Printable View
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
another one...what' s up this time, has his cel phone run out of power?
Can't think of a reason why we should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula1
Have you changed your mind about 9//11? :huh:
To stop people dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
^^ Good point
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel123
However it is surely better not to pre-judge, but to listen, then to decide on the best way forward.
$$$$/££££ all round JP what does it matter, the people in power will never be touched
btw £>$
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 point.
I tihnk if bush agrees to the truce, americans will never forgive him.
Not quite my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by maebach
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?
Good to see you haven't pre-judged, but have chosen to actually discuss things.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
the last statement was my point, I should edit that.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What he offers is clearly untouchable for the US Gov. thus justifying future acts of terrorism for him and his followers.
How does one know, until one has listened to the proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
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.
Hm...Who'd win in a fight? Bush or big Ben? oh wait, new poll idea me likes!
Ummm...pre-judged...riiiiiiiiiiiiight. :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Has someone commandeered your account?
He's gotta be blowin' smoke.
Wtf are the terms?
Sounds like bullshit to say he was reaching out and was snubbed.:dry:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
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.
For the contrary, no, I haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula1
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalice
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.
Sure they count, but if this is the case, why isn't (for example) Spain carrying the ball?Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula1
OBL operates under bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Nice summation. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalice
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.
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.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin, Bush....all complex individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
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:
:happy: Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
Absolutely nothing. However that does not mean you cannot listen to his suggestions for a compromise. Or for that matter anyone else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The IRA wrote the book on tilting public perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chalice
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. :)
We shouldn't have been there to a great degree in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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:
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?
A better question would be to ask you where the methods differ.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.