It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TERRORISM: Firm rejection of Bin Laden's truce.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Soon after the "supposed" truce that Bin Laden asked for, several European countries, including Spain, rejected this truce. Did the European countries realized that Bin Laden, or whoever sent this truce, was trying to use his old ruse of dividing to conquer?
 


European countries reject Bin Laden's truce


Sen. Joseph Biden, senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's "Today" show that bin Laden was "trying to separate us from the Europeans, and Europeans from the U.S. It's an example of how opportunistic he is."

Germany rejected that notion.

"The international community must pursue the fight against international terrorism together ," a government spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity. "Germany will continue to make its contribution."


In an interview in 1995 Bin Laden mentioned what "truce" means to him.

"To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan... I did not fight against the communist threat while forgetting the peril from the West."
"For us, the idea was not to get involved more than necessary in the fight against the Russians, which was the business of the Americans, but rather to show our solidarity with our Islamist brothers. I discovered that it was not enough to fight in Afghanistan, but that we had to fight on all fronts against communist or Western oppression. The urgent thing was communism, but the next target was America... This is an open war up to the end, until victory."
Bin Laden's view of truce

Related Links.

Purported Bin Laden Truce Rejected





[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Nerdling]

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Well what a surprise. After what happened in Spain, even if bin Laden wasn't directly responsible, there's no way Europe would accept a truce, but i'm being rhetorical



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I wish they would stop airing his messages.... like what Maggie Thatcher did in the 80's to the IRA.

People like Bin Laden just want tp keep scaring people. The only power he has now is to make these little messages, we should just take that last power away from him.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
I wish they would stop airing his messages


Agreed with Facefirst on that one.

It's sort of like an itchy rash. It wants you to scratch it so it can spread.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   


People like Bin Laden just want tp keep scaring people. The only power he has now is to make these little messages, we should just take that last power away from him.


9/11 in the US and the 3/11 bombing in Spain did happen. These were not just a bluff. We still should "at least" listen to the messages they send. Some could tell us of their future intentions, while others like this attemp to have a truce, was merely a way to try to divide the international coalition, because the terrorists are desperate.

I think what happened is that Bin Laden, or whoever else is the leader of Al Qaeda, have realized that attacking the Europeans at the same time that they have attacked the US, is not a good idea.

This was an attemp to divide the international community efforts against terrorism. Now that the Europeans and others have realized that "anyone" can be a target to these terrorists, for any reason, that we all have to continue the war against islamic extremists.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib



People like Bin Laden just want tp keep scaring people. The only power he has now is to make these little messages, we should just take that last power away from him.


9/11 in the US and the 3/11 bombing in Spain did happen. These were not just a bluff. We still should "at least" listen to the messages they send. Some could tell us of their future intentions, while others like this attemp to have a truce, was merely a way to try to divide the international coalition, because the terrorists are desperate.

This was an attemp to divide the international community efforts against terrorism. Now that the Europeans and others have realized that "anyone" can be a target to these terrorists, for any reason, that we all have to continue the war against islamic extremists.


I agree 100% with your final sentence. Extremism must be battled on all fronts with extreme prejudice. (no pun intended)

There was no connection between the horrible Spain bombings and Osama. at least as of now..... Still dangerous though.... my heart goes out to the lost.

I agree, we should listen to the messages. And by 'we," I am refering to intelligence agencies, not the general public. Margaret Thatcher did England a great favor by suffocating the IRA messages...... and we know the IRA was not bluffing either.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   


Margaret Thatcher did England a great favor by suffocating the IRA messages...... and we know the IRA was not bluffing either.


If the US did just that, people will be having a new fit of conspiracy theories. Yes, it is true that there are things the government has kept secret and should continue to keep secret. You don't see the Chinese, Russians, or all other European, Asian, Middle East or African countries coming clean with all their secrets do you?
(This last part wasn't directed at you facefirst, but at those Americans who keep yelling for the US to share all its secrets)

Whoever asks that a country should "share" all its secrets with its people is deluding himself/herself. Either that or they themselves have a hidden agenda.



[Edited on 16-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Didn't Hitler offer Europe something akin to a promise not to attack shortly before he did?

Wouldn't Europe seriously consider a Bin Laden truce offer that was on the table - if it followed a successful and traumatic attack within the US?

Doesn't the 9/11 Commission hearings remind you of a decoy or distraction? I suspect that our enemies are taking great glee in our hashing out blame and finger pointing.

My basic problem with "Homeland Security" is the complete lack of it along our Southern Border. Mexico is not cooperating - except verbally - with the US in our efforts to fully root out Islamic terrorist cells in their country (of which there are over a dozen).

Out here there's a trail over the border the locals call "The Arab Trail" (because its the favorite of "individuals from countries of interest") and every month over 300 of such "individuals" cross our open border to the south. Some pay as much as $30,000 to be guided over the border zone. Doesn't sound like they're coming to get a minimum wage job does it?

As for "secrets"? Every week there's a shooting over the border - from the Mexican side - and never a word in the mainstream media about it. No one saw on national TV the Border Patrol truck with 23 bullet holes in it - shot up about 3 weeks ago in one such incident.

As for the Bin Laden truce? Smoke and mirrors.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Margaret Thatcher did England a great favor by suffocating the IRA messages...... and we know the IRA was not bluffing either.


i dont agree. it was only when the british government began to negotiate with the IRA that the foundations for peace were established. as abhorrent as it sounds, the only way to disable a terrorist threat is through compromise.

admittedly with alqaeda this is more difficult as they have no central legitimate goal, but by proving the west is not the towering opressor that bin laden and terrorist groups suggest, there is a greater possibility that the anti-west sentiment of arab people will be eroded. this will obviously minimise the fundamentalist threat.

supressing the messages is akin to closing your ears and pretending the problem isnt there.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I agree with the thought that this is something hes doing before he attacks again, He wouldnt show any weaknesses, he would gladly die before that happened prolly to show a sign to the sleeper cells to attack who knows, i just think theres something more to this, he has proven t have tactics to all there actions, why wouldnt this be different? Simple to divide? nah he knows better i think its a question that will have more meaning after a certain event.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bolshevik

Originally posted by Facefirst
Margaret Thatcher did England a great favor by suffocating the IRA messages...... and we know the IRA was not bluffing either.


i dont agree. it was only when the british government began to negotiate with the IRA that the foundations for peace were established. as abhorrent as it sounds, the only way to disable a terrorist threat is through compromise.

supressing the messages is akin to closing your ears and pretending the problem isnt there.


I disagree. Part of what fuels the terroist groups is getting their messages to the public and causing fear.

You can suppress the messages and still have intel agencies examine the messages just as long as you warn the public when things look bleek. ie. probable attack.


But that's just my opinion.


.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Given perhaps that Bin Laden's goal is to restore some form of fundamental Islamic regime in Saudi Arabia with himself as the centerpiece of this "return" to the faith -

What does it gain him to offer a sincere truce with Europe other than to gain time?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join