Bin Laden’s truce: is it out of the question to consider the offer? Poll results

Following the offer by Osama bin Laden of a truce with the United States, made in an audio tape broadcast on Aljazeera television Continuity Central conducted a reader poll with the following question:

Is the US government correct to reject bin Laden's truce offer out of hand, or are there other options?

61 percent of Continuity Central readers who responded to the poll believe that the US Government has done the correct thing by immediately rejecting Bin Laden’s truce offer. 32 percent of respondents felt that it was wrong to dismiss the truce offer out of hand and 7 percent were unsure.

Readers were asked to make a comment to explain their answer, and although not all respondents did this, the following provides a representative sample of the comments received:

VERBATIM COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO SAID ‘YES, that the US Government has done the correct thing’:

Would anyone in their right mind truly think Bin Laden would honor a truce? Would his followers, who are intent to earn rewards in heaven by scourging the earth of us infidels NOW honor such a truce? How confident can we be that Bin Laden will halt his "state of terror" and not touch a hair on anyone's head for the foreseeable future if the US government agreed? Is it reasonable to expect the US Government to trust Bin Laden knowing that he orchestrated deaths of many innocent human beings prior to the Afghanistan situation? Why focus on Afghanistan and Iraq situations only? Is he trying to erase most of his past history of terrorism? Can we trust a leader in hiding, whose followers of the Islamic jihad believe there is no turning back now for heavenly rewards? It’s a shame that they do not seek joy on earth in the here and now - they will continue to bet their lives now for the rewards Bin Laden quotes from the Qu’ran. The U.S. Government may not be perfect or all that intelligent, but they can at least recognize mutton dressed as lamb.

I can't even believe you're seriously asking this question. I guess some people have short memories.

I'm all for a negotiated truce in a situation where both sides are open and honest about their reasons for being there and committed to a fair solution. I think this group of terrorists have demonstrated over the years that they are not to be trusted. True followers of Allah don't condone what this group has done in "his name". You can't negotiate in good faith with such individuals.

I don't believe anything of substance has been mentioned as to what "acceptable" terms would be. All parties know that the suggestion of a truce is not enough without some idea as to what the group suggesting it would accept.

Based on one reason only - they have proven they can not be trusted!

These people have already demonstrated that they do not hold themselves accountable to any moral code and cannot be trusted.

Always you should reject a truce - the weaker side offers it to buy themselves time to regroup and strengthen themselves. Note also that it is only a truce - not an end to the greater struggle.

OBL does not want the unmanned aircraft to get him. He is on the run again. A truce would allow him to get to safety.

One man clearly cannot control all of his followers. As in Iraq one man on a "holy war" !! even sleeps with a suicide belt on at all times, in short the serpent has many heads so plan to deal with a multifaceted risk.

You cannot negotiate with an ideology of murderers who hate globalization and western civilization.

I lived and worked in New York City for a large part of my life. I watched the World Trade Center being built from the time it was just a hole in the ground. I worked in those buildings, held meetings there and knew many people who worked there. On the morning of September 11th, I got to watch in absolute horror as the twin towers collapsed. One of my neighbors perished in that collapse. Me dental hygienist’s husband was a Transit Cop and he perished while helping others during the collapse. I’ll not soon forget that day and I suspect no one else from that part of America will either. Truce? Not a chance, not until every last one of those scoundrels has been tracked down and forced from the face of the earth.

If the U.S. , U.K. , and others pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq , will fighting cease there? Of course not, fundamentalist forces will simply redouble efforts to impose their religious fanaticism on the unwilling populations including subjugation of women, etc.

They started it, we should finish it. Dramatically and soon!

The offer is a farce. However, it's a very clever move in terms of getting the placators excited.

They cannot be trusted. They have proved that over and over again.

You cannot negotiate with terrorist. By their nature, they cannot be trusted to keep their part of any agreement. The only way to ensure terrorist will not attack is continued vigilance on the part of all levels of government and by private businesses and citizens.

I don't think this is a serious offer at all. Where are the envoys? What are the details? The mainstream media is having discussions as to whether this truce should be considered? HMMM. Always trying to influence opinion.

You cannot trust terrorists. They are looking for any weakness we show them. Any cracks in our resolve. We knew going into this that it would not be quick, pleasant or painless. Let’s not kid ourselves that they would adhere to this truce, and anyone that wants to jump at this dangling carrot needs to take the blinders off their eyes.

These people are motivated not by economics, but by a religious ideology. Those who commit violence in the name of Islam are not, contrary to popular opinion, "fanantics who misinterpret the tenets of Islam." They are simply following their religion - an expansionist religion that seeks the subjugation of other faiths, cultures and governments. The life of Muhammed and his exploits is ample evidence of what Islam is all about. By entering into and continuing the Euro-Arab Dialogue, the EEC and the EU have signed the death warrant of Europe as we know it. The demographic trends alone are enough to demonstrate that Europe will be an Islamic nation-state in 50-100 years. There is no negotiating with these people. Any attempt at negotiation and truce-making only furthers their own aims.

Bin Laden would lose face in front of his followers if he didn't make such an offer and the US would appear weaker in it's resolve to accomplish their mission by accepting terrorist term

Even though the US sometimes negotiates with terrorists, it is best to not let terrorists extort their wishes from a government or a people. Most people in the US would view the offer of a truce as a sign of weakness because of the previous statements that bin Laden made. How his gang will crush the infidels. US culture doesn’t have a favorable view of someone who punches you and then calls for a truce after you punch them back. The US feels that bin Laden is figuratively and literally on the run, and they don’t mind if he spends the rest of his life running from cave to cave. Bin Laden should give himself up and stand trial.

We will dictate terms, not Bin Laden.

bin Laden is not a head of state, he is a leader of terrorists. The only solution to dealing with such a group is to eradicate it from the face of the planet. Negotiating a "truce" will only serve to reinforce their tactics on our and other societies down the line. The "truce" would make things more dangerous from both a political risk and business protection point of view, now and in the future

'Giving in' to Bin Laden would make all the effort and sacrifice mean absolutely nothing. We must hold the course.

Never trust terrorists.

You can not negotiate with terrorists!

If anyone has read the book Body Language, they will understand that Osama bin Hiding is not someone who can be trusted. The "truce" is a ruse. He wants to build his group back after losing 70% of his leadership. Let's not give him the chance.

At some stage every major government has negotiated with terrorists. I can't see al-Qaida being any different, although until they offer real evidence that they are prepared to achieve some form of settlement the immediate response has to be no.

Anybody that is capable of organising something like 911 will use any means available to strike again. If the currently level of security is preventing him from organising additional attacks his only way to do it again would be under false pretense. Also, what kind of signal will that send to other terrorists. I would suggest that the powers that be hunt him down and bring him to justice, with the technology available today I am sure they know roughly where he is and they must have people capable of getting him.

To accept a truce from an organisation that openly seeks to destroy our way of life would be inadvisable. This organisation has shown a complete lack of respect for human life. Planting bombs on packed commuter trains, and openly destroying busy office buildings in an attempt to kill as many people as possible is indefensible. Rewarding this activity by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq will lead to further demands and further loss of life. Al-Qaida is an extremist organisation, and attempts to negotiate with these people will likely fail, or at best encourage other terrorist groups that this sort of activity will help them to achieve their extremist aims. Al-Qaida may be right in what they say about US and UK foreign policy. If they want to achieve change, they should use non-violent means, and lobby political opinion.

The truce offer was preceded by a threat and I think that says it all. Fundamentally ULB and Al Qaida have proven their capability to act beyond the boundaries of reasonable human behaviour - so to believe that they are will do so now seems foolhardy.

VERBATIM COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO SAID ‘NO, that the US Government has not done the correct thing’:

As true BC professionals we must examine all options and to just simply dismiss immediately without thought seems hasty.

The potential opportunity that has been positioned on the table is too great to dismiss without looking at the potential benefits.

The US Government needs to stop being the bully. We should try to work to reconcile differences not eliminate those that oppose us.

I believe the US Govt should rethink what a truce would mean. It seems they have rejected this out of hand because it has come from terrorists. This is a tough one to wend through. On the one hand, can you trust anything Bin Laden says? On the other hand, if you could take the truce offer at face value, it would be a very good thing from my perspective. However, I understand that this has impact with oil, and that just doesn't sit well with the current administration.

Any chance of avoiding further bloodshed should be fully investigated and considered. History shows that some form of negotiation is always necessary in the end.

The old mantra "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is just a posturing soundbite. For instance, If a plane is highjacked the first action is to assemble a team of negotiators. And the hard talking Scott McClennan who claims not to negotiate but rather to "put them out of business". Really? Well, I hadn't noticed.

Negotiations between the parties may enable both to work toward resolving the underlying reasons why the terrorism is occurring, and work toward peace. I strongly believe the US government is being totally arrogant and not working in the best interests of world peace to continue this so-called 'war on terror' that seems to benefit only the likes of Halliburton and other beneficiaries of the 'war'.

Whether or not to trust bin Laden is the cornerstone to any discussion of a truce. The legal definition of truce is, "An agreement between belligerent parties, by which they mutually engage to forbear all acts of hostility against each other for some time, the war still continuing." (Source: Lectric Law Library). Clearly we in the U.S. , UK and Europe have no basis for trust. bin Laden and a priori Al Quaeda must present themselves directly to a diplomatic resource (the UN?) with a specific detailed offer. Also, I believe that Islamic terrorists have a broad and diffuse base. I don't believe bin Laden has more than a modicum of control over that base, therefore diminishing any actual truce that would bring peace in the Middle East , and a lessening of the threat of terrorism to the rest of us.

The actions on the part of both sides demonstrates a lack of sanctity for human life and just how destructive mankind can become when angry and lacking in true holiness. It’s time to forgive and lift up the families of those that have died, reconcile our differences, and rebuild the destroyed lives of so many.

We need to explore every avenue that will not only bring our troops home soon but also take care of Iraq and Afghanistan . Quickly dismissing the offer, when Bin Laden has avoided capture all of these years, continually conveys the arrogance of this administration. Terrorist yes, but so far Bush or Cheney haven't come up with anything better while the body count rises on a daily basis.

As long as both parties are engaged in discussions, the risk of further activity by Al-Qaeda is somewhat mitigated. Al-Quaeda is not the only Muslim extremist but the others appear to take their cues from Al-Qaeda further decreasing risk.

We will never put al-Qaida out of business fighting a conventional war by conventional rules, when the enemy does not adhere to the same set of rules. They are receiving their orders from Allah, the greatest glory is to die for his name, that mentality can not be fought with the traditional methods that we use to fight wars. We have to approach this, if we hope to have any chance of ending the terror, by better understanding the beliefs and goals and the people we are fighting, what motivates them in the first place, so what would motivate them to stop. To say we do not negotiate with terrorists, well that is who we are fighting against, if we want the fighting to stop isn't that who we should be talking to. To think we are going to put them out of business is naive, they are raising more and more new terrorist every day.

Of course it’s a ploy, but it offers new opportunities to deal with terrorism other than through fighting a war, which is never a successful strategy in itself.

•Date: 27th Jan 2006• Region: US/World • Type: Article •Topic: Terrorism
Rate this article or make a comment - click here