"Truce or dare", from Osama Bin Ladin.

[kahljorn]

Link. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_bin_laden)


Bin Laden Warns of Attacks, Offers Truce

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer 42 minutes ago

Al-Jazeera on Thursday aired an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden, who says al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offering a truce "with fair conditions."

The tape's release came days after a U.S. airstrike in Pakistan that was targeting bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and reportedly killed four leading al-Qaida figures, including possibly al-Zawahri's son-in-law. There was no mention of the attack on the segments that were broadcast.

It was the first purported tape from the al-Qaida leader in more than a year — the longest period without a message since the Sept. 11 2001 suicide hijackings in the United States.

Al-Jazeera said the tape was recorded in the Islamic month that corresponds with December.

The speaker refers to an alleged comment by President Bush about bombing the Qatar headquarters of Al-Jazeera, which was first reported in the British press on Nov. 22.

He also refers indirectly to the July 7 bombings in London that killed 56 people and to poll numbers that showed a fall in Bush's popularity, as occurred in late 2005.

The voice on the tape said he was directing his message to the American people after polls showed that "an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but (Bush) opposed that desire."

He said insurgents were winning the conflict in Iraq and warned that security measures in the West and the United States could not prevent attacks there.

"The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations," he said "The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission."

The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by Al-Jazeera.

"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.

"There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said.

There was no immediate confirmation of the tape's authenticity, although the voice resembled that of bin Laden's in previous messages.

The last audiotape purported to be from bin Laden was broadcast in December 2004 by Al-Jazeera. In that recording, he endorsed Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi as his deputy in Iraq and called for a boycott of Iraqi elections.

He issued numerous tapes in 2003 and 2004, calling for Muslims to attack U.S. interests and threatening attacks against the United States.

In an April 15, 2004, audiotape, he vowed revenge against the United States for Israel's assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin — and at the same time offered a truce to European countries.

Bin Laden appeared in a video released October 2004, just ahead of U.S. presidential elections, saying the United States can avoid another Sept. 11 attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

Since December 2004, bin Laden's deputy in al-Qaida, al-Zawahri, has issued a number of video and audiotapes, including one claiming responsibility for the London attacks, which he said came after Europe rejected the terms of a truce al-Qaida had previously offered them.

Al-Jazeera's editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Sheik would not comment on when or where the tape was received. He said the full tape was 10 minutes long. The station aired four excerpts with what it "considered newsworthy," he said, but would not say what was on the remainder.



I haven't even read the story yet. Wonder if it's true? Seems kind of odd.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Osama reads American polls. That's adorable.

[kahljorn]

Yea, what a cute fellow. I still want a picture of him in his pink boots ;(. I need to find his biography.

There was a few things he said that stood out:

Bin Laden appeared in a video released October 2004, just ahead of U.S. presidential elections, saying the United States can avoid another Sept. 11 attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.


"There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said.

There was something else but I'm pretty stoned. The only other thing i wanted to point out was that they mention the tape might not be authentic. This could be like the test of all of geggy's theories.

Seems pretty crazy that he's going by what the American's want, seems more democratic than some people paint them to be.
All in all it seems pretty unstandard and almost shattering to some people's belief of their culture. ;)

[El Blanco]

Or it could be a public relations ploy. Maybe this tape wasn't meant for us.

When our leaders decide that they'd rather not trust Osama bin Laden, he can go to the rest of the Muslim world and claim that we are waging war on them and will stop nothing short of their extinction. The fact that we won't accept his truce can be shown as proof.

[kahljorn]

Thanks el blanco.

[Ant10708]

Give bin laden back afghanstan and he promises there won't be another 9/11. :) Isn't that how 9/11 got planned in the first place with bin laden chilling in afghanstan.

Bin laden has been busy with operations in iraq? seems like hes been busy hiding and now taking credit for zarqawis work.

[kahljorn]

I thought he said he wanted to work on rebuilding? Not that he wanted it back ;/ Personally i thought that implied that he wanted to work together with us.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Maybe he wants to set up a timeshare.

[kahljorn]

:lol

[Dole]

He's an Arsenal fan. Apparently.

[Pharaoh]

It shows that they're losing, and the war on terrorism is obviously working, despite what the media says.
Bin the bin Laden tape and keep up the pressure, I say.

[Abcdxxxx]

Guess that air strike in Pakistan got them shook.

[kahljorn]

Possibly, I still don't know what to make of this video. Either way, a truce would be nice and beautiful simotaneously.

P.S. if we made a n official truce with them and they broke it that would be a pretty good reason to kick even harder ass. I'm sure even the UN would back that.

[Abcdxxxx]

Wow, I guess Benny really spoke to you.

[ziggytrix]

I can think of a few truce conditions.

OSB gets to go to every home of a person who died in the 9/11 attacks, apologize to them and to God for ordering the murder of innocents, and then swear on Al-Jezeera television that God has shown him how wrong it is to kill innocents (he can even quote the Koran here) and then he can begin the process of disarming Al Queda.

And then MAYBE we'll think about not executing him for his crimes - but I doubt it.

[Abcdxxxx]

Seriously, what's "beautiful" about a "truce" for criminals ? Truce from what exactly?

I would almost assure you he used the word "Hudna" which is the word Hamas used when offering their non-existant truces. There really is no concept of a truce in the Muslim world. A Hudna is a tactical and temporary gesture, which has historically been used to regroup. Mohamed offered a 10 year Hudna, and 2 years later, took Mecca.

[kahljorn]

YOU think of them as criminals. I don't-- that's just american bias. If they are willing to submit to a truce in which the safety of americans could be secured, I could care less if he blew up some trade towers. We blow people up all the time. It's all part of war. I'm sure they call us criminals and worse.

If he offers a truce, we accept, and then attacks then there'd be no reason for all the other countries to back him. However, if we don't accept and he attacks it means absolutely nothing other than we were still at war. An actual breaking of diplomacy would, politically, cause alot more than just an attack alone. Then they will be considered unreasonable and unappeasable. I think, even if you want to destroy them, in the end a truce would work out better in more angles than one.
According to him they are capable of blowing shit up now, regardless of if we make the truce or not. Might as well go for his political assassination and diplomatic negation-- thus giving us excuses for whatever we do.

Anyway, i don't care either way. I just think it'd be more interesting the other way around.

[Abcdxxxx]

Weren't you bragging about how smart you are yesterday?

Define "Criminal" you dipshit.

It's your fucking bias that you're trying to legitamize and explain away the motives of genocidal terrorists.

Now go back and use reading comprehension. I'm suggesting that he offered a Hudna... NOT A TRUCE.

[kahljorn]

I saw what you suggested, how does that change any of what i said? Doesn't that just support it in a way since I'm suggesting the "Hudna" should be accepted on the grounds that it will weaken their diplomatic standing, if they had any in the first place?? I think you're the one who needs to learn reading comprehension.
Again, just in case you don't understand what i was saying, "IF THE TRUCE IS FAKE THATS GOOD BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE SHIT". I'm not denying it might be fake, in fact, I'm embracing it in the hope of interest.

"Define "Criminal" you dipshit. "

Um, well according to the dictionary it's someone who's being punished or targetted by the penal system. As far as I know he hasn't been charged with any crimes.
Secondly, considering we are at war it can't really be considered a crime. And if it could, then should we be held responsible for the civilian deaths in last weeks airstrike? Are we criminals?

I don't know, I'm not going to play that stupid game. It seems ridiculous to sit here and argue over if he's a criminal; you only think he's a criminal because he attacked our country, but I doubt you think that of our entire Government or the american public when they attack and kill civilians. You hypocritical fuck.
What he did may have been wrong but it's not like there's not some kind of tit for tat relationship between america and him.

[kahljorn]

Well so much for all that, I heard we just said, "We do not negotiate with terrorists" which is hilarious because I told my girlfriend that'd be the exact response we'd give.

[Abcdxxxx]

Hamas breached their hudna with Israel.... did it weaken their diplomatic standing?

Stop talking out of your ass.

[CaptainBubba]

I doubt you think that of our entire Government or the american public when they attack and kill civilians.

I totally dont think of the american public as criminals when they attack and kill civilians.

[Ninjavenom]

I think he's really a heartless sand-jew if he thinks it's okay to kill civilians during wartime, but i wonder how much of 9/11 he realy had a hand in planning. It's a little suspicious that we can't find him, yet we can always hear what he has to say. If we can find Hussein hiding in a hole on a farm, i fail to fucking see why we have not crucified OBL yet, unless our government was in cahoots with him or are saving him until things get really bad on capitol hill.

[Abcdxxxx]

What's a "Sand-Jew" ?




heheh Slurs are Kewl.

[Geggy]

It's funny, I predicted we would hear from Osama soon enough. Well either this or the escalation of terror alerts. I predicted this because Bush's approval rating recently fell under 40 percent yet again. The public support for war is also declining rapidly. Everytime this happens, Bush would take out the fear card and use it on his people for political advantage. He feels the need to remind us the preperator of 9/11 is still on the loose. When people become afraid, they tend to cling on higher authority and expect them to perform their duty by protecting them. Remember how Bush's approval rating went through the roof right after 9/11? This audio tape, like many others, is most likely cooked by the authority. Now that people know (or believed) that he is still out there and still poses a threat to the US, the "war on terror" continues while the real reason for the US being in MidEast is building oil pipelines or rebuilding Iraq, whichever it is. Osama offering truce and diplomacy? Bwahahahahaha. Americans are going to agree with the authority that you just can't "negotiate with terrorists." They're not ever going to forget what he did to us on 9/11 and they aren't ever going to relent until he is caught or killed. People are now shouting "Go get 'em, cowboy!" At the same time it's terrifying for us because Bush isn't going to give him what he wants and we're still there fighting. It will lead us into thinking Osama will most definitely plan another attack on US soil. Fucking ingenious...

I'm also inclined to think the error in the Pakistan bombing is the other probable reason. The CIA has put themselves in the hot seat for intelligence failure. Need something that will distract us, including the paki's, away from the error? No problem...cook up an audio tape of Osama! It is strange that he made no mentioning of the boming.

But I assume people aren't all that worried about the possibility of another terror strike on US soil...I mean NSA is spying on people with ties to al-Qaeda in order to divert any future attacks...right? :rolleyes I think we all know Bush and Cheney are hoping for another major attack.

[Geggy]

Last fall Keith Olbermann made an excellent observation on the coincidences of the rise of terror alerts. He has listed out 13 of them so it's a long read...

Number One:

May 18th, 2002. The first details of the President’s Daily Briefing of August 6th, 2001, are revealed, including its title - “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.” The same day another memo is discovered - revealing the FBI knew of men with links to Al Qaeda training at an Arizona flight school. The memo was never acted upon. Questions about 9/11 Intelligence failures are swirling.

May 20th, 2002. Two days later, FBI Director Mueller declares another terrorist attack “inevitable.” The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide, and against New York City landmarks like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.

Number Two:

June 6th, 2002. Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to the specialized flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, whose information suggests the government missed a chance to break up the 9/11 plot, testifies before Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Graham says Rowley’s testimony has inspired similar pre-9/11 whistle-blowers.

June 10th, 2002. Four days later, speaking from Russia, Attorney General John Ashcroft reveals that an American named Jose Padilla is under arrest, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack in this country. Padilla had, by this time, already been detained for more than a month.

Number Three:

February 5th, 2003. Secretary of State Powell tells the United Nations Security Council of Iraq’s concealment of weapons, including 18 mobile biological weapons laboratories, justifying a U.N. or U.S. first strike. Many in the UN are doubtful. Months later, much of the information proves untrue.

February 7th, 2003. Two days later, as anti-war demonstrations continue to take place around the globe, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge cites “credible threats” by Al Qaeda, and raises the terror alert level to orange. Three days after that, Fire Administrator David Paulison - who would become the acting head of FEMA after the Hurricane Katrina disaster - advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.

Number Four:

July 23rd, 2003: The White House admits the CIA -- months before the President's State of the Union Address -- expressed "strong doubts" about the claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks is issued; it criticizes government at all levels; it reveals an FBI informant had been living with two of the future hijackers; and it concludes that Iraq had no link to Al-Qaeda. 28 pages of the report are redacted. On the 26th, American troops are accused of beating Iraqi prisoners.

July 29th, 2003. Three days later, amid all of those negative headlines, Homeland Security issues warnings of further terrorist attempts to use airplanes for suicide attacks.

Number Five:

December 17th, 2003. 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. The next day, a Federal Appeals Court says the government cannot detain suspected radiation-bomber Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges, and the chief U.S. Weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, who has previously announced he has found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, announces he will resign his post.

December 21st, 2003. Three days later, just before Christmas, Homeland Security again raises the threat level to Orange, claiming “credible intelligence” of further plots to crash airliners into U.S. cities. Subsequently, six international flights into this country are cancelled after some passenger names purportedly produce matches on government no-fly lists. The French later identify those matched names: one belongs to an insurance salesman from Wales, another to an elderly Chinese woman, a third to a five-year old boy.

Number Six:

March 30th, 2004. The new chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer tells Congress we have still not found any WMD there. And, after weeks of refusing to appear before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice finally relents and agrees to testify. On the 31st: Four Blackwater-USA contractors working in Iraq are murdered, their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets and left on public display in Fallujah. The role of civilian contractors in Iraq is widely questioned.

April 2nd, 2004. Homeland Security issues a bulletin warning that terrorists may try to blow up buses and trains, using fertilizer and fuel bombs - like the one detonated in Oklahoma City - stuffed into satchels or duffel bags.

Number Seven:

May 16th, 2004. Secretary of State Powell appears on “Meet The Press.” Moderator Tim Russert closes by asking him about the “enormous personal credibility” Powell had placed before the U.N. in laying out a case against Saddam Hussein. An aide to Powell interrupts the question, saying the interview is over. Powell finishes his answer, admitting that much of the information he had been given about Weapons of Mass Destruction was “inaccurate and wrong, and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.”

May 21st, 2004, new photos showing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison are released. On the 24th - Associated Press video from Iraq confirms U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party - killing more than 40.

Oct. 12: Keith Olbermann talks with the former Under-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Asa Hutchison about the connection between politics and the terror alerts over the past several years.

Wednesday the 26th. Two days later, Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller warn that intelligence from multiple sources, in Ashcroft’s words, “indicates Al-Qaeda’s specific intention to hit the United States hard,” and that “90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete.” The color-coded warning system is not raised, and Homeland Security Secretary Ridge does not attend the announcement.

Number Eight:

July 6th, 2004. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate, producing a small bump in the election opinion polls, and a huge swing in media attention towards the Democratic campaign.

July 8th, 2004. Two days later, Homeland Secretary Ridge warns of information about Al-Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn. Four days after that, the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, DeForest B. Soaries, Junior, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming Presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.

Number Nine:

July 29th, 2004. At their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for President. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats dominate the media attention over the ensuing weekend.

Monday, August 1st, 2004. The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning - reconnaissance data, left in a home in Iraq - later proves to be roughly four years old and largely out-of-date.

Number Ten:

Last Thursday. At 10 AM Eastern Time, the President addresses the National Endowment for Democracy, once again emphasizing the importance of the war on terror and insisting his government has broken up at least 10 terrorist plots since 9/11.

At 3 PM Eastern Time, five hours after the President’s speech has begun, the Associated Press reports that Karl Rove will testify again to the CIA Leak Grand Jury, and that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told Rove he cannot guarantee that he will not be indicted.

At 5:17 PM Eastern Time, seven hours after the President’s speech has begun, New York officials disclose a bomb threat to the city’s subway system - based on information supplied by the Federal Government. A Homeland Security spokesman says the intelligence upon which the disclosure is based is “of doubtful credibility.” And it later proves that New York City had known of the threat for at least three days, and had increased police presence in the subways long before making the announcement at that particular time. Local New York television station, WNBC, reports it had the story of the threat days in advance, but was asked by "high ranking federal officials" in New York and Washington to hold off its story.

Less than four days after revealing the threat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "Since the period of the threat now seems to be passing, I think over the immediate future, we'll slowly be winding down the enhanced security."

While news organizations ranging from the New York Post to NBC News quote sources who say there was reason to believe that informant who triggered the warning simply ‘made it up’, a Senior U.S. Counter-terrorism official tells the New York Times: "There was no there, there."

Number Eleven:

October 22nd, 2004. After weeks of Administration insistence that there are terrorist plans to disrupt the elections, FBI, Law Enforcement, and other U.S. Intelligence agencies report they have found no direct evidence of any plot. More over, they say, a key CIA source who had claimed knowledge of the plot, has been discredited.

October 29, 2004. Seven days later - four days before the Presidential election - the first supposedly new, datable tape of Osama Bin Laden since December 2001 is aired on the Al-Jazeera Network. A Bush-Cheney campaign official anonymously tells the New York Daily News that from his campaign’s point of view, the tape is quote “a little gift.”

Number Twelve:

May 5th, 2005. 88 members of the United States House of Representatives send a letter to President Bush demanding an investigation of the so-called “Downing Street Memo” - a British document which describes purported American desire dating to 2002 to "fix" the evidence to fit the charges against Iraq. In Iraq over the following weekend, car bombings escalate. On the 11th, more than 75 Iraqis are killed in one.

May 11th, 2005. Later that day, an instructor and student pilot violate restricted airspace in Washington D.C. It is an event that happens hundreds of times a year, but this time the plane gets to within three miles of the White House. The Capitol is evacuated; Vice President Cheney, the First Lady, and Nancy Reagan are all rushed to secure locations. The President, biking through woods, is not immediately notified.

Number Thirteen:

June 26th, 2005. A Gallup poll suggests that 61 percent of the American public believes the President does not have a plan in Iraq. On the 28th, Mr. Bush speaks to the nation from Fort Bragg: "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

June 29th 2005. The next day, another private pilot veers into restricted airspace, the Capitol is again evacuated, and this time, so is the President.

[kahljorn]

"Hamas breached their hudna with Israel.... did it weaken their diplomatic standing? "

Of course but israel isn't the whiny cunt bitch that america can be. You act like I'm fucking planning this up all seriously, I just thought it would be interesting since one of the biggest complaints of the war was that we had no diplomatic backing. With enough bitching and complaining about how they "Betrayed" a truce I'm sure we could've gotten more international support.

"I totally dont think of the american public as criminals when they attack and kill civilians."

I really only mentioned that in exaggeration, however, there was a reason behind the exaggeration; that reason is that some people seem to believe all muslims are terrorists.


"Stop talking out of your ass."

Don't even talk about people talking out of their ass. Clearly, the only thing you've been doing for a while in this, or any other middleeast debate, is flounder people with your supposed superior knowledge of the middleeast.
"NO BUT YOU DONT GET IT ITS A HUMMER THEY'RE GOING TO TRICK US."
"Yea I know that's what I'm saying"
"NO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT ITS A HUDNA"
"Right, that's playing exactly into what I'm speculating"
"NO NO NO YOURE NOT LISTENING YOU NEED TO LEARN TO READ ITS A HUDNA"

I picked up on the idea of a hudna the first time around, quit trying to share your supreme knowledge. Maybe you don't understand this but i do pick up on new information pretty quickly; you don't need to share it with me more than once unless I ask you to explain it. You act like my idea was something I rushed to the whitehouse to share with the president or something, and not some random piece of shit I posted on a message board.
In all honesty though it is funny to say you say hudna over and over to show your knowledge of foreign languages.

[Abcdxxxx]

Perhaps if you formed a logical informed response that showed cognitive thought I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself....

and maybe if you tried entering into a conversation about a topic you know a stitch about, you wouldn't feel so insecure as to mistake it for showing off. Speaking of which.... how many times are you going to brag about this superior intellect of yours when everything you say sounds like it came from the flunky of the month newsletter?

[kahljorn]

Let me explain this mathematically:

You = A Hudna is a tactical and temporary gesture, which has historically been used to regroup. Mohamed offered a 10 year Hudna, and 2 years later, took Mecca.

Me understand it as = Retreat and attack later with better forces

(Which is pretty stupid that you think retreating and regrouping is some new thing. Plus, that very same scenario has been used in tons of video games)

Me compute : Accept truce + them attack = weaken diplomacy

Follow up thoughts : You think there'd be no diplomacy, but over the course of a few years while "Rebuilding iraq" like he suggested would see some kind of increased diplomacy between iraq and the us, and obviously nations around/involved with that nation...

[Abcdxxxx]

Dude, take some pills and stop struggling so hard with yourself.


p.s. Bin Laden doesn't represent or negotiate for Iraq, and seeing as we're occupying the country, it's not much of an assumption to say we already have an inside track on diplomacy.

[kahljorn]

:rolleyes Yea, other than supposed terrorist attacks, which would probably be negated as per his end of it. Other than that how about some of the other nations around there we make a big deal out of ... maybe some religious influence? What religion comprises the majority of the nation there with which currently there is a thread dedicated to..? I don't know how you look at situations like this without seeing all the other effects it will have. That's a big deal, and I'm assuming that's why our government took so much interest in it.

[Abcdxxxx]

Is your brain that convoluted that you think you just made a rebutal ? Bin Laden has little sway or unification powers within Iraq or the Muslim world. His agenda existed before him, and it would exist without him.

[kahljorn]

You're missing the point entirely. Bin laden isn't as important as relations with the individual countries in that area. He's also a part of the same religion. We're talking about people who bomb people in the name of allah to goto heaven in suicide crashes, right? Do you really want to pretend that religion has nothing to do with it?

P.S. The one thing that gets me about your hudna thing is: why would Osama bin ladin declare it a Hudna if someone as stupid as you could figure out it's a trick? Don't you think people in our government know things like that? Or people in theirs who would tell us? Do you think he'd be stupid enough to announce it on a video if he was trying to cleverly trick us into losing the war?

Why don't we just go play stratego or something.

[Abcdxxxx]

You mean why has it worked repeatedly over history, time and time again? Because there are cumrags who think like you do, get lazy, and get suckered into arguing for a poor translation of the word. It doesn't mean truce. Can't get your head around it?

PS. Bin Laden isn't the ambassador of Islamo-World. Way to put him on a pedestal. There's a wrap sheet of wingnuts out there who'd replace him in a second. Zarqawi for example, doesn't even need the billions. They were hijacking planes when Bin Laden was learning to sharpshoot.

[Abcdxxxx]

PPS. the truce comes when all dhimmis are removed, and Islam is the only religion. go back to playing with your action figures. the real world confuses you.

[kahljorn]

"It doesn't mean truce."
I don't care. Nothing I said indicates that it does. Nothing my argument was based on did. You are stupid, your understanding of anything/everything is flawed. It's hilarious.

A truce is, even by american terms, a temporary cease-fire. It doesn't mean fighting won't continue at a later time, it doesn't mean anything other than hostilities will be ended until either peace has been reached or war breaks out again. That's all. When in a truce you don't back down your defenses. You don't cut your dick off. You don't really do anything different other than avoid taking aggressive actions. Why would you? A truce isn't peace, that's why there's different words for truce and peace.
The guy said he was going to attack if we didn't accept anyway. So if he still attacks after the truce is made, who cares, our defenses would've still been up-- nothing different would really have happened. You act like we would've withdrawn all of our troops over a truce being called by a terrorist who nobody trusts.

[Abcdxxxx]

"It doesn't mean truce."
I don't care. Nothing I said indicates that it does. Nothing my argument was based on did.

Then why do you keep defending the usage of the word Truce over and over? You're so stoner stupid.

I can list pages of examples of times when people took your attitude, negotiated with terrorists, and said "what's the difference, what could it hurt?" only to their detrament. Can you list one example where it worked?

[Ant10708]

Hey so anyone hear the one about Bin Laden not being a criminal?

[Chojin]

Bin Laden was a firefighter at ground zero on 9/11

[jin]

Yeah, i saw that on TV too. ;0

The guy rescued like 15 orphans and a dog. ;l

Something about remorse!

[Geggy]

Oh this is rich :lol

Now they're pointing out the comparsions of Osama's political views to the democrats and the dissidents. They're also confirming that he gets his information from the opinion editorial section of the liberal newspaper, the New York Time. What a way to make the liberals look like terrorists...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001882866

Ironically, if you think about it...this article is the smoking gun, guys! :lol I'm loving this battle between the liberals and the conversatives...both on this board and the public press...

[kahljorn]

He did open an animal refuge in pakistan back in the day.

True story.

Americans aren't considering criminals for any deaths they cause, like dropping nuclear bombs on islands for example, but Osama is held responsible for trying to cripple the US's economy-- which would theoretically be used to lead to a quick victory? That's the only justification I've ever heard for the use of a nuclear device.
Sounds like hypocricy to me. You harbor the same feelings for eachother.
HE KILLED CIVILIANS. We never do that, and we never mistreat them either. We treat them to london broil with creamy garlic mashed potatoes every night.
I still understand the idea of Hudna, it's not that complicated. Quit acting like your knowledge is power supreme and nobody dare touch the fringes of your establishment.

Your hatred just seems to be placed because of your perception rather than any truth.

[Abcdxxxx]

I still understand the idea of Hudna, it's not that complicated.

Great.

Then why are you so insecure that you've had to tell me you understand 3 times? Like any of us give a shit. Your responses make it pretty clear what you're understanding, or not. You haven't made an original or interesting point yet.

[kahljorn]

Because you repeated three times that I didn't get it, in more than one thread? Simple response, my oblivious friend. If you don't want me to try to justify my understanding don't attempt to persecute me.

Do you say things without wanting responses? If so, it seems you're arguing rather vapidly.

[Abcdxxxx]

Speaking of arguing vapidly... you sure think you have a lot to say on the topic of the mid-east. Next time, wait until you have something of substance to say. The bored stoner kid routine isn't working if you're actually trying to make a point.

[kahljorn]

The foreign authority thing isn't really working out for you, either. Neither is the insidemindoftheterrorist andeverymiddleastern thing.

[Abcdxxxx]

Yeah well since this pissing contest is such a bore to us both...h'bout you say something informed, and on topic next time you hit the post button.

[kahljorn]

Your behavior has been an exact reflection of that philosophy up unto this point. But you're right, I won't say anything off topic in this thread anymore, I'm kind of bored.