2
   

Bin Laden offers truce.

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2006 03:28 pm
au--If Bush was the first or the worst at cronyism, you may have something. You act as though it isn't rampant in every office and Presidency. Give me somehing everyone else doesn't do, and it may seem credible.

And, the US isn't limited to fighting on one fromnt at a time. If we were, we would've lost WWI and II. Don't look now, but Iran may be the third front.

So, I disagree--but at least you stated reasonable disagreements with Bush. I just think you're wrong.

Brownie did suck--and cronyism sucks--but Bush's guilt in that area isn't notably worse than anyone else's.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2006 03:46 pm
Lash
Do two wrongs make a right. The fact that everyone else does it, if they do, does in no way excuse Bush.

Although you may disagree the diversion of forces and resolve to destroy Bin Laden and AlQueda died when he turned the attention to Iraq. In addition can you deny that the war in Iraq revitalized Al Queda and brought him a new and powerful ally.
One could call his actions miscalculations but IMO they are pure and simple acts of ignorance. .
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2006 03:53 pm
Actually au, I think what we're seeing in the media right now shows that Bush's plan is really having the intended effect. I think OBL and his raggedy cronies are really suffering.

Truce, my ass. Don't you think that's why they're trying to beg off?

You are correct that two wrongs don't make a right. Absolutely. But the indignity about Bush doing it seems a little hollow--knowing that everyone else has been doing this since the world began. I guess that's my deal. People act as though he thought cronyism up.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 09:18 pm
Re: the truce offer
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Osama bin Laden offered a truce to comply with Koran requirements that before attacking an enemy who does not accept Islam, a truce must be offered.



I was just about to say the same thing.

I don't know much about the requirement, but I do know that Mehmed II made a truce type of offer before conquering Constantinople.


Osama had been criticized for attacking without making such an offer, so he offered Europe a truce about a year before the bombings in London.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 09:22 pm
Lord Ellpus wrote:
If, and I repeat IF this is genuine, then he will have a very good reason to suggest a truce.
Logic would tell him that Iraq will very likely become a Shiite dominated country in the near future, so why delay the departure of the infidel by continually bombing them.
Allow Iraq to be re-developed and then sit back and watch the infidel leave.
Within a short space of time (10 years?) it will probably be a theocracy, so just let it happen, he is probably thinking.


Osama is a Sunni fanatic. I doubt he sees Shi'a domination of Iraq as a good thing.

Also, Iraq is not becoming a theocracy. It is true that they have strong religious aspects to their government, but they are a democracy.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 12:23 am
Democracy and theocracy are not necessarily incongruent. The people can vote--democracy--for a theocratic government.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera - Discussion by freedom4free
VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS - Discussion by McGentrix
Who is Daniel Pipes? - Discussion by perception
WAR ON TERRORISM - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/09/2023 at 07:24:43