Bin Laden offers "truce" - Page 2

Moonliner · 01-19-2006, 09:11 PM

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.

wendybeth · 01-19-2006, 09:11 PM

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.

innerSpaceman · 01-19-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This tells me something - Iraq IS part of the war on terror.

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)

Alex · 01-19-2006, 09:28 PM

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).

scaeagles · 01-19-2006, 09:43 PM

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.

innerSpaceman · 01-19-2006, 09:48 PM

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

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-19-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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.

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-19-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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.

01-19-2006, 09:11 PM	#11
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	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. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

01-19-2006, 09:11 PM	#12
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	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. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

01-19-2006, 09:28 PM	#14
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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).
	Submit to Quotes

01-19-2006, 09:43 PM	#15
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

01-19-2006, 09:48 PM	#16
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	They are barely near the edge, must less even a thread in the fringe.
	Submit to Quotes