uniform_motion Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10924015/ Wow. I know we get tapes from him a lot, but this is odd. "The Al-Qaida leader did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by Al-Jazeera. “We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to,” he said. “We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. “There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America,” he said. In an Arabic transcription of the entire tape on the Al-Jazeera Web site— but not aired— bin Laden makes an oblique reference to how to prevent new attacks on the United States . “If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would apologize to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended,” he said. Link to comment
Venom112 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I was a little hesitent to believe anything one I read the three letters CIA at the top, but I read it anyway. “We do not negotiate with terrorists,” McClellan said. “We put them out of business.” That's funny because America funds terrorists ALL THE TIME. Sure, we call them freedom fighters, but that doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. “They want to promote the image that they can launch attacks if and when it suits them. That’s the message of a powerful organization not a weakened one. They want us to believe they are in control,” he said. But they are! Think about it. The increase of security in airports, the patriot act? Sure, it's a method for big brother to continually gain more power of its citizens, but it still shows that the gov. at a basic level is under the thumb of the terrorists. “Would he say that and risk being proved wrong, if he can’t pull it off in a month or so?” Clarke asked. Whoa, whoa. There was nothing said about attacking soon. Even if there was, time is relative, it could be 10 years later and still be soon. Link to comment
uniform_motion Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 I just thought the article was interesting. =p Link to comment
Venom112 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I just thought the article was interesting. =p YOU'RE interesting! Hmm... That doesn't sound much like an insult at all. Link to comment
Ceraziefish Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Hrm. Sounds fairly sane. You really don't hear that too often in politics these days. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now