Bin Laden’s truce: is it out of the question to consider the offer?
In an audio tape broadcast on Aljazeera television on Thursday 19 th January, Osama bin Laden warned that al-Qaida has well-advanced plans to conduct an attack on the US homeland. The voice on the audio tape, which many experts are accepting as genuinely that of Bin Laden, said (Aljazeera translation): "The new operations of al-Qaida has not happened not because we could not penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you'll see it in your homeland very soon." However the audio tape also offered a truce to the US: "In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to. "We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war.” The US government has rejected the truce offer. US Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News that the truce offer was a "ploy" and White House spokesman Scott McClellan told the BBC "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business". However, unlike after a previous truce offer made to the UK in 2004, which received an equally unequivocal rejection by the British government, there seems to have been much discussion in the mainstream media on whether this truce should be considered. Continuity Central would like your views on this issue: As business continuity professionals the issue is very relevant, both from a political risk and from a business protection point of view. Is the US government correct to reject the truce offer out of hand, or are there other options? Have your say:
•Date: 20th Jan 2006• Region: US/World • Type: Article •Topic: Terrorism |
