Bin Laden offers "truce"
 

A short while ago (30 minutes or so) Al Jazeera aired a tape of (supposedly) Osama himself.

Osama has offered a "truce' to allow for the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I found that to be interesting considering we are rebuilding and the terrorists are blowing things up.

If this was, in fact, Osama, I suspect this comes from a position of weakness. If anyone thinks Osama is interested in peace they are....well...not thinking clearly. I would suspect he wants time to rebuild much of his scattered and weakened Al Qaeda network, and perhaps give himself time to acquire WMD from, say, Iran.

It will be interesting to see how quickly Pelosi and Kennedy and whomever come out and show support for this. I think it would be a huge mistake. The war on terror does not end with a truce. Osama's beliefs prevent peaceful coexistance.

What on earth makes you think that Pelosi, Kennedy or whomever would consider a truce with Bin Laden? I honestly cannot think of one liberal/democrat who has ever said one word suggesting that they aren't interested in capturing Bin Laden. Pelosi and Kennedy are on record time after time asking why we put Bin Laden on the back burner and went into Iraq. Everyone except the administration, it seems, have been in agreement that Bin Laden is our number one threat. But rather than put every resource into his capture, we get side-tracked with nation building.

I'm glad you don't think we should accept a truce with Bin Laden. Neither do I. To suggest that those on the liberal side of the spectrum want this is something I have seen zero evidence of. Maybe you have some?

I believe it based on their calls to bring troops home from Iraq immediately. This is what bin Laden is asking for - the removal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not a jump in logic to think that Murtha, for example, in his calls for immediate withdrawal from the region, would support the truce as a way to bring them home.

It would be, of course, a stupid thing to do. He wants a truce to allow his forces to reorganize in the region. But I do think that many on the left such as i have mentioned will fall for it.

I think there are more on the left that are able to tell the difference between Bin Laden and Iraq than you are willing to give credit. I would suggest that there are many, many people who want us out of Iraq but think that we should still pursue Bin Laden. We can do one without the other.

Also, I don't recall hearing Murtha say that we should pull troops out of Afghanistan.

I'll bet you your next appliance that there will be no democrats supporting a truce.

MBC, why do you suppose he has called for a truce?

If it is out of concern for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, then he would call for the end to suicide bombings and the like in the region. Instead, he suggests those who are doing the rebuilding leave. Why is that? He says he wants those regions to be rebuilt, yet wants the rebuilders to go.

This tells me something - Iraq IS part of the war on terror. Osama wants us out. I do not believe he wants that for the benefit of the people of Iraq. It is for his benefit. It is because he does not want free nations in that part of the world. He knows the war and freedom coming from it are damaging to him and his goals.

True - Murtha has not called for withdrawal from Afghanistan. My apologies.

So....Osama is playing to the left. He is simply calling for what they want - at least in part - which is the pullout of troops from Iraq. I hope you are right, but there will be those who will spin it as a way to spare American lives and the lives of citizens in Iraq. While some lives may be saved, many more will be lost in the long run should it happen.

In 2001 Osama Bin Laden masterminded the destruction of the World Trade Center and forced the President of the United States of America to sit in a Florida classroom with piss running down his leg while he looked around for his mommy.

Several days later Karl Rove and Dick Cheney somehow found Bush's shriveled nut sack and yanked it back into place. Bush walked tough and talked tough. Bin Laden would be brought to justice -- dead or alive.

Now, in 2006, Bin Laden is still free to make his pathetic little videos.

Unfvckingbelievable! Bush is a complete and total failure. Everything he touches turns to shiit and there are more terrorists running around on this planet than ever before. And as an added bonus, thanks to Dubya McNasty, they are now being trained in urban warfare in Iraq.

Yet we are supposed to believe that Bin Laden is now in a position weakness. Are you freaking kidding me?!? Bush has been Bin Laden's Recruiter of the Year for three years running. These are the salad days of terrorism, baby.

I haven't the foggiest idea.


It is now, thanks to us.


I don't think Osama gives a rats ass about playing to the left or right. And, if by some small chance he thinks he is playing to the left, it won't work. I've been listening to Air America for most of the day and liberal after liberal has said that there is no way whatsoever that they want a truce. They want his head. We always have. That's why there was never any serious objection to us going into Afghansitan. We want the bastard that attacked us, not pictures of Saddam in his underwear. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush just isn't that interested in Bin Laden. He hasn't been since before 9/11 and he sure isn't now otherwise we would have him already. We can pull Saddam out of a rabbit hole in Iraq but can't be bothered to find Bin Laden.

He's either called for truce because he's weak and needs to regroup, or he is about to do something really awful and wants to pretend like we forced his hand. Either way, it doesn't matter. He'll do what he will, and so shall we. I have never thought that going after Bin Laden was a bad thing, it's just where we seem to be 'looking' that has me concerned. A truce would imply that a state of war exists between them and us, whereas I was under the impression that they were merely murderous thugs and outlaws. Now that I think about it, was that ever clarified at Gitmo? Are they considered wartime enemies or international outlaws?

But no, there should be no acknowledgement of his 'offer' whatsoever. The pig doesn't deserve a response- to do so would only add legitimacy to his group.

All your other points have validity, but I find this statement to underestimate Osama. He comlpetely understands the politics here in America, and in fact he cited Somalia as the reason he thought he could be successful, because America can't stomach casualties.

He is most certainly playing. He is playing to the Arab community in trying to make it seem like he wants the destruction and bombings in their backyard to stop, and he is playing to the left in this country by offering a sham peace in order to give himself time.

He completely understands American politics.

I for one think we should accept this offer of peace. We should invite Bin Laden to a meeting in a neutral country like ohh I don't know say Pakistan to sign the agreement. We could send our copy via air mail.

I think he understands enough to know who the real powers are in this country, that's for sure. I don't think he understands Americans though, which may be his fatal flaw. We can bicker and argue about anything and everything, but if an outsider messes with our 'family' they are history.

So would Lichtenstein be ... if our armed forces were engaged there. Same would be true if our forces were in Fiji, or South Africa. Since we are one of the combatants in the so-called War on Terror, it pretty much follows that the War follows US.




Oh, and no one completely understands American politics. bin Laden may be playing, in part, to our politics ... but this move just shows how inept he is at that. (I'll grant that it might play well in Middle Eastern politics)

If it is remotely serious, then I can see this as the beginning of a process similar to that which converted Yassir Arafat into a statesman from his earlier "dirty terrorist" days.

If the "war" drags on long enough and he consistently pretends to be a statesman (even if he doesn't have a state) then people will start to think of him as someone to negotiate with. But this is a long process.

Someone summed it up somewhere I read today as "Bin Laden wants a truce in Iraq but not in America" which is probably true. But mostly I think it is just place nice for the home crowd where there is a much bigger element willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

While I do think there are elements in this country with more sympathy for Bin Laden's way of thinking than our government's, I think they are extremely fringe and that no liberal spokesman with any credibility or standing would even suggest negotiation with Bin Laden for years to come. But that was true of Israelis and Arafat as well at one time but eventually a "peace at any cost" faction will arise (and when it does it will likely be from the left just because of the nature of such things) and then will slowly morph into a larger more mainstream movement. I think that is a decades long process, though (eventually most people under 30 will be too young to remember waking up and watching the second plane hit and it will just be an intellectual rather than a visceral event; much like D-Day is for us now).

I have put more thought into it.....I think you are right MBC. I was too quick to say someone like a Pelosi or Kennedy would seriously consider it. To me they do represent the fringe of the left.

They are barely near the edge, must less even a thread in the fringe.

No argument from me that he is toying with us by offering a truce. I just think he is playing with us as a whole and not one political side or the other. I don't believe he thinks the left is weak. I believe he thinks that America as a whole is weak. If the offer of a truce was directed at the left in this country, I think he grossly underestimates us.

Edited to remove rant about you thinking that Pelosi and Kennedy would support a truce, as a result of your later post.

Fair enough. :)

And actually, I respect that you took the time to rethink your position. I think there are those on the right that would like us to believe that only they can be strong on terrorism but I've seen nothing from anyone on the left that would suggest that we are ready to start negotiating with Bin Laden.

I can only speak for myself but the only thing that will satisfy me as far as Bin Laden is concerned is his being brought to justice. No negotiations, no peace talks, no truce. He killed thousands of our citizens and needs to pay dearly for it. I will be satisfied with nothing less.