April 15, 2004

Bin Laden offers truce - to Europe. He states that if all European troops are withdrawn from the Middle East within three months, Al-Qaida will not attack European targets. "Stop spilling our blood so we can stop spilling your blood."

Is Bin Laden scared? Is he trying to put Europe at odds with America? Is the withdrawal of all European troops in the Middle East worth it? Is it worth breaking Europe's doctrine of not negotiating with terrorists?

  • I always reach for my tinfoil hat when an OBL tape surfaces. It's just too incredible that the most sought after criminal in the world is still at large.
  • Only on the condition that ObL give himself up for trial for mass murder in Spain.
  • Classic Sun Tzu. Separate the most powerful from its allies. Or in the words of the unflappable Condi Rice, Osama's using carrots and sticks.
  • Does anyone else see this as bin Laden yelling uncle!? Sort of reminds me of Sadr suddenly making noises about disarming yesterday--you don't offer concessions if you're coming from a position of strength. Maybe this will set off the real truce that needs to occur -- the one between Germany, France and the U.S.
  • what, Russia's out of the deal too?
  • I'm thinking in terms of democracies. Russia could be an ally, but I don't trust old Pooty-poot. He's gone too far down the cult of-personality-dictator-for-life path. Plus, if anyone wants to talk about atrocities in fighting terrorists they might want to take a look at Chechnya.
  • I don't read this as showing signs of weakness, but more an attempt to distance, as Coot said, America from Europe.
  • I have no idea what Europe's response to this will be--especially after the elections in Spain--and that's what gives me pause. When I read that statement I thought it was such a shame that Dubya had used up a non-trivial amount of goodwill in Europe with war and the events leading up to it. I for one, would feel better if there was no question what the countries in Europe would do.
  • Ok... except for Britain ;) I don't think anyone would be surprised about Tony Blair being behind Dubya.
  • I can't imagine any country having the nerve to accept this offer. It would be too much of a risk and would be viewed in the worst possible light. Siding with the U.S. these days is bad enough but to blatantly accept these terms would be, well, a really bad idea. I'm so weary of this. A thousand thoughts run through my head about what is going on in our world, I feel powerless and insignificant. I can see far down the road and I have a sense that much of what I rail against is inevitable. There seems no point in wasting my energy on it. I know I sound fatalistic, but this has been the way of the world for thousands of years and it will be the way for thousands more. All great civilizatios fall.
  • My civilizatio fell on the patio.
  • The offer, assuming it's genuine, is just propaganda. People generally don't respond to murder and threats of murder by backing down. The real issues are, 1) where is OBL, and 2) why hasn't he been caught?
  • ... and it went "splatio".
  • I'm so weary and fatalistic I can't even spell right.(:(
  • ... it got licked up by my catio.
  • The reponse from all round Europe - France, Germany, Spain included - has been a resounding "fuck off". The thing that interests me about this is that it just doesn't sit with all the rhetoric that's constantly spouted about how 'these people' hate our democracy, our freedom, our way of life... The suggestion that their hatred is based on abstracts, on our nature as opposed to our actions - how does that sit with the offering of a conditional truce (regardless of the extent to which they're trying to play games with us)? An alternative thought (just go with it, trust me...) - he's trying to prolong the war. The message seems to show a sophisticated understanding of the political debates we're having right now (he mentions Halliburton, for God's sake). He'll know that many countries are wavering, public opinion in most countries is swinging towards the "get the hell out of there" school of thought - which would leave him, frankly, with nothing to oppose, nothing to do as the leader of a righteous army. But how could any political leader withdraw if that's what Bin Laden had told them to do? We don't negotiate with terrorists, do we? He's become a career terrorist, as so many do; this is just an elegant bit of reverse psychology to keep his career going a bit longer. Funny thing in the message - he groups the United Nations in with George Bush's cronies. I did a big left-wing double take when I saw that...
  • (he mentions Halliburton, for God's sake). Yeah, that paragraph in particular reads like it was cribbed from the ramblings of a 19-year-old protestor who uses the term "other" a lot. And I love the dumping of Halliburton, Bush and the U.N. into the same basket. The squabbling differences between the right and left, between Europe and the U.S. are seen as miniscule when viewed from the Islamist position.
  • One of the things I keep wondering is how long before the various groups affiliated with AQ start making organized crime their primary emphasis. It's easy to justify all sorts of money-making criminality when you've got a cause and it gets around the problem of needing state sponsorship. Killers who are willing to die make fearsome enforcers.
  • Indeed. It seems the Madrid bombers may well have been heavily funded by drug dealing (although they were almost certainly not actually an al-Qaida affiliate, although they may well have tried to be). It's an easy step, as we've seen in N Ireland, for terrorists and organised crime to merge, for a variety of reasons. For example, the IRA didn't permit any other organised crime on their patch, with the result that a vaccuum formed, which the IRA then filled. Now that they're not technically doing much in the way of terrorism, all they have left is the organised crime. Wonderful.
  • The reponse from all round Europe - France, Germany, Spain included - has been a resounding "fuck off". *adds one more "fuck off" to chorus*
  • As far as the lumping-in of the UN goes, I think that this is something of a misconception here in the US. From abroad, the UN really does look like an extention of the US, but in a good way-- it stood for the spread of democracy and peace, backed up by US military might, and with global legitimacy. In another time, it was something third-world intellectuals could look to for hope. Whenever Bush & co attack the UN, it really seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot in order to satisfy their egos (or, perhaps more accurately, the egos of voters of a certain kind). Anyway, it looks like Bush is buddying up to the UN once again, to help us out of the mess. It's easy to be cynical about it, but I hope for the best. I just hope that Kofi Annan manages to extract some concessions from the US in exchange, though-- specifically, an admission of wrongdoing.
  • An admission of wrongdoing is too much to hope for. But a little money, that might be possible.
  • "How did they respond to our offer?" "England, France, Germany and Spain said, um, 'fuck off'." "Anyone else?" "Uh, Wolof said that too." "Wolof too? Shit, we're screwed."
  • At least I vote.
  • Of course, Britain used to prounounce that there was no possibility of negotiation with the IRA, as well. And that whole Iran-Contra thing was a bit embarrassing for the US. "We do not negotiate with terrorists" tends to be a better soundbite than policy.