Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
YET ANOTHER BIN LADEN 'TRUCE' [John Podhoretz]
This isn't the first time that Bin Laden has offered America a "deal." In the Bin Laden tape released a few days before the November 2004 election, he essentially offered a separate peace deal to U.S. states that voted against the president: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security," he said, according to the invaluable translation by Yigal Carmon of the Middle East Media Research Institute. This wasn't much noted at the time because the sentence was originally mistranslated by U.S. media sources to suggest Bin Laden was offering a truce to other nations, not the 50 states of the Union. UPDATE: Several e-mailers point out that there was controversy surrounding MEMRI's translation, and that the U.S. government translation also had Bin Laden offering the deal to other "nations," not to U.S. states. Yigal Carmon, MEMRI's head honcho and chief translator, has dedicated his career to these matters and I think there's every reason to trust his translation over the anonymous U.S. government's version.
Posted at 11:17 AM
Kathianne said:I remembered there had been something about bin Laden and a truce earlier. I searched but couldn't find it, link is in here-at site:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_15_corner-archive.asp#087716
liberalogic said:Any sign indicating that Bin Laden wanted a truce shows that it's not just our lifestyle that bothers them (as we are infidels in their minds). It's also our actions and how we come across to the rest of the world as a selfish bully. The problem is that we are so quick to jump into war before rationalizing and seeking to find some sort of an agreement for peace.
You need to wake up one morning and see a city gone in a mushroom cloud so you know a "jump to war" looks when you see one.liberalogic said:Any sign indicating that Bin Laden wanted a truce shows that it's not just our lifestyle that bothers them (as we are infidels in their minds). It's also our actions and how we come across to the rest of the world as a selfish bully. The problem is that we are so quick to jump into war before rationalizing and seeking to find some sort of an agreement for peace.
liberalogic said:Any sign indicating that Bin Laden wanted a truce shows that it's not just our lifestyle that bothers them (as we are infidels in their minds). It's also our actions and how we come across to the rest of the world as a selfish bully. The problem is that we are so quick to jump into war before rationalizing and seeking to find some sort of an agreement for peace.
FLASH: BIN LADEN RESURFACES...WITH OLIVE BRANCH?
By Michelle Malkin · January 19, 2006 10:35 AM
***scroll for updates...check Link Mecca for moonbat monitoring and more...230pm EST CIA authenticating that voice on tape is bin Laden's...must-read: Walid Phares' tape analysis...text of tape...***
Via Breitbart/AP:
Al-Jazeera aired an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden on Thursday, saying al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offering a truce to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.
The voice on the tape said heightened security measures in the United States are not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.
Instead, the reason is "because there are operations that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.
"Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no shame in this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to merchants of war."
The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by the Arab broadcaster.
Here's the story on al Jazeera.
The Counterterrorism Blog is on the story and adds:
This would be the first broadcast of any kind from bin Laden since December 2004. CNN reports that Al Jazeera did not appear to have run the entire tape. No indication thus far of when the tape was recorded, so it's not clear whether the recent successful attack against Al Qaeda leadership was a factor in the recording and release of the tape.
Evan Kohlmann debunks the "death" of Bin Laden here.
John Podhoretz: This isn't the first time.
***
More info via CNN shows that al Qaeda is paying close attention to MSM polls and pandering to moonbat sentiment:
CNN could not immediately confirm that the voice in the poor-quality audiotape, which was aired on Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera on Thursday, was that of bin Laden. However, CNN Senior Editor for Arab Affairs Octavia Nasr said it does sound like the al Qaeda leader.***
"Our mujahedeen were able to overcome all the security measures in European countries and you saw their operation in major European capitals," the voice on the tape said.
"As for similar operations taking place in America, it's only a matter of time. They are in the planning stages and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete."
There is also no way to determine when the message was recorded, but the reference to attacks in European cities could indicate it was recorded after the July 7 bombings on London's transportation system that killed 52 people.
There was no mention in the portions of the tape that were broadcast of the CIA strike on a home in Damadola, Pakistan, on January 13 that targeted senior al Qaeda members who had been expected to attend a dinner there that night. It's not clear if any of them were among the 18 killed.
The man speaking in the audiotape also cited American opinion polls, saying that most Americans want U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq.
"Your President Bush has been misleading you. He has lied when he said that the people are behind him. Opinion polls have indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want him to pull the troops out of our land.
"We have the answer to these misleading information. The situation in Iraq is getting worse for you and the dead and the injured among you is on the rise," the voice on the tape said.
It's not clear exactly what polls he's referencing, but CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls released January 11 regarding the Iraq war showed that 53 percent of those questioned felt things were going badly for the United States in Iraq, and 46 percent thought things were going well.
Half the respondents said it was a bad idea to send U.S. troops to Iraq, while 47 percent said it wasn't. Fifty-two percent said it wasn't worth going to war in Iraq, but 46 percent felt it was.
About those "truces," reader Matt H. writes:
Any one who knows anything about Islamic history know that the only reason the Koran allows a truce with infidels is when the Muslims need time to regroup.I know you knew this - I only wish the general public did (or the Biased News Networks [BNN] would announce it.)From Human Events Online:
"The train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004, killed 191. Three days later, Spaniards voted out the pro-war government and voted in the anti-war Socialists. The incoming prime minister vowed to promptly pull out Spanish troops from Iraq. Spain's reward? On April 2, 2004, Spanish authorities found a 22-pound bomb on a railway track between Madrid and Seville. And, later that year, in October, Spanish authorities foiled a plot to blow up their National Court, Spain's center for prosecuting terrorists. So much for Osama bin Laden's "offer," made a month after the Madrid train bombings, for a "truce" to any European country that stops "attacking Muslims" before a three-month deadline."Do you think the BNN will report that? I doubt it.
From The American Thinker, "Islam Without Camouflage" (August 20th, 2005):
"In 1958, Antoine Fattal, a Lebanese Maronite Professor of Law, whose Le Statut Legal de Musulmans en Pays dIslam remains the benchmark analysis of non-Muslims (especially Christians and Jews) living under the Sharia (i.e., Muslim Law), offered these perspectives on the living legacy of jihad and dhimmitude: ... when Moslems are in a subordinate state, they can negotiate a truce with the Harbis lasting no more than ten years, which they are obliged to revoke unilaterally as soon as they regain the upper hand..."
Clayton Cramer shares his truce thoughts.
Austin Bay:"Essentially, the new Bin Laden tape says please dont wage war on our turf, but let us wage war on yours."
liberalogic said:I don't mean that we shouldn't go to war ever...though I wish I could say that I'm a pacifist, I'm not-- I know that war is sometimes the only option. At the same time, though, the way I see "the war on terror" is the US against a faceless enemy. We're not really fighting Bin Laden, we're fighting the ideology of terrorism. Not that I think terrorism is just, but it's hard to eliminate this threat when it exists all over the globe, in caves, in underground bunkers, etc. My point is that instead of declaring war on terrorism, we might want to think about why they hate us. Yes, they hate us for our freedom and that is something that none of us is willing to compromise, but they also hate us for our behavior in the global atmosphere; we come across as if we own the world and we don't. All that I was suggesting was that maybe we should attempt to change our image a bit in the world because a war on terror is simply too complex to ever truly "win." It's not us against Japan, Germany, or even Iraq; it's us against terrorism.
Kathianne said:Really, I'd like to have a clue to your age, it might influence how others react to what you write.
I disagree with your take on why they 'hate us.' I think it has to do with radical Islam and their vision of geo-political scenarios. We, being the West, not just the US, has been at war with Islam for well over 500 years. Most of us didn't realize it, because they have been tamped down since the success of Portugal, long ago. When they raised their head for a bit, Jefferson slammed them at Tripoli.
They are back and have been for quite awhile. Talk won't do it.
liberalogic said:I'm a 20 year old college student at nyu, which I guess explains why I have views that aren't conservative. And please, do not use my age as an excuse to rectify the stupidity that you think I possess.
As for the historical reference there, I have no knowledge of what you are referring to so I'm not going to try to refute it...I'll assume that you're correct.
But I question, how are we supposed to "win" this war when we are not facing a solid enemy? What do you suggest?
Also, there was a documentary by a reporter named Friedman (last name) on the Discovery Times channel. He went to a few Arab countries and interviewed the college students there. They all had the same response in regards to why they hate us:
1) We support Israel (a given!)
2) We invade countries and chalk up civilian deaths to collateral damage, but when we are attacked on 9/11 we make a big fuss over it (in their words-- "they (the US) don't care for Arab blood."
3) We are cocky and think that we own the world.
Now, I'm not saying that I agree with all of this, but it made me look at the situation a bit differently.
archangel said:at NYU...and if so what is your take on the "Ottoman Empire"? Did it cease to exist or just morph into another shadow crusade!
liberalogic said:
Quite the contrary on the age question. While I do not think one can 'possess' stupidity, I haven't thought of you being stupid. For me, and probably some others, it seems that some younger people really are interested in events and are actively looking to find out more, (while there are some that just keep their juvenile swagger, no matter how many reasons are given for them to consider another point of view, or more.) For some reason, most older folk, never come to a point they think they can concede any point, from someone older or younger.liberalogic said:I'm a 20 year old college student at nyu, which I guess explains why I have views that aren't conservative. And please, do not use my age as an excuse to rectify the stupidity that you think I possess.
I hear what you are saying, rather what the Arab college kids are saying. The problem is, they don't seem to understand who has been the aggressor in both the recent events or the historical ones.As for the historical reference there, I have no knowledge of what you are referring to so I'm not going to try to refute it...I'll assume that you're correct.
But I question, how are we supposed to "win" this war when we are not facing a solid enemy? What do you suggest?
Also, there was a documentary by a reporter named Friedman (last name) on the Discovery Times channel. He went to a few Arab countries and interviewed the college students there. They all had the same response in regards to why they hate us:
1) We support Israel (a given!)
2) We invade countries and chalk up civilian deaths to collateral damage, but when we are attacked on 9/11 we make a big fuss over it (in their words-- "they (the US) don't care for Arab blood."
3) We are cocky and think that we own the world.
Now, I'm not saying that I agree with all of this, but it made me look at the situation a bit differently.
liberalogic said:I don't mean that we shouldn't go to war ever...though I wish I could say that I'm a pacifist, I'm not-- I know that war is sometimes the only option. At the same time, though, the way I see "the war on terror" is the US against a faceless enemy. We're not really fighting Bin Laden, we're fighting the ideology of terrorism. Not that I think terrorism is just, but it's hard to eliminate this threat when it exists all over the globe, in caves, in underground bunkers, etc. My point is that instead of declaring war on terrorism, we might want to think about why they hate us. Yes, they hate us for our freedom and that is something that none of us is willing to compromise, but they also hate us for our behavior in the global atmosphere; we come across as if we own the world and we don't. All that I was suggesting was that maybe we should attempt to change our image a bit in the world because a war on terror is simply too complex to ever truly "win." It's not us against Japan, Germany, or even Iraq; it's us against terrorism.
GunnyL said:While it is worthwhile to understand why they hate us, it is also irrelevant after the fact. Terrorists are criminals. States knowingly harboring terrorists are every bit as guilty.
Lack of response to terrorism on our part is a sign of weakness, not mention it allows murders to get off scott-free.
As long as people such as yourself exist to ensure that our image is tarnished, there would be no real point to even attempt changing it. What's your idea of "changing our image'? Negotiating with terrorists?
liberalogic said:Look, it's not like I'm trying to "tarnish our image" or like I have a full proof plan to eliminate terrorism. That wasn't my intent. I just think that terrorism is too widespread and hidden to truly combat it with warfare. That's why I've brought up the difference between a solid enemy in WWII (Germany/Japan) and the widespread enemy of terrorism. That doesn't mean that we should be weak, that we shouldn't fight, or anything else of that nature...I just think we should possibly give the root of the problem (why they hate us) a little bit more attention.
And please don't say that I "tarnish our image"-- I take a lot of pride in being an American and while I may share different views from most of the people in this forum, I share the common goal of making this country the best that it can be, even though I may take a different route.
liberalogic said:But I question, how are we supposed to "win" this war when we are not facing a solid enemy? What do you suggest?
liberalogic said:Look, it's not like I'm trying to "tarnish our image" or like I have a full proof plan to eliminate terrorism. That wasn't my intent. I just think that terrorism is too widespread and hidden to truly combat it with warfare.
theHawk said:We aren't fighting the idea of terrorism with "warfare". We're fighting it with another idea: Freedom and Democracy.
liberalogic said:Here's my problem with that:
I respect and value the freedom and democracy that exist in our country. There is no other way that I would want to live. I just don't believe that it should be our job to spread these two values everywhere and degrade the values of others.
