-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
(AFP) Bin Laden To Air Message Ending Truce Offered To Europe
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen
Banned
The point of the truce offer was to show the Arab world how unreasonable Europe is. They knew it would be rejected, but also that a rejected peace offer would be good PR to draw more recruits and sympathizers.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
...uh yeah you just described one demographic of people in the US. Though i do indulge in the MC Donald dollar menu from time to time, so do people in france last time I checked. Walmarts gotta be doing something right to be making more money than any of those clever European retailers and their superior class. Chevy must've been onto something because last time I looked Porsche, Bmw, Mercedes all have SuV models to cash in on the classes trend. The F150...well I dont even get that one. J Lo is but one person, Time Warner is but one company, Friends is but one tv show. Nascar is but one racing circuit here in the US and even though alot of them have a souther background there are racers like Jeff Gordon that prove you dont have to be a hick to be in Nascar. Foxnews is there to counteract the Clinton News Network.
MrPing1000
Member
Its ok we are better at fighting wars anyway
As I recall the whole Europe is not involved in USA's wars. But just for the record in case my country sends troops to Iraq we will be asking for it and deserve the "terrorist" attack. Till then Al Queda should be smart and not bomb any countries who haven't been involved in USA's acts.
I have a HORRIBLE feeling they won't exclude countries not fighting in Iraq etc. I've a feeling by their own logic they will validate attacks against these countries too..a lot of the countries not involved would prob be easier targets (the smaller ones anyway). I hope to god i'm wrong..god, i hope nothing happens to anyone.
gofreak said:
I don't see Al Queda as a bunch of savage morons, they must be smart since they're still fighting against such a power like USA. This would be a very stupid move. I mean if they bomb everyone, then what's the reason not to join the US? On the other hand if they declare war to the US allies then some countries would think twice to join USA.
Mustang said:I believe everything that piece of shit says.
Yeah right......
They're alot of things, but they are usually tue to their word. It would be pointless to attack Europe if it actually ceded to the demands, as it would show there is no use in doing so. There isn't a reason to lie about it. Just like the hostages, when demands are met they are released generally.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
slurpy, in the thread made immediately after bin Laden originally announced this ridiculous truce offer you said that what he said had 'hidden truths'. I remember because I asked you several times which parts of his statement were true but you declined to elaborate.
Your post in this thread states that bin Laden will honor a truce agreement with Europe because the murderous religious fascists in question are "usually tue (sic) to their word." The obvious inference is that you think Europe should enter into a truce as a way to spare itself from indiscriminate attacks on its civilans. If this isn't what you were trying to communicate, you should have added something like "although al-Qaeda and its ilk is above reproach in its honesty about deals not to kill people in certain countries, Europe should not enter into a deal with them."
Without such a qualifer, it seems as if you (along with Che) endorse a Europe-Islamofascist agreement whereby Europe does certain things and the Islamofascists promise not to murder people from that country.
Your post in this thread states that bin Laden will honor a truce agreement with Europe because the murderous religious fascists in question are "usually tue (sic) to their word." The obvious inference is that you think Europe should enter into a truce as a way to spare itself from indiscriminate attacks on its civilans. If this isn't what you were trying to communicate, you should have added something like "although al-Qaeda and its ilk is above reproach in its honesty about deals not to kill people in certain countries, Europe should not enter into a deal with them."
Without such a qualifer, it seems as if you (along with Che) endorse a Europe-Islamofascist agreement whereby Europe does certain things and the Islamofascists promise not to murder people from that country.
Guileless said:
Yes I did say that, and I stand by it. It has nothing to do with who said them, but I agreed that some issues he raised are fundamentally true- which certainly doesn't imply that I agree with the man's ideology, methods, or tactics. Because I don't.
Secondly, I don't think it realistic for a second that this truce be accepted. I commented on someone's post who scoffed at the idea of these people and their likes keeping their word. I refuted that historically, they have kept it. Not doing so would diminish their power. Am I against any sort of truce? If the terms are reasonable, I would be open minded. Beyond the rhetoric of 'succumbing to the terrorists' I'm for the saving of innocent life, however the method. Brute force can only take you so far, and is usually counter-productive in the long run. So if this doesn't work, what? The willingness to sacrifice more and more people to stick with the false ideal of not 'giving in to demands'? There's a limit- I'm not ssaying we've reached it, but there should be a point where everything is considered. Terrorism in many countries was solved with agreements and negotiations.
In the end, government has a responsibility for keeping innocents safe, and a duty to explore all methods. That does not have to mean 'giving in'. There are other factors to consider. I believe we will discover we are not on the right route to this goal, but instead to more bloodshed.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
There's a major difference in negotiating with terrorists who have concrete, in some cases attainable, political goals and negotiating with terrorists whose goal is to simply kill as many people as possible because of who they are. I don't see the merit in even considering acceding to any demands made by such people. None of the posts here convince me otherwise.
Again, what issues did he raise that are fundamentally true? The cabal of Jewish financiers who rule the world perhaps?
Again, what issues did he raise that are fundamentally true? The cabal of Jewish financiers who rule the world perhaps?
robertsan21
Member
sweet jesus it has started
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked