Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush snubs olive branch

  1. Jan 20, 2006 #1
    Well, this is interesting, and shows how little Bush knows about dealing with "terrorism"

    The UK tried this tactic with the IRA for years, and quiet frankly it had the opposite effect than was needed. War will not beat al-queda, deplomacy is needed now, if peace is actually what is wanted.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060120.wxosama20/BNStory/International/

    http://news.google.co.uk/?ncl=http:...?AID=/20060120/WIRE/201200352/1117/news&hl=en
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 20, 2006 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Are you saying you do think Al Qaeda actually wants peace?
     
  4. Jan 20, 2006 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You don't negotiate with terrorists. When they stop the killing and show themselves to be more than wild animals and two-bit thugs, then we can talk.
     
  5. Jan 20, 2006 #4
    Yes they do, but on there terms, this is where deplomacy comes in. The IRA were terrorist you know, and the Brittish goverment/ and Irish goverments sat round a table with them, and look what happened. We have Peace!
     
  6. Jan 20, 2006 #5
    Of course they do. What are they, Klingons?
     
  7. Jan 20, 2006 #6

    Art

    User Avatar

    As a general principle I would agree, however if all attempts to annihilate them fails and they maintain the capacity to inflict damage then eventually there's no other option.
    It would be nice if we only had to negotiate peace with our friends but unfortunately that is never the case. Anttechs example citing the IRA is a good case in point.
     
  8. Jan 20, 2006 #7
    I'm pretty sure that he realized the offer would be turned down. I can't imagine him being trusting enough to actually meet up with diplomats from the US to discuss anything anywhere.
     
  9. Jan 20, 2006 #8
    That could be said about us as well. Our corporations have been in these regions exploiting the population and killing people for over 50 years.

    Calling a truce doe snot mean making a deal, it just means stop fighting, leave things as they are, we will not attack if you don't.

    no one says you have to stop being vigilant against attack.
     
  10. Jan 20, 2006 #9
    His plan was brilliant. He offers it, the US can reject it out of had, as we did and t bolsters his image.

    He shows up for the truce talks and is assassinated/arrested... it bolsters his cause and makes him a martyr

    He succeeds in peace, he becomes a mythological entity in the muslim world.

    There was no downside to him NOT genuinely offering peace tot he US. no matter what the US did (even rejecting him with out talks) made him look stronger.

    To bad the Bush admin is too stupid to get that, because we might have actually had a chance to live life as we did before Bush got all high on his ego.
     
  11. Jan 20, 2006 #10

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I partially agree. I don't think being assasinated or captured would be a positive for him. Other than that, the offer has no downside.

    Realistically, there is no upside to the US responding to his comments at all. At this point, the desire to capture or kill bin Laden is more emotionally driven than functionally driven. He's not all that relevant to current events except as a celebrity.

    If you can prevent nations from providing a stable base of operations, terrorist groups aren't that big a threat - not even al Qaeda. Ducking from cave to cave, probably in the Hindu Kush, doesn't provide a very stable operating base.
     
  12. Jan 20, 2006 #11
    Of course he wouldnt turn up to a meeting, just the same as Bush wouldnt. They would both send people to represent them...
     
  13. Jan 20, 2006 #12
    Anntech et al., you obviously know very little about Islam or its history. Truces in Islam exist for one purpose: to buy time in order to gather strength to attack in the future with guaranteed success. Thus, OBL's truce offer is a sign of his weakness, and it shows the success of our current strategy.
     
  14. Jan 20, 2006 #13
    an article from Mark LeVine
    http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH06Ak02.html

    His credentials from the bottom of the article:
    Warren, This guy knows what he is talking about, so what do you have to say?
     
  15. Jan 20, 2006 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't see it bolstering his image. This "offer" is the same as the playground bully telling another kid, I'll stop beating you up if you agree to whatever I tell you to do. Is there really anyone that doesn't see this bogus "offer" for what it really is?
     
  16. Jan 20, 2006 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Follow-up: do you think they would actually be willing to negitiate in good faith? Remember, Bin Laden's demands essentially start with 'convert to Islam or die'. Do you think he's willing to back off from that in a negotiation? Do you think he's willing to stop changing his demands with the blowing of the wind?
    The IRA isn't Al Qaeda: the IRA had specific, workable goals and demands that were of the sort that were physically possible to acheive and able to be negotiated. The IRA then negotiated them in good-faith.

    This isn't even Hamas or the PA that we're talking about here - they also had specific goals that are the type you can negotiate (borders on a map, etc). The demands we have from Al Qaeda are the whimsical ramblings of a homicidal maniac. What will end that is killing Bin Laden himself.

    I agree with the others: this message is a show of weakness and fear.
     
  17. Jan 20, 2006 #16
    OBL can hardly be likened to a "playground bully".
     
  18. Jan 20, 2006 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, except if his followers see it as a sign of weakness and scatter.
    I'm not really sure that's true and even if it is, his celebrity matters to other terrorist groups that look to Al Qaeda for brotherhood. The marginalization - or death - of Bin Laden would resonate through the Islamic world and weaken the general terroristic undercurrents that exist in it. As far as cult-of-personality goes, he's their MLK.
    While that's true and that's likely why we haven't had a major attack in some time, it requires constant attention. Take out the queen B and the hive will be lost.
     
  19. Jan 20, 2006 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Elaborate, please - these one-liners aren't saying a whole lot...
     
  20. Jan 20, 2006 #19
    I don't think Bin Laden is as concerned with spreading Islam as he is with eliminating foreign influences from what he perceives as historically Muslim lands, especially Saudi Arabia and Israel.

    http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp
    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html
    http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/binladen.html

    While it's true that he has called for the death of all Jews and Americans, I suspect it has more to do with rallying support in the Muslim world than an actual desire to kill all Americans. By calling for these deaths, he attracts more support. The main thrust, however, is whether his calls for a truce are legitimate. I'm sure he is completely aware he would never get what he wants, i.e., all non-Muslims expelled from Muslim lands. Knowing this, my guess is he has called for a truce because either 1) he's getting scared because we may be getting close to finding him, or 2) for some reason he believes it will rally more support for his cause when the U.S. rejects his call.
     
  21. Jan 20, 2006 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, he's more cowardly than a bully, but the same mentality, using violence against innocent targets to gain what he wants.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bush snubs olive branch
  1. Bush Bush Bush (Replies: 6)

  2. Executive Branch (Replies: 6)

  3. Bush Doctrine. (Replies: 10)

Loading...