Should The USA Accept the Truce? (1 Viewer)

[Duke]

A message came from Osama Bin Laden, saying that they were planning an attack to the heartland of the USA, you know, the usual, but it had something new. Bin Laden suggested a truce, a solution to the War on Terror. He said if American forces left the Middle East (Which he considers his holy land), then he would end his terror wars. He even says that under this truce, America can stay and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, but not interfere with the governing of the countries. This truce would end the war on terror. It is a simple as this: Supossedly, we are in the Middle East to fight the battle against terrorism. Now, all we have to do is leave the Middle East, and we no longer have to worry about terrorist! Now what is wrong with this solution? Why would the USA not jump at a chance to save thousands of American lives, civilians and soldiers? It comes down to only one possiblity: there must be another reason the US is in the Middle East. A big, important reason that is more important than the lives of Americans. Why what could that be? What does the Middle East have so much of that the USA needs?

Here is Bin Laden's message, somewhat abridged.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17887284%5E601,00.html


Duke

 

[cherokee]

No, Never!

 

[Kandahar]

Of course we shouldn't. Is this thread a joke or are you actually serious?

This truce would end the war on terror.

You're a fool if you honestly believe that.

Now, all we have to do is leave the Middle East, and we no longer have to worry about terrorist! Now what is wrong with this solution?

1. It shows would-be terrorists that all they have to do is attack enough times and we will eventually cave.

2. We would be out of the Middle East and it would cost hundreds of billions of more to go back in when the next terror attack struck. What in the world would make you believe that Osama Bin Laden is a man of his word?

3. Al-Qaeda (let alone other Islamic terror groups) is a franchise operation, not a centrally-controlled conglomerate. Bin Laden doesn't have the power to call off all of the world's terrorists even if he was actually serious.

Why would the USA not jump at a chance to save thousands of American lives, civilians and soldiers? It comes down to only one possiblity: there must be another reason the US is in the Middle East. A big, important reason that is more important than the lives of Americans. Why what could that be? What does the Middle East have so much of that the USA needs?

What's your point? Are you suggesting we should abandon the region and let it fall into chaos, thus strangling the world's economy as the supply of oil suddenly decreased dramatically?

 

[FinnMacCool]

No but I still think it would be a good idea to meet with him. . . .

So that we can kill him.

 

[Vandeervecken]

you cannot have a truce withiout trust. I agree we should meet with him, and kill him.

 

[scottyz]

No. I'm sure he would never honor the truce. His stated goal is to bankrupt the U.S. and keeping us in Iraq is doing that.

 

[LeftyHenry]

No we shouldn't, unless we continue to not look for him. We concentrate too much on Iraq, which was unprovoked and random, snd not at all on the man who attacked us.

 

[Duke]

Of course we shouldn't. Is this thread a joke or are you actually serious?



You're a fool if you honestly believe that.



1. It shows would-be terrorists that all they have to do is attack enough times and we will eventually cave.

2. We would be out of the Middle East and it would cost hundreds of billions of more to go back in when the next terror attack struck. What in the world would make you believe that Osama Bin Laden is a man of his word?

3. Al-Qaeda (let alone other Islamic terror groups) is a franchise operation, not a centrally-controlled conglomerate. Bin Laden doesn't have the power to call off all of the world's terrorists even if he was actually serious.



What's your point? Are you suggesting we should abandon the region and let it fall into chaos, thus strangling the world's economy as the supply of oil suddenly decreased dramatically?

Have you even read Bin Laden's fatwa? I don't know what you are coming from, but according to that, Al-Queida would have no good reason to attack after the US got it's military and it's intrests out of his "holy land".


Is there a part of this that you are missing? Bin Laden, who is, according to Bush, the main terrorist enemy, and has power over the terrorist armies, would have no valid reason to attack the US (other countries, maybe), if the USA pulled out of the Middle East. Do you get it? No more attacks, no re-invasion of anything.

Also, did you so much as read my post? The rebuilding of the Middle East would go on.


Duke

 

[Busta]

The "truce" is a bluff. Isn't this what they did to Spain? Withdraw your troops, lower your guard in a false sense of security.....next thing you know, your subways get bombed.

I can't quote the passage off-hand, but the Koran allowes them to lie to the infidel (that's you). Proposing false trueses and alliances, then striking when their enemy's back is turned is a standard tactic.

 

[Connecticutter]

Have you even read Bin Laden's fatwa? I don't know what you are coming from, but according to that, Al-Queida would have no good reason to attack after the US got it's military and it's intrests out of his "holy land".


Is there a part of this that you are missing? Bin Laden, who is, according to Bush, the main terrorist enemy, and has power over the terrorist armies, would have no valid reason to attack the US (other countries, maybe), if the USA pulled out of the Middle East. Do you get it? No more attacks, no re-invasion of anything.

Also, did you so much as read my post? The rebuilding of the Middle East would go on.


Duke

If we pulled out, he would still be planning attacks all over the middle East to topple and destabilize their governments until he get a caliphate. Then they' be going to war with Israel, India, possibly Russia, China - it doesn't end. These are not the kind of people that just want to be "left alone".

Even if we left, they'd still hate the fact that we do buisiness there and that our buisinesses tend to dislike Islamic fundamentalist regimes, and bring American culture to the region. We have no choice here.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

No truce with terrorists. They are not rational human beings by anyone''s standards except perhaps their own, and there can be no negotiating with madmen.

Too, there's the matter of precedent. If we have allowed terrorists to kill innocents rather than negotiate with them, how can we now justify the calling of a truce? We cannot. No quarter.

 

[Kelzie]

The "truce" is a bluff. Isn't this what they did to Spain? Withdraw your troops, lower your guard in a false sense of security.....next thing you know, your subways get bombed.

I can't quote the passage off-hand, but the Koran allowes them to lie to the infidel (that's you). Proposing false trueses and alliances, then striking when their enemy's back is turned is a standard tactic.

No, they bombed the subway and then Spain pulled out. Nothing happened to them after that.



The fact remains, we can't give a truce to someone who's killed thousands of Americans. It wouldn't really matter what he promised. It sets a bad precedent.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I think that it wouldn't matter if we did or didn't. Bin Laden has resorted to Audiotapes instead od video. He must be getting weaker from his liver diesease. I bet he's lost control of AL Queda to Al ZArqwai

 

[hipsterdufus]

The "truce" is a bluff. Isn't this what they did to Spain? Withdraw your troops, lower your guard in a false sense of security.....next thing you know, your subways get bombed.

I can't quote the passage off-hand, but the Koran allowes them to lie to the infidel (that's you). Proposing false trueses and alliances, then striking when their enemy's back is turned is a standard tactic.

In the Muslim faith, it is appropriate to warn your enemies before attacking them. Al Quaeda warned the EU some time last year, and since the summer's
bombings, Al Quaeda, in most, if not all of there correspondences references that "warning"

As for the poll - no f-in way. Kill/Capture him now! You would think we would be able to retrace the steps from the tape starting at Al Jazeera and taking it back to OBL.

Getting this guy is the key. Al Quaeda's #2 issues a statement and it's a blip on the radar screen. OBL farts on a tape and the whole country is instantly taken back to 9/11.

 

[aquapub]

This would be like a fugitive offering a truce to the cops. In the interest of justice, it would be lunacy. The offer is probably just a signal to sleeper cells anyway.

 

[Connecticutter]

Getting this guy is the key. Al Quaeda's #2 issues a statement and it's a blip on the radar screen. OBL farts on a tape and the whole country is instantly taken back to 9/11.

Not to mention how many times we seem to capture or kill the number 2 guy, without a trace of Bin Laden.

 

[LeftyHenry]

This would be like a fugitive offering a truce to the cops. In the interest of justice, it would be lunacy. The offer is probably just a signal to sleeper cells anyway.

A fugitive who we aren't looking for as much as we should :doh.

 

[dragonslayer]

A message came from Osama Bin Laden, saying that they were planning an attack to the heartland of the USA, you know, the usual, but it had something new. Bin Laden suggested a truce, a solution to the War on Terror. He said if American forces left the Middle East (Which he considers his holy land), then he would end his terror wars. He even says that under this truce, America can stay and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, but not interfere with the governing of the countries. This truce would end the war on terror. It is a simple as this: Supossedly, we are in the Middle East to fight the battle against terrorism. Now, all we have to do is leave the Middle East, and we no longer have to worry about terrorist! Now what is wrong with this solution? Why would the USA not jump at a chance to save thousands of American lives, civilians and soldiers? It comes down to only one possiblity: there must be another reason the US is in the Middle East. A big, important reason that is more important than the lives of Americans. Why what could that be? What does the Middle East have so much of that the USA needs?

Here is Bin Laden's message, somewhat abridged.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17887284%5E601,00.html


Duke

Maybe It is time to stop being macho and try to solve the problems that cause terrorism rather than doing what the Bush administrations is doing, creating more terrorists. Maybe is is time to have our foriegn policy made for the American people rather than for profits of Halilburton and Exxon.
Clinton was strongly influenced by the multinational corporations but Bush is owned lock stock and barrel by the multinationals. The only Americans that Bush is loyal to are Americans that make over $250,000 a year. :lol:

 

[Kandahar]

Have you even read Bin Laden's fatwa? I don't know what you are coming from, but according to that, Al-Queida would have no good reason to attack after the US got it's military and it's intrests out of his "holy land".

They'd find one.

Is there a part of this that you are missing? Bin Laden, who is, according to Bush, the main terrorist enemy, and has power over the terrorist armies, would have no valid reason to attack the US (other countries, maybe), if the USA pulled out of the Middle East. Do you get it? No more attacks, no re-invasion of anything.

This is ridiculous, idealistic nonsense. What makes you think Bin Laden "has power over the terrorist armies"? Do terrorist armies even exist? Bin Laden is a figurehead who maybe occasionally plans some things for his direct followers. He doesn't have any control over Zarqawi, or Hezbollah, or Kashmiri terrorists, or the Islamic Brotherhood, or anyone else.

Also, did you so much as read my post? The rebuilding of the Middle East would go on.

Let me ask you this. Do you really believe that Osama Bin Laden is a man who wants to live in peace with the rest of the world?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A message came from Osama Bin Laden, saying that they were planning an attack to the heartland of the USA, you know, the usual, but it had something new. Bin Laden suggested a truce, a solution to the War on Terror. He said if American forces left the Middle East (Which he considers his holy land), then he would end his terror wars. He even says that under this truce, America can stay and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, but not interfere with the governing of the countries. This truce would end the war on terror. It is a simple as this: Supossedly, we are in the Middle East to fight the battle against terrorism. Now, all we have to do is leave the Middle East, and we no longer have to worry about terrorist! Now what is wrong with this solution? Why would the USA not jump at a chance to save thousands of American lives, civilians and soldiers? It comes down to only one possiblity: there must be another reason the US is in the Middle East. A big, important reason that is more important than the lives of Americans. Why what could that be? What does the Middle East have so much of that the USA needs?

Here is Bin Laden's message, somewhat abridged.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17887284%5E601,00.html


Duke

lmfao ass so your basic run down is that the U.S. should surrender to Osama bin Laden and give into the demands of AlQaeda. Great fuc/king strategy. :roll:

 

[BillyBadAss]

No, they bombed the subway and then Spain pulled out. Nothing happened to them after that.



The fact remains, we can't give a truce to someone who's killed thousands of Americans. It wouldn't really matter what he promised. It sets a bad precedent.

Wait a second, we killed Bin Laden's fellow Muslims first (millions, not thousands I might add) and started this fight with the Islamic World. We are the aggressors.

 

[Duke]

lmfao ass so your basic run down is that the U.S. should surrender to Osama bin Laden and give into the demands of AlQaeda. Great fuc/king strategy. :roll:

Surrender? No.

Do you think that there is a way to win the War On Terror? Do you think that the USA can win a war against and idea? Having troops in the Middle East fuels the terrorists, and Americans die. We can fight this, but there is no real way to "win".


Duke

 

[BillyBadAss]

The fact remains, we can't give a truce to someone who's killed thousands of Americans. It wouldn't really matter what he promised. It sets a bad precedent.

The fact that Bin Laden has offerred a truce to the US is his way to show the rest of the Islamic World that he is reasonable. Again, we started this fight first, by killing millions of Muslims around the world with our policies. So, by your logic, Kelzie, it would seem he should never offer a truce to America and should continue the fight until the US is completely booted out of the Middle East.

 

[Duke]

Wait a second, we killed Bin Laden's fellow Muslims first (millions, not thousands I might add) and started this fight with the Islamic World. We are the aggressors.

And now we have our infidel troops on their ever so important holy land. They don't appreciate it, quite.


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Surrender? No.

Do you think that there is a way to win the War On Terror? Do you think that the USA can win a war against and idea? Having troops in the Middle East fuels the terrorists, and Americans die. We can fight this, but there is no real way to "win".


Duke

Ok I see you don't want to surrender you just want to give into all of OBL's demands... you're right now I see the difference. :roll: