Bin Laden Offers Truce

My solution is so much easier-

1. Pull out the troops
2. Nuke that country off the map.
3. End of concern.

I hate playing around. Just get it done & over with. Damn it! I was promised flying nuclear warheads in the 70's & 80's. My taxes paid for 'em so quite being a bunch of whiners & use them already!!!

It's funny how these guys always want to talk negotiation when they're getting their asses kicked. That last Pakistan bombing run must have gotten too close for comfort for old Bin Laden! Turn up the heat, I say!

it would in no way let bin Laden off the hook

but this has hardly been a shining period in American history

*torture (on camera)

*torture (hidden)

*denying civil rights to US citizens captured on US land

*disregarding the goneva conventions

*suspension of due process

*invading a country against world opinion for fictitious reasons

*loss of civil liberties for regular US citizens

*destabalizing an entire region

*creating more terrorists

we are on the wrong course and it is time we changed.

yeah those dead children were "future terrorists"

all hail the "culture of life"

maybe next time we can hit a school and kill more "future terrorists"

turn up the heat i say

(and if the children didn't want to be bombed, they should not have associated with terrorists. they are either "with us or against us"

That's not an answer.

well I was tempted to say use intelligence agencies and paid informants but that turned out pretty bad crica Iraq invasion

This is a stupid thing to say! Aren't you US considering starting withdrawal soon anyway? This will just make GWB think "I'm not doing what they say! We'll stick around a bit longer!"..

Again, not an answer.

Assuming we rule out "sit around and wait for him to turn himself in", something must be done.

For lack of any /better/ suggestions...

Bush has said on record that bin Laden was "not a concern" of his

the only difference with my scenerio is we wouldn't be playing with millions of innocent and US military lives in Iraq

Who says I'm speaking for Bush? Bush is not right in all things. I agree with the war, without agreeing with every action Bush has taken, in regards to the war or otherwise.

I may be a republican, but I do have a mind of my own. Mr. Bush can speak for himself, thank you.

Bin Laden needs some good ol' Hellfire Missile diplomacy.

I would characterise any United States administration as a pack of quisling crybabies if they didn't let one fly the *instant* they found him.

The man needs to die for what he has done - and no act that *anyone* else has done justifies his killings.



Of course, it's much easier to sell the War on Terror if he's still out there...

I think Bin Laden made a statement awhile back that he wants the whole world to be Muslim. So, if true, I don't think he'll stop till he is either dead or gets his wish.

Yes, that's what we said for many decades, and it's why so many people died in Northern Ireland and on the mainland.

some people don't believe that history can provide lessons for the future...

some people also don't allow for any other point of view but thier own

and some people like to kill everything that scares them

"it's coming right at us!"

I beleive what was said was that his goal was a muslim state in the middle east, a muslim theocracy, unifying the middle east into 1 "country"

(oddly enough, it fails to take into account the tribal factions and warfare that has caused problems between different sects of Islam and geographic regions)

i believe the official "terrorist" position is "stay the fuck out of our land and our holy land"

in a cause-effect relationship, our actions in the middle east for the last century have been at best meddling and at worst pillaging

personally, i'd rather isolate and allow them to work out their factioned agression amongsth themselves. now they all have a hatred of the US in common and their own differences, some centuries old, don't seem as big a problem as the United States

your question was how would I persue bin Laden in a law enforcement capacity

my answer is we aren't doing anything now...

we are in a 100% unrelated action

so if Bush isn't worried about him now (as he stated), why would he need to change his outlook after the exit from Iraq?

bin ladens truce offer never mentioned a free pass for him. we can leave Iraq, and "still" target him and give both parties an out for the mess in Iraq

if he lies and attacks us, at least our troops won't be bogged down and dying in babylon

this thread should be in the TRAGIC COMEDY forum....


Mulch's self-indulgent ignorance highlighted by classic projection and avoidance.

oh joy, please correct me. i wish to know the error of my ways, champ

So your answer is...?

Leave Iraq even tho they are not stable yet so they can hash it out in their own civil war?

That means the bullies there win. The Baath Party and terrorists will run the country again, bin Laden has a new safe haven to plot out more 911's. Ya that looks like the best answer to me.

I don't believe in everything that has happened in the war on terror or in Iraq, but at the same time, to back away now and start negotiating with the terrorists doesn't seem like a solution. I wouldn't ask a thief to hold my wallet while I walked my dogs.

I don't have the answer, but I'm also not afraid to admit that either. So many people are quick to put down the War and any mistake that is made regarding it or the administration. This isn't the first President to make a mistake and won't be the last, Republican or Democrat. One example that comes to mind is the bombing of an aspirin factory to distract America from a BJ.

While I don't mind the positive and or negative remarks, most have a lot of validity, I just wish the energy would be directed more towards solving the situation rather than adding to the hatred.

Sorry don't usually rant but I needed to get that off my chest

Except that the Baath party is secular and effectly diametricly opposed to someone as fanatically religious as Osama Bin Laden. I mean we should know...

Now what I find really, really intersting is a known terrorist conspiritor is soon to get out of jail after serving his sentence. Are we going to declare him an enemy combatant (because he did indeed help blow up americans) and detain him (through military force) and torture him all under military auspices, or do we agree that our judicial branch has any purpose in existing? The thing that really pisses me off the most is this blatent misuse of military command in what should be a diplomatic and local policing action.

Lets see, the war on poverty. Okay no troops, but an abstract idea.
The war on drugs? Here troops might have actually made some sort of difference if they actually had any real intention of making progress.
The war on crime? Hey ditto, I don't think cops will complain if you give em a few hundred thousand extra hands.
The war on 'terror'? Only here have we deployed, in force, against an abstract. Willy nilly against any damn thing we please. All the while fully terrorizing our local populace and encouraging policies that further scare the shit outta people. Good job. Totally missed the point of 'combating terrorism' I guess.

Now, when should we get out of Iraq? Lets look at this realistically. If we're there until 2020, will we have done more for them than if we leave, say, tomorrow? Or will we just have continued to present easy targets for people who are quite capable of killing each other less efficiently without us there to help? I'm of the opinion that if we stay until they TELL us to get the hell out, we have stayed far too long. It is much better to get out while at least some of them view us as having accomplished something good over there.

There are some very good reasons why troops are not deployed in policing actions domesticly. You really don't want to see those reasons go away.

You have a good point, I'm just wondering when the right time would be if not too soon or too late. What would be the standard for making the decision to pull out? What needs to be accomplished? Questions like this haven't been made totally clear. I'm sure to request a specific date would be wrong but I think there needs to be a descriptive timeline to go by so if things aren't met by those times they will need to be addressed.

Agreed, and when criminals escape to other countries (or never entered the country but took part in a consipiracy inside our country), I know of no instance where we sent the military after them beyond the most recent example. It is why other countries also have cops and why we have extradition treaties and diplomacy. It would truly be an amazing day if Canada sent their military into our country, in force, to apprehend a known gang that happened to be hiding on our soil (as an example) that might have committed crimes inside their nation.

Bin Laden != lone child pornographer escaping persecution, sorry

Direct attacks against a country, on a large scale, go beyond simply "criminal". "Criminal" can be a kid who shoplifted a candybar.

You might recall the 'mission accomplished' sign some navymen put up during a visit by the president. They seemed under the impression that they had done their job then. I agree with them. We went in and got Saddam. That is exactly what we set out to do. We didn't set out to build Iraq as a democratic nation, or as a nation at all. We didn't plan anything after 'get Saddam'. So I think it's fair to say that we are, indeed, done there because we lack further long range planning, milestones and goals.