So Osama has suggested a truce

Must be a cold day around Tora Bora...Ha-ha


But it does raise an interesting possibility.

Should we enter into Peace Negotiations with Al Queda?

Factor More Death and Destruction,,,,Factor longer wars....Factor the financial cost of maintaining the effort....Factor how this might hurt or help Dems in 2006 and 2008 to even raise the possibility.


Factor Justice for 9/11 and other attacks.

Is a truce (assuming verifiability and we still have access to oil) in the nation's best interest?

And would YOU trust a deal negociated between TWO sets of religious nutcases?

You hit the nail on the head.

er.. I mean Ohio Joe :hi:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

What about his successors, however? Rumor has it that the Big-O snuffed it some time ago. Good riddance, but if his successor can prove he is not as vile (and that's gonna take a LOT of convincing to do), then maaaaaaaaaaaybe...

It all depends. And so much has happened and so many are skeptical.

what's the point of Al Quaeda? they are a multi-national terrorist organisation, they have no natural constituency, not geographic location, no raison d'etre besides terrorism. So what do they have to gain? Theoretically, you could negotiate a truce between hezbollah and Israel, for instance, because Hezbollah has a few minor activities that don't involve terrorism (and they are a distinct minority of the group's activities, I'm not trying to put lipstick on the pig here) but Hezbollah could, with the right leadership, develop into a poltiical entity within a democratic process in whatever we are calling Palestine this week. And there are groups in Iraq that could develop into legitimate political entities, I'm sure. But what does AQ have to gain from this? What are they going to do with their lives from now on?

that's the question that needs answering.

I am utterly amazed at people on this board that believe OBL is still alive.

Hook

Line

Sinker

Sheesh!

1. It would only apply in Iraq and Afghanistan - both places have more than enough indigenous insurgents to keep the fighting going.

2. It is unverifiable. Osama could continue to have his men fight there, and how would we prove they are working for him or not?

3. I don't know what it would commit us to; but if it is to stop seeking out him and his advisors, that's a really terrible bargain, particularly since he makes it clear he intends to attack us.

4. Alternatively, if you believe OBL to be largely a fiction, than why would you support a truce with a fiction? Or, to put it another way, if OBL is under Rove's thumb, than this truce comes from Karl Rove. So wouldn't that make you suspicious of it at the outset? The point is moot, in that case anyway. If OBL is our puppet it's clear that the point of this little drama is to let Cheney or Bush say "we do not negotiate with terrorists about a million times.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Wants us out of the Arabian Pennisula for sure....and probably some war reparations....

But also he wants to be the leader of the Islamic World. In accomplishing that he would reach Mohommeddan-like stature.

Superbowl tickets.....

It can get pretty boring up in Tora Bora.

But then again, they have been lying and have been proven wrong each and everytime. Keep in mind, that Osama was funded/supported by another GOP Administration. So is making a truce with this guy such a big deal?

I know your answer, and what timing you have...lol.

Bush failed in capturing Bin Laden and lost Iraq. Bin Laden is much smarter than dipshit, that's for sure.

He-men like him don't do such things.

has chimed in with a rationale

They would use a truce to rebuild their forces, especially in places like Pakistan and Afganistan. That truce also does not seem to apply to our allies and so they would continue to bomb secular Islamic countries in the hopes of destabalizing the Islamic world

Their dream of an Islamic Caliphate stretching from Europe to Asia and including parts of Africa and including 1+ billion muslims armed with nuclear weapons is a frightning thought. That is their goal and that will not be changing anytime soon. This battle is one which in the end will not be won by military strength alone, it must be won in the marketplace of ideas. We must make the message of Bin laden less appealing to the masses in the Islamic world. Freedom and economic growth is the best way to achieve that outcome longterm.

For lack of a better image and MLK to Bin Laden's Malcolm X. No I am not suggesting much in the way of similarity between the two... I am suggesting that the Islamic worlds need a Non-violent Movement leader. To engage Bin Laden and Hamas and Hezbollalh in the marketplace of idea.

Problem is that He can not be our puppet. He still has to be able to say that the West is the enemy but that there are bigger problems like abject poverty and poor education that need to be addressed internally.


THe Islamic world needs someone who can challenge Islamic men to take on the world another way.

...designed to frighten us and galvanize support for the neo-cons.

they would be annihilated.

I had no idea Osama wanted a truce; he's usually ranting from his unknown cave about annihilating us all... so why is he changing his tune?

just another excuse for macho chest thumping at home

sign it with?

I think the British found this out when dealing with the IRA, who were outlaws as much as Al Queda are outlaws.

It was the IRA itself who said they were willing to stop bombing things. I believe it will be the same with Al Queda.

the IRA had a political wing, and a domestic constituency to represent in the future. The IRA and Sinn Fein could morph into a legitimate, if not exactly respectable, poltiical entity within the Irish political process (and British, of course, with Northern Ireland) AQ doesn't have this, so what do they have to contribute to the process except violence?

I don't see how we could sign a peace treaty with them. They just aren't a sovereign nation, nor are they affiliated with one anymore, now that they have lost Afghanistan. Maybe they may have a political wing in Saudi Arabia, but how would we know?

That was one vs one, the Brits and their allies in N. Ireland vs IRA

this is Al Queda vs the entire secular world. Will he be signing a peace treaty with each european nation, with secular turkey? Israel? Afganistan? Pakistan? the Iraqi people? The problem is Al Queda can not sign treaties to make peace. They can make a treaty with the US and Europe to stay out of the fight, but they by definition can not make truces with other non-Taliban type govs. They are essentialy at war with the world so a truce is a meaningless exercise.

It can't be done. Karl Rove is putting this out as if it can be done. A *treaty* of some sort will be announced and we will withdraw troops before the 2006 election. Another DUer has suggested this on another thread. It makes sense.

I don't think he wants the Democrats coming together any more than Bush does. He had to know the left would jump on the "truce" bandwagon and put Democrats in a bind so he could keep his war on. These extremists are not our friends, whether it's Bin Laden or Phelps.

you cannot enter peace negotiations with a non-existent entity.

He gets attacked on the war and his approval rating tanks, add in some investigations about illegal fundraising and fears of an unending war that could grant Bush unprecidented powers...

And look who comes along to bail him out...

Fascinating.

because OBL would not want to do anything to help Bush, and they are probably responding to the attack a few days ago that may have killed some of high level guys, but when he releases this stuff it makes the "less" smart among us think of 9/11 and make them feel the need to be more patriotic and any questioning they may have been doing over Bush and his policies goes away in the patriotic frenzy that follows.

When OBL released that tape the day before the election I cringed. In my opinion that must have given Bush loads of votes.

The whole premise is a farce. OBL proposes it simply so bush can summarily reject it, which fuels their continued feud.

Not only WILL bush reject it, for once I'd agree that he SHOULD reject it. You can't enter into any such dealing with a non-national entity. This would be "negotiating with terrorists" writ large. To the extent that the offer is genuine, it should be rejected because its existence would be proof that Al Qaeda is in a desparate losing position. To the extent that it is not genuine, it should be rejected as it is not trustworthy. Either way, this is an easy decision.

On the other hand, it's a great move for OBL to do this. First, it ups his stature as an international "player" whether or not bush agrees to it. Second, when bush rejects it, he can release all kinds of propaganda like, "We offered them peace, and they chose war!" Third, it may create the illusion that he's ready to cut a deal under the table, and flush out some intelligence operatives.

Every move OBL makes is going to be designed to undercut America, one way or another. This is no different.

... I think that the real Osama is long since dead. And the one we see now is a fake created by Bush Co. that shows up every time something is needed to boost his support numbers and/or keep the america public in fear.

i don't think you can just say, oh let's sweep that under the rug, about the cold-blooded murder of 3,000 people, sorry

there can be no truce, osama bin laden and anyone else who funded, trained, or otherwise contributed to the murders should be placed on public trial and made to answer for their crimes