Osama Bin Laden offers Truce to the U.S.

[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. ....

[Biggles]

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

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

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.

[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. [/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.