How can the truce be real.....?

Ajnag

As you probably know by now, an alleged tape of osama bin laden has offered a truce to european countrys If they withdraw from moslim countrys.

This smells, tbh.If their was one way to ensure European countrys COULDNT withdraw, then this statement is It.Anyone who now try's to leave the U.s in the hole they have dug themselves now faces accusations of appeasment that only this statement could make possible.

So whats goin on I ask, Bin Laden aint that stupid, If He really wanted E.u countrys to withdraw support from the us, He would know not to make such a statement.So is the statement
A: A Fake?
B: Bin Laden wants the europeans to stay and as such wants the war, not the end of western interferance in the middle east.
or
C: something that hasnt been pointed out.

Something aint quite right here.....

seamus

Originally posted by Ajnag
C: something that hasnt been pointed out.

IMO. A truce would only be an intermediary step to ensure that nobody dies now. If Europe pull out, Al-Queda would have a lot more freedom to increase their strength and numbers, and a campaign against European targets would be inevitable.

It smells tbh.

growler

the security services / experts in the west believe Bin Laden and co have very limited contact / operational control over the disparate bunches of fanatics that are labelled Al Qaida, and intense surveillance etc. Afghanistan is under now means he is even less likely to be anything more than a figurehead for these nutters. The only reason to release a statement like this would be to attempt to create further divisions between the US and Europe and to get himself some more media coverage. It's quite an overt attempt to influence European elections :
"also offer a reconciliation initiative to them, whose essence is our commitment to stopping operations against every country that commits itself to not attacking Muslims or interfering in their affairs - including the US conspiracy on the greater Muslim world.

This reconciliation can be renewed once the period signed by the first government expires and a second government is formed with the consent of both parties."


Cynically I would have expected a statement such as this to come soon after a new wave of attacks.

Doubt anyone will take it very seriously.

growler

full text of the alleged statement can be seen at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3628069.stm

chewy

some "security correspondant" was saying them stop the war types would negotiate with osama...


im presuming people feelings are, atleast mine is that... , no one wouldn't negotiate with a osama but look for various power countires to change there goreign policies, remove all US troops from saudi arabia.... for the sake of all muslim and the world ....

screw osama

mr_angry

This statement has only one purpose, and that is to attempt to drive a wedge between the US and her allies. Anyone backing out now (like the Spanish are anyway) looks like an Al Qaeda sympathiser. If Osama gets lucky, Fox News will take the opportunity to label the Spanish as "weasels", or "traitors" or something similar, and turn Europeans against the US.

Sand

Look lads, so long as we all do what Osama says and leave the middle east, africa and asia as his "sphere of influence" then you wont get hurt. And for gods sake get rid of those secularist laws France has introduced - I cant see Osama approving them.

Cmon, we can compromise with the man. Compromise and negotiation are the way forward here. He seems really reasonable, especially compared to that psycho Bush. I mean, all that bad press is probably the Fox propaganda. When will people learn to take a reputable source like the Tehran times at face value instead of that US ultra nationalist crap? We should be practising "duck and cover", not provoking Osama with these ideas of opposing him.

But if you ahead with this idea that Osama and company should be resisted then youve only yourselves to blame when he kills some people.

flogen

It is certainly a devisive tool, or an attempt to divide the EU from the US, if it were to be accepted it would nearly destroy America (as they would be left to fight alone, and would then be the only target for attacks from Al-Q), it would also give Bin Laden more breathing space to get himself organised.
I do think that this will lead to countries like Spain being refered to as whipping boys of Bin Laden, which will mean another country from the EU will have sour relations with the US, but this is yet to be seen for sure.

Flogen

gandalf

Well I am anti-Iraq war in opinion but a truce with Osama Bin Liner you have to be kidding. If the US were thinking correctly they should have stayed out of Iraq and have that 130,000 troops that are bogged down in Saddam land turning over every stone on the Afghan/Pakistani border hunting for this git ages ago. They would have bagged him by now (preferably alive so he could be humiliated and tried).

Then again he didn't "try to kill my Daddy" as George Jr. would say

Gandalf.

Ajnag

I allways knew you were an Al-quida sympathiser sand.

Tho if that was an attempt at sarcasim, its pretty well lost, no one would in their right minds would ever negociate with an international criminal.Now if only that ideal would apply to goverments who are in breach of law too.

Besides your not gonna tell me BinLaden was hiding beside the imaginary wmd's in Iraq are ya, No to the contrary Hes free to kill again because as it turns out the whole Iraqi excercise was nothing less then a diversion from the wot.

For oil no less, some would say......

Hobbes

They should agree to the truce on the condition he comes to the UN to sign it. I'll bring the bats.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Seaneh

I wouldn't trust it to be honest.
It smella a bit of "Feck off and let our lads regroup and train new members so we can attack you again" to me...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Tho if that was an attempt at sarcasim, its pretty well lost, no one would in their right minds would ever negociate with an international criminal.Now if only that ideal would apply to goverments who are in breach of law too.

But governments have, havent they? People have sat down with the worst murdering scum to negotiate. Why not now? Lets think out of the box here.

What do Europeans want? Peace, security, prosperity. Bin Laden offers this so long as Europeans do not intefere with his plans for the Islamic world, which ranks a lot lower on Europeans list of concerns than peace, security and prosperity. What does Europe care what goes on in the Islamic world so long as the oil flows? Isnt this a fair trade? Why should Europeans die on a war for the benefit of US big bussiness, as Bin Laden points out? Its clear this man is more than the bloodthirsty death worshipper hes painted as. The new Yasser Arafat or Gerry Adams perhaps?

I mean, Ive become persuaded to the point of view that military action is pointless, and is actually part of the problem. Clearly terrorism cant be defeated. So we must negotiate instead. Swallow your pride and your principles and lets get down to the bussiness of getting whats best for Europe. Afghanistan was never our concern, Iraq was never our concern. Leave their concerns to the UN. Lets make friends of these heroic freedom fighter, not enemies.

mr_angry

Ok Sand. We got the message with your first post. We're not looking for the thread to be removed to Political Satire yet.

mike65

If its a genuine tape than Bin Liner is even more deluded than already suspected. Luckily the reaction for the "great and the good" has been uniformly hostile.

Hang on, maybe it was a CIA loyality test....:ninja:

Mike.

Sand

Ok Sand. We got the message with your first post. We're not looking for the thread to be removed to Political Satire yet.

Im sorry - I thought that this is a golden opportunity for all those who oppose military action in favour of negotiation, concensus building and compromise. Ive been told again and again that war is not the answer, that military action creates more terrorists than it kills and so on and so forth.

And now we have Bin Laden offering to talk peace and ....... what - no one wants to? So were all in favour of military action before negotiation then? I mean, you mightnt like Bin laden but governments have sat down with worse than him so thats no exscuse.

usualsuspect

bin laden is offering something that isn't his to give.

brendy_eire

How has Bertie replyed to this statement, I wonder. After all, we are part of the 'coalition of the willing'.

I can't understand why no European nation has accepted this offer. What do we have to lose? Saying we take Bin Laden on his word, he seems a pretty reasonable man after all, we get peace and security, Arabs don't get invaded by Europeans.
Who loses exactly? If the US wants to untake wars to promote its economic interests, they can do it alone. Let the yanks call us 'weasels' or what have ye, it won't be us getting blown up in our trains or sending our young people to foreign countries to die for American capitalism.

mike65

Just so we can read this bit again!

Originally posted by brendy_eire
why no European nation has accepted this offer. What do we have to lose? Saying we take Bin Laden on his word, he seems a pretty reasonable man after all, we get peace and security...

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
And now we have Bin Laden offering to talk peace and ....... what - no one wants to? So were all in favour of military action before negotiation then?

Well, gee, I dunno Sand. Would you have supported a US campaign to nuke Iraq and Afghanistan back into the stone age?

If not, then by your own logic, this must mean that you don't support miltary action at all, and are obviously in favour of a peaceful solution instead.

Put more clearly - just as your support for this military action doesn't equate to a carte-blanche of support for any military action, those who oppose this military action - or even military action in general - may not see taking bin Laden's action as a preferable alternative.

Yet again its the old "reduce it to A or B, and I've got a valid argument". Sure you do - if those were the only two options.

I mean, you mightnt like Bin laden but governments have sat down with worse than him so thats no exscuse.

Just like you mighn't think that use of nuclear weapons would be appropriate for the "liberation" of Iraq and Afghanistan, but hey - something needed to be done, right?

jc

brendy_eire

Originally posted by daveirl
Your credibilty now stands at zero. The Stalin quote is bad enough.

Can you please try argue the point instead of just critising it.

(Not at all a fan of Stalin BTW, he just came out with some quality quotes.)

Sand

Put more clearly - just as your support for this military action doesn't equate to a carte-blanche of support for any military action, those who oppose this military action - or even military action in general - may not see taking bin Laden's action as a preferable alternative.

Fair enough - but what is their alternative then? They oppose military action on the grounds it will create more terrorism. They argue for negotiation and concensus. The terrorists then offer to negotiate a peace, emboldened no doubt by Spains retreat from Iraq.

Given that, whats so bad about sitting down with Bin Laden? whats so unpalatable about actually hearing what he has to say? A lot of the same people who are crying "Ooooh, i could never imagine an elected government dealing with Bin Laden" would without an iota of irony argue that the Israelis are wrong not to deal with Yasser Arafat, and would say that the Unionists must get off their high horse and deal with SF and the IRA.

So no to military action, no to negotiation - what exactly is the third way? Teach the kids duck and cover in case Bin laden ever gets his hands on a nuke or blows up Sellafield?

growler

interesting ideas your throwing out there sand and on the surface I guess they are reasonable questions, however the big difference between Bin Laden and Gerry / Arafat and co. is that Al Qaeda would appear to have no real mandate, they represent the militant views of a tiny minority of the muslim world, they have no cohesive political "identity" other than killing infidels and bringing about an islamic world, they have no claims to their own "homeland" and so have no one people / area that they can claim to represent, they don't even have one enemy like the IRA or PLO... they subscribe to the "those who are not with us are against us "philosophy. So without any clear goals, clear structure or a claim to represent a distinct group who might evolve into a political identity, there seems little point in treating this offer with anything more than contempt.

Al Qaeda is a very cynical organisation, I don't think the world has a frame of reference within which we can discuss dealing with them, 9/11 surpassed our understanding of what terrorists were capable of, they dramatically changed the landscape of western security for the forseeable future.

If , as it would seem from the rantings they occassionally print, they want an islamic world then , long term, they will remain the enemy of the Western christian democracy which (most) of us quite like to live in.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Fair enough - but what is their alternative then?

I would have thought that trying to genuinely improve relationships with governments, and trying to change the underlying socio-economic conditions which are common to virtually every single terrorist recruiting hotspot would have been a good start.

Instead, the military action seems to be gung-ho set on increasing the "recruitment net" for terrorists.

They oppose military action on the grounds it will create more terrorism.

Are you telling me there is less terorist activity in IRaq today than (say) 2 years ago? If not, then I'm not entirely sure of what your point with this comment is? You think people should support actions which increase terrorism in order to fight terrorism? How does that work exactly? Is it like a computer counter - where if we can "go over the top" in the amount, it will flip back to 0 or a negative value or something

They argue for negotiation and concensus.

You forget who they argue for negotiation and concensus with.

The terrorists then offer to negotiate a peace, emboldened no doubt by Spains retreat from Iraq.

If anything, the terrorists offered to negotiate a peace to stem the tide of nations getting out of the fight.

It suits their purposes to have these hotbeds of terrorism created, and the global resentment of the responsible western perpetrators to increase. Even if you argue that these are only short-term increases (which there is no indication that they are, as we have yet to see a true success in fighting terorism in terms of a country actually being in a more secure state than before it was "liberated"), it still is a valuable short-term gain...and if it reaches a critical mass, then its long-term as well.

Given that, whats so bad about sitting down with Bin Laden? whats so unpalatable about actually hearing what he has to say?

I'd love to hear what he has to say. Or anyone from his organisation empowered to speak publically. Doesn't mean I'd negotiate with them - not without some significant gesture of goodwill taken on their part in advance. And no...I haven't carefully thought out what would make a sufficient gesture of goodwill.

A lot of the same people who are crying "Ooooh, i could never imagine an elected government dealing with Bin Laden"

I could imagine it. Just not now. Not today, nor any time soon. I mean - when the US went into Iraq, they swore to remove the existing command structure of the army, and are busy getting as much of it back as possible. The US has a policy of never negotiating with terrorists, but after labelling the insurgencies in Iraq as terrorist activity, they then turned around, changed the tag they were using, and sat down and had a pow-wow.

So no to military action, no to negotiation - what exactly is the third way?

No to this military action. No to this offer of negotiation. Not quite the same thing.

jc

mr_angry

Originally posted by Sand
Fair enough - but what is their alternative then? They oppose military action on the grounds it will create more terrorism. They argue for negotiation and concensus. The terrorists then offer to negotiate a peace, emboldened no doubt by Spains retreat from Iraq.

Given that, whats so bad about sitting down with Bin Laden? whats so unpalatable about actually hearing what he has to say? A lot of the same people who are crying "Ooooh, i could never imagine an elected government dealing with Bin Laden" would without an iota of irony argue that the Israelis are wrong not to deal with Yasser Arafat, and would say that the Unionists must get off their high horse and deal with SF and the IRA.

So no to military action, no to negotiation - what exactly is the third way? Teach the kids duck and cover in case Bin laden ever gets his hands on a nuke or blows up Sellafield?

Frankly Sand, if you thought that was the point of the entire liberal argument, then I feel you are very much mistaken. In fact, I would go as far as to say that you are attempting to hyperbolise the entire argument with the intent of irritating the people who made it. However, for the purposes of rational discussion, I'll give you then benefit of the doubt, and assume you mis-interpreted it.

The difference between people like Saddam and people like Bin Laden is quite clear. Firstly, Saddam wasn't necessarily guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. By that, I mean the posession and intent to use WMDs. Personally, I think there was enought to warrant his removal anyway, but thats another matter. Secondly, the war was not carried out purely against Saddam himself, but on Iraq as a soverign nation, its people, its infrastructure, and its economy. Most of the Iraqi dead were guilty of no more than being in Iraq.

On the other hand, Osama Bin Laden is a criminal with a private army that represents no nation. Of course, I wouldn't advocate his assassination since that only brings us down to his level, but I do feel that he should be captured and tried for his crimes.

So, perhaps thats cleared up the difference.
1) Loads of innocent Iraqis dead.
2) Bin Laden captured and tried for his crimes.

See?

Sand

Al Qaeda would appear to have no real mandate, they represent the militant views of a tiny minority of the muslim world, they have no cohesive political "identity" other than killing infidels and bringing about an islamic world, they have no claims to their own "homeland" and so have no one people / area that they can claim to represent,

The same could be said about the IRA who numbered only 800, Active service members and sympathisers. The British Government sat down with them. The thing with terrorists is that they punch far above their weight. When youre dealing with people willing to murder innocents out a mixture of hatred and politics then mandates go out the window. Al Queda networks between a variety of terrorist groups....If anyone can get a concensus from these groups and deliver on a deal a person with the profile and image of Bin laden would be it.

So without any clear goals, clear structure or a claim to represent a distinct group who might evolve into a political identity, there seems little point in treating this offer with anything more than contempt.

Their goals I thought were fairly clear, to unite the Arab world under an islamic theocracy, remove western corruption from their society, destroy Israel and to some extent protect muslims in Europe from the oppression of the Western Christian infidels. Yeah, fairly extreme, but its a point to start from.

I would have thought that trying to genuinely improve relationships with governments, and trying to change the underlying socio-economic conditions which are common to virtually every single terrorist recruiting hotspot would have been a good start.

But arent these governments the problem? Saddam before his overthrow, The Saudi royal family, the Iranian Clerics ? Theyve have so effectively eliminated free thinkers and democrats that the only anti- establishment forces with any decent organisation are the Islamic fundamentalists. For people who dont agree with the governments ruling them in the middle east seemingly the only group with its act together are the Islamic jihad boys. And lets not forget that the US is lambasted for its relationships with these governments, who have no gain from surrendering power to the people and who are petrified of the fundamentalist forces loose within their countries. The Saudis are practically paying protection money to the fundamentalists.

Are you telling me there is less terorist activity in IRaq today than (say) 2 years ago?

Id argue there are less terrorists in the government now and more in the insurgency. The same goes for Afghanistan.

You forget who they argue for negotiation and concensus with.

With themselves or with wholly unrepresentive dictatorships? I mean the Saudi royal family claims to be bossom buddies of the west and the US in particular. All 19 of the 9/11 terrrorists were Saudis. Theres a bit of a divergence there.

It suits their purposes to have these hotbeds of terrorism created, and the global resentment of the responsible western perpetrators to increase.

Victory suits them better - think what a morale booster it would be for Al Queda to deliver a deal whereby Europeans pull out of Iraq making it so much easier to operate, it would swing a lot of those sitting on the fence to throw their lot in with the guys who are top, it would encourage a humiliating coalition withdrawal and allow Al Queda sponsored groups to sieze power in Iraq and re-enact Afghanistan on an even greater scale....with the wonderful oil leverage and the tempting possibility of reactivating Saddams WMD programs. Spurning victory just to keep the battle going longer.... doesnt make much sense.

not without some significant gesture of goodwill taken on their part in advance.

The old tory/unionist line? But the Irish and British governments did negotiate with the IRA whilst they were still murdering people, even before the first ceasefire.

Firstly, Saddam wasn't necessarily guilty of the crimes of which he was accused.

Its quite clear he is a war crinimal, a trial is merely a formality after his use of wmd in the iranian war. It is on this basis that the US is so heavily criticised for allying with him. I know you mightnt feel the US was wrong to ally with Saddam but its a common enough theme in arguments as to why the US couldnt be trusted to liberate Iraq.

Bin Laden is no more or less guilty of his crimes than Saddam is. Its clear hes guilty ( hes admitted it ) and a trial would simply be a formality so I dont see the great difference between advocating engagement with Saddam and similar regimes in the middle east and engagement with Bin Laden.



Lads, youre dissapointing me. I was hoping Id see how negotiation could solve the problems the world faces, but Im surrounded by war mongers who spurn a fair offer of negotiations to a peaceful resolution. We have a responsibilty to exhaust every peaceful avenue before resorting to violence. Dont we?

mr_angry

Originally posted by Sand
Lads, youre dissapointing me. I was hoping Id see how negotiation could solve the problems the world faces, but Im surrounded by war mongers who spurn a fair offer of negotiations to a peaceful resolution. We have a responsibilty to exhaust every peaceful avenue before resorting to violence. Dont we?

Perhaps you'd like to suggest a rational peaceful compromise then Sand?

growler

The same could be said about the IRA who numbered only 800, Active service members and sympathisers

I think the IRA / Sinn Fein could claim to have a larger support base than that + all the republicans in the South, the US, Glasgow and elsewhere. The PLO / Hamas / Al Asqua etc. can point to a "people" and "land" that they claim to represent. Al Qaida, by it's nature does not have this , nor can it readily point to supporters / sympathisers with its aims as they would be promptly locked up in most of their own countries.

Maybe, as you say this makes little difference as they pack a punch unequal to their power, but would you not say that if Bin Laden purported to represent a distinct ethnic / geographical group that negotiating with them would be simpler?

Victory suits them better - think what a morale booster it would be for Al Queda to deliver a deal whereby Europeans pull out of Iraq making it so much easier to operate

Not certain of that either, if Afghanistan / Taliban proved anything it's that a clearly identifiable terrorist state is a very easy target for long range weapons and satellite surveillance. If Al Qaida ever did "win" they would be unable to create anything to administer any resulting state, the only state the can operate in is anarchy (islamic anarchy , but anarchy none the less). They have a very warped utopian ideology combined with their fanaticism and loose network or relationships with other nutters it seems that they couldn't really enforce anything even if they were negotiated with.