is being persecuted under the cover of him starting shit.

On 9/11, he killed Muslims...probably hundreds.
On the USS Cole, he probably killed Muslims.
In Iraq, if he has anything to do with Iraq, he has killed over one thousand.

How can he be recognized as legit when the very people he supposedly fights for, he kills on purpose?

Whoever takes him seriously is an idiot.:dry:

He is not the "Pope" of Islam.

He does not represent Islam besides giving it a bad name then turning around yelling persecution. Only after 9/11 has there been this much hatred or simple distrust for Muslims.

Guess who's fault it is?

Fuck him.

[j2k4]

OBL operates under bullshit.


He is not the "Pope" of Islam.


Fuck him.



Nice summation. ;)

[JPaul]

This situation is vaguely comparable to that in N Ireland. However, the IRA never offered a truce to the British Government or the opposing terrorist factions in the North of Ireland.

The British government were (happily or not) obliged to seek some sort of public resolution simply because it had become impossible not to acknowledge Sinn Fein as a legitimate political party with mandates and a clear willingness to compromise. They should have never given us civil rights in the 60's. Sinn Fein would be illegal and unelectable unless half a million Ulster protestants, in a moment of madness, ticked the wrong box.

I can see no provision set in place to bring OBL's olive branch (genuine or contrived) to bear on a political stage. I would sadly suggest that this is merely an attempt to garner global sympathy.

"I tried to shake the bully's hand but he was too busy beating the bejasus out of me."

I hope I'm wrong though.


Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.

The point I was trying to make, obviously badly, was that people should at least be willing to talk. There is no point in just saying, feck that, we won't even listen to him.

[Biggles]

Mr Laden is a complex individual who I suspects thinks too much about religion.

His goal is to restore the Caliphate and remove the Royals from Saudi, Kuwaiti and other ME Governments. Although there has been a tendancy for some to suggest that Islam is knocking at the door of the West and that is the sole purpose of 9/11 etc., I think even OBL would agree that that it is little more than a pipe dream on their part.

He does, however, want the West out of the ME and no doubt any such truce would be concomitant on us butting out of that area. It may be that he thinks the West is utterly fed up with the ME and that now is a good time to float the idea of a truce. I am sure he knows it will be rejected but perhaps, he may reason, its presence as a possibilty may take root in a year or two.

Of course many things could happen in that time to make it impossible, redundant or simply not necessary. Bin Laden might be mad but he is not daft.

[j2k4]

Mr Laden is a complex individual who I suspects thinks too much about religion.


Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin, Bush....all complex individuals.

Too much muck to wade through, so I'll settle for asking what UBL should be allowed to stipulate as to Israel?

Methinks he'd first demand our departure, and second demand we drop any support of Israel; after all, the mideast is his domain, correct?

Sooner or later he'll as to address the U.N. ....:rolleyes:

[Biggles]

Mr Laden is a complex individual who I suspects thinks too much about religion.


Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin, Bush....all complex individuals.



:happy: Indeed.

I am not suggesting that he is right - merely peering behind the veil to see what lurks underneath.

I do not subscribe to either view that is currently being discussed in the media, that is, he is either feeling vunerable or he is making a straight forward offer. I believe his game plan is vaguer and longer term.

There is no doubt that his intentions towards Israel are far from honourable. I think that is taken as read.

[JPaul]

Mr Laden is a complex individual who I suspects thinks too much about religion.


so I'll settle for asking what UBL should be allowed to stipulate as to Israel?


Absolutely nothing. However that does not mean you cannot listen to his suggestions for a compromise. Or for that matter anyone else's.

[chalice]

This situation is vaguely comparable to that in N Ireland. However, the IRA never offered a truce to the British Goverment or the opposing terrorist factions in the North of Ireland.

The British government were (happily or not) obliged to seek some sort of public resolution simply because it had become impossible not to acknowledge Sinn Fein as a legitimate political party with mandates and a clear willingness to compromise. They should have never given us civil rights in the 60's. Sinn Fein would be illegal and unelectable unless half a million Ulster protestants, in a moment of madness, ticked the wrong box.

I can see no provision set in place to bring OBL's olive branch (genuine or contrived) to bear on a political stage. I would sadly suggest that this is merely an attempt to garner global sympathy.

"I tried to shake the bully's hand but he was too busy beating the bejasus out of me."

I hope I'm wrong though.


Chalice more-or-less makes my point.

The opposing sides in Ireland were more aptly termed legitimately representative of those who held the political reins.

I don't think the same could be said of Bin Laden, nor is there a like faction opposing him.

He operates with the tacit approval of certain countries (that is to say, he has his "fans") but is not recognized as legitimate by any.

Also, he and Al Qaeda are truly a multi-jurisdictional enterprise.

I don't recall your Irish laddies operating in such a way as to exert wholesale influence on (inter-)continental politics.

The IRA wrote the book on tilting public perception.

It has cherry-picked it's international sympathisers since day one of it's campaign. It continues to this day. It has gathered funds and arms from every contingent willing to prick up their ears to the rumble of it's propaganda machine. Far from least of which, the USA. Noraid is/was a money tree of Redwood proportions, proudly watered by some of your more credible political players. I contend that it would have been incredibly difficult for the sustained campaign the IRA undertook over 30 years without the moral and financial support supplied by a significant number of your countrymen. This is not limited to the Irish-American contingent. I don't mean to suggest that you war-mongered. Rather that you were furnished with an attractive alternative view to that presented by the British media. Some true, some embellished and some downright whoppers. Sinn Fein in the White House on St Patrick's Day was a coup by anyone's standards.

The list is endless when it comes to global influence. Spain, Iran, Australia, Columbia, Lebanon, Russia, Libya, even parts of Britain. By appealling to global sensiblities, after a fashion, the British Government were backed into a political cul-de-sac. Job well done (from a terror perspective).

If OBL wants a few pointers, he should talk to Gerry Adams.

[JPaul]

Maybe he should get an actor to do his voice, that seemed to help Adams a great deal.

[chalice]

Maybe he should get an actor to do his voice, that seemed to help Adams a great deal.

Indeed. Dustin Hoffman could do it standing on his turban.

Best damn WMD ever... the English language.

[j2k4]

Maybe he should get an actor to do his voice, that seemed to help Adams a great deal.

Indeed. Dustin Hoffman could do it standing on his turban.

Best damn WMD ever... the English language.

Again, you've made my point, but while further refining it; it's the old saw about a lawyer vs. men with guns.

People/governments are more often persuaded to sympathy with words than bombs.

My only point, but a large-ish one, I think.

As an aside, to those who think we overstep in the mideast "because we're not from there" and UBL is, and this somehow legitimizes his activities-

Is it better that we urge them toward representative democracy or that UBL bully them to the caliphate?

Do we now favor the idea of coercive, rigid and intolerant religious doctrine over choice?

Or is it only Christian religions that are "oppressive"?

Anyone care to forecast the possibility of civil war everywhere in the mideast if we bail, and UBL is given a free hand?

BTW-Chalice-

So glad you've rejoined us, if only for the moment-wish you were around more. :)

[Busyman]

Indeed. Dustin Hoffman could do it standing on his turban.

Best damn WMD ever... the English language.

Again, you've made my point, but while further refining it; it's the old saw about a lawyer vs. men with guns.

People/governments are more often persuaded to sympathy with words than bombs.

My only point, but a large-ish one, I think.

As an aside, to those who think we overstep in the mideast "because we're not from there" and UBL is, and this somehow legitimizes his activities-

Is it better that we urge them toward representative democracy or that UBL bully them to the caliphate?

Do we now favor the idea of coercive, rigid and intolerant religious doctrine over choice?

Or is it only Christian religions that are "oppressive"?

Anyone care to forecast the possibility of civil war everywhere in the mideast if we bail, and UBL is given a free hand.
We shouldn't have been there to a great degree in the first place.

Why can't they have their civil war? We had ours.

I love the "urge them toward democracy" bit but OBL bullies them.:lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

We shouldn't have been there to a great degree in the first place.

It's to the 'small' degree, then, that we owe our effort, correct? ;)

Why can't they have their civil war? We had ours.

True, but events all over the world weren't so subject to the effects of OUR Civil War.

Besides which, there were no nukes to worry about.

I love the "urge them toward democracy" bit but OBL bullies them.:lol: :lol:[/QUOTE]

A nice touch, I thought.

Do you see UBL's methods morally equivalent to ours?

[JPaul]

Do you see UBL's methods morally equivalent to ours?
A better question would be to ask you where the methods differ.

Bet we've killed more civilians than him.

Re your sympathy point, you're absolutely correct. Which is why he should be listened to. To do otherwise is to re-inforce the sympathy he will receive.

[j2k4]

Do you see UBL's methods morally equivalent to ours?
A better question would be to ask you where the methods differ.

Bet we've killed more civilians than him.

Re your sympathy point, you're absolutely correct. Which is why he should be listened to. To do otherwise is to re-inforce the sympathy he will receive.

We have yet to stoop to conducting operations which exclusively target civilians.

I find this to be the most morally reprehensible activity of either side.

As to the other, do you feel we should never have adopted the policy of distaining negotiation with terrorists, or do you feel we should make an exception for the first of what is sure to become a series of exceptions?

[JPaul]

Sadly, we fire bombed Dresden so cannot make any claims re not attacking purely civilian targets.

Hiroshima was also a bit questionable, methinks. I know it had military significance, but the targeting wasn't very specific.

I do not think that one should ever negotiate with terrorists. Which is a really neat position to take. However, much as I am the one oft times accused of living in Disneyland, how do you see this ending. Coz' I don't think you're going to kill them all, old bean.

Neither will you be able to stop every attack they decide to try. Dirty bomb in New York anyone, it's not impossible.

[j2k4]

I don't recall any conflict whose mutual imperative was total elimination of the opposition down to the last living soul (those who have it in for Israel seem to think otherwise), not the least because of the civilian factor.

Civilian deaths are always a source of regret, but I note no curiousity on anyone's part over the lack of this sentiment on Al Qaeda's part.

Al Qaeda has no civilian component, and so would seem to be the ideal case for elimination; however, the burden remains as ever to impress upon the enemy that to continue is simply not worthwhile.

Though their fanaticism (at least on it's face) precludes surrender, we shouldn't feel badly for giving the job of convincing them our very best effort.

BTW-

Times have changed, and I ceased chastizing myself over Dresden, Hiroshima, et. al., long ago.

Demoralizing the enemy is desirable, but, as I said, Al Qaeda has no civilian component, and so is not typical anyway.

[JPaul]

Al Qaeda has no civilian component, and so would seem to be the ideal case for elimination; however, the burden remains as ever to impress upon the enemy that to continue is simply not worthwhile.

Though their fanaticism (at least on it's face) precludes surrender, we shouldn't feel badly for giving the job of convincing them our very best effort.


Tho' I suspect that both Afghanistan and Iraq do have said civilian component. However if we bomb the feck out of them then we may stop the actual enemy from attacking us further.

Good to see you're over Hiroshima btw, that'll never happen again.

[j2k4]

Good to see you're over Hiroshima btw, that'll never happen again.

Lesson learned?

You'd prefer otherwise?

[astrongpc]

i'm not even gonna touch this one..

But topic is very iffy.. ;) lol

[Busyman]

i'm not even gonna touch this one..

But topic is very iffy.. ;) lol
Thanks for sharing you've no comment.:ermm:

[JPaul]

Good to see you're over Hiroshima btw, that'll never happen again.

Lesson learned?

You'd prefer otherwise?
Read my post as one point, not two.

[j2k4]

Tho' I suspect that both Afghanistan and Iraq do have said civilian component. However if we bomb the feck out of them then we may stop the actual enemy from attacking us further.


Then get with the program, JP; bombing Pakistanis is the latest thing...

[j2k4]

i'm not even gonna touch this one..

But topic is very iffy.. ;) lol

Iffy topics are often quite soft to the touch.

[Biggles]

J2 have you had the Operation Breakfast (etc.,) therapy yet? :ph34r:

Not sure if this deserves a separate thread but the election of Hammas has thrown an interesting spanner into the works of ME politics.

If things were not complicated enough already. :(

I did, however, see an interesting thing on Hammas before the election, based in one of the towns they had already won at a local level. They apparently have proved very organised at the prosaic ... like putting road repairs out to competitive tender rather than giving to the brother of the Fatah mayor as used to be the case. It would appear that the vote of confidence by the Palestinians is largely based on a desire for good governance rather than some holy war.

It will be interesting to see what comes of it ...

balanced budget or bloodshed (or both? as was said of Mussolini - he made the trains run on time)

[JPaul]

(or both? as was said of Mussolini - he made the trains run on time)
Actually he made a train run on time. The one he used on the day he took power as I recall. The rest is a myth, but you knew that already.

[Biggles]

(or both? as was said of Mussolini - he made the trains run on time)
Actually he made a train run on time. The one he used on the day he took power as I recall. The rest is a myth, but you knew that already.

Hey! Getting one train in Italy to run on time is no mean achievement. They are late on point of principle there.

[JPaul]

Actually he made a train run on time. The one he used on the day he took power as I recall. The rest is a myth, but you knew that already.

Hey! Getting one train in Italy to run on time is no mean achievement. They are late on point of principle there.
I think it's an empirical law of trainage.

It's the leaves dontcha' know.

[Busyman]

Actually he made a train run on time. The one he used on the day he took power as I recall. The rest is a myth, but you knew that already.

Hey! Getting one train in Italy to run on time is no mean achievement. They are late on point of principle there.
I had an Italian instructor that told me the same thing.:O