Osama Asks for Truce - what is our response?

Today, according to CNN and other news sources - Osama Bin Laden has offered a truce to the US ENTIRE CNN STORY

I quote part of the article:

How would you answer this if you were President?

My answer - No truce. Frankly, I was originally very supportive of the war, and in recent months had begun to waver, being very much reminde of Viet Nam. I did not go completely against the war in my feelings, but the trend was there. Now, after this statement, my support for the war is refreshed. If he is mentioning truce, (assuming it is really Bin Laden) then he must be hurting, and we must be on a very effective path!

What is YOUR opinion?

Note: Mods - I posted in Great Debates - my best guess for this one. If it is better suited elsewhere, please feel free to move it. Thanks

I suggest it would be foolhardy to allow Mr Bin Laden to influence your opinion in any way. Plus, he might be double-bluffing you.

Ignoring him, and retaining whatever opinion you had before his latest propaganda outburst, would be the best policy.

I would take the canoli and leave the gun.

The part that got me was:

Right. And God didn’t ban you from, oh, suicide? Blowing up people who have nothing to do with whatever you’re angry about? Yeah, you’ve behaved in a really responsible and straightforward manner in the past, I’m going to trust you now.

This is not going to play well for the Democrats… Osama’s “truce” is a ploy to allow him to move into the power vacuum left if the US exits Iraq too soon and if The West abandons Afghanistan. It only bolsters Bush’s point that we can’t get out of Iraq now bacause Al Qaeda has designs to turn that country into what Afghanistan was prior to 9/11/01. I can just see the campaign commercials: The Demsocrats and Osama agree on what our policy should be. Who’s side are YOU on?

And of course we should not inform our policy by whatever Osama threatens to do or to not do.

Nor did God ban them from slitting the throats of innocent civilians on camera…

It could also mean that al-Qaida is losing in Iraq, and Bin Laden is setting the stage for being able to say, “We didn’t lose - we magnanimously withdrew in the interests of our fellow muslims”.

Either way, I read it as a sign of weakness. Do you think Bin Laden would be offering a truce if al-Qaida were scoring victories, pushing the Americans around, gaining support of muslims, and furthering their goals?

The other thing I thought of was that this comes awfully close on the heels of that ‘intelligence failure’ bombing in Pakistan, which now looks to have killed at least four or five high-ranking members of al-Qaida.

I’m not sure Bin Laden actually has the authority to broker a truce on behalf of everyone who hates the US, and it’s not like we’re going to suddenly relax our heightened security posture. Our War on Terror isn’t going away. Sorry would-be future terrorists.

Sam, you seem to have logged on using **John[/]'s username. No, everything that happens doesn’t mean bad news for the Democrats, especially not if it’s a mainstream position. What, we shouldn’t have pulled out of Vietnam because that’s what Ho wanted? No, we have to act in our own true, long-term, enlightened interests regardless of what , and yes, most of us are responsible enough to understand that. Is Bush’s announced plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq this year enough to desensitize that issue, even if it weren’t the mainstream one?

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” -GWB
As for how we should reply to Osama, I’d go with “That’s an interesting idea. How about coming out and meeting some US troops? They’ll take you right here so we can discuss it in more detail.”

The tape was made in December.

He’s a wanted criminal, who murdered almost 3000 people on American soil. You don’t make truces with wanted murderers, you hunt them down and bring them to justice.

Yes, but it was released this week.

Yeah, that’s the answer. Right on. (And I mean that seriously.) We got quite a few folks 'round town that would love to “negotiate” with that guy. And the horse he rode in on.

Bin Laden - “We offer you an unconditional and indefinite truce”

Anti-war protester - “Sounds reasonable to me”

Bin Laden - “SIKE!! Ha Ha, Foolish infidels!! Oh, we’re sorry, this time we mean it, truce ok?”

Anti-war protester - “Uh, ok”

Bin Laden - “SIKE!! Ha Ha, gotcha again!!”

– Does this sound familiar to anyone else or is it just me?

Nor for the Republicans, if this is just Osama’s way of saying, “Please don’t throw me into the brier patch!” OBL knows the status quo in Iraq is the perfect incubator for Al Qaeda, providing not only an opportunity to kill Americans, but also to whip up anti-Americanism, recruit new suicide bombers around the world, and create the perfect training ground for perpetual Jihad. OBL doesn’t want a truce, nor the withdrawal of Americans; and what better way to guarantee neither will happen than to make Bush think he wants both?

Then it’s a good thing I didn’t say that.

And Bush never said this (either):

You and I have been over this many times before. That quote is made it, and you should not continue posting it. Why do you?

Let me (once again) quote what Bush actually said:

You’re wrong on pretty much all counts. First of all, Iraq is NOT a great incubator for al-Qaida. In fact, the Sunni insurgents have been turning on the al-Qaida types and killing them. The Iraq war has been a disaster for al-Qaida. It forced them to fight a terror war in a country full of muslims, and ever since they did, their popularity has plummeted.

In fact, that might be what’s going on now - this might be damage control on the part of Bin Laden towards his fellow muslims, trying to repair the tarnished image of al-Qaida in the middle east.

He’s not a sovereign capable of declaring peace or war, he’s incapable of enforcing the terms of any agreement as far as the Muslim world is concerned, and for all we know his power is limited to control of a few close bodyguards and his video camera.

It doesn’t matter what he offers since he can’t deliver it in any event. The only thing he can promise and deliver is his own head in a basket, and if he offers that, I say we take it.

If he doesn’t, I say we elect a commander-in-chief who’s capable of arranging it.

Does anybody have a link to the complete & entire text of the message?

Without it, this is debating the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin. :dubious: :dubious:

This is his standard procedure. The riff is that our “rebuffing” his offer, or refusing to accede, justifies any subsequent attack. l think it follows some interpretation of the letter of Islamic law.