So, the news today is all aflutter about Bin Laden's latest missive: Fresh Threats for U.S. From Bin Laden. Apparently, he stated that new attacks on the US were in the works but also offered a truce. To which Scott McClellan says ""We do not negotiate with terrorists."

Now, let me throw in another wrinkle. Remember back a few years ago when this guy, Muammar Qaddhafi, offered to stop his WMD program? For those who don't recall Qaddhafi was the mastermind behind a few major terrorist activities in the 1970s and the 1980s: Black September and Lockerbie.

Questions for debate:

If the US doen't negotiate with terrorists, then why does Gaddhafi get negotiated with and not Bin Laden?

Assuming Bin Laden's truce offer is not genuine, why consider Gaddhafi's efforts to "normalize" relations with the West as genuine?

Bonus Question: Are there "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists?

I am sure it has something to do with the fact that Qaddhafi is the recognized leader of a sovereign, independent nation - a rogue nation, but a nation nonetheless. Bin Laden does not represent any nation but a shadowy terrorist organization. It was unimaginable to have Arafat visiting White House when Palestinian Authority didn't exist yet.

If the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists, then why does Gaddhafi get negotiated with and not Bin Laden?

bin Laden continued to threaten the US and then offers a truce to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We are planning attacks" "Your security does not stop us, we are planning attacks which will make you forget 9-11" followed by "How about a truce to fix up Iraq?"

Sorry, that's not credible.

A defeated terrorist (like Qaddhafi) comes to you hat-in-hand and asks for a truce. Recall that it took over a decade of inactivity by Qaddhafi before we trusted him enough and he had to initiate the good faith by getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

bin Laden has nothing to offer. If he calls off his jihad, he loses face and is disrespected by Muslims. He won't do that. Qaddhafi was a leader of a country, with pretty much absolute control. What he said was what happened.

bin Laden leads an ideological movement which will not bow to the sudden peacefulness of one man.

By the way, the US does negotiate with terrorists. Remember Arafat?

Assuming Bin Laden's truce offer is not genuine, why consider Gaddhafi's efforts to "normalize" relations with the West as genuine?

Because of the time frame involved. He didn't go from bad guy to good guy overnight. He came to us with his WMD program as a good faith gesture. He said he would help fight al Qaeda. He was one of the first (and few) Muslim leaders to denounce 9/11. Actions speak louder than (poorly recorded) words.

Are there "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists?

A good terrorist is a dead terrorist. A bad terrorist is an active terrorist. A reformed terrorist can be put on probation (in my book) after 10 years of inactivity.

Because Ghaddafi is no longer a threat.


Because Ghaddafi's power base is vulnerable.

Bin Laden though is the apparently invulnerable international man of mystery who has dodged the bullets and bombs and speaks from the darkness. He is, to the Muslim extremists, a modern day Robin Hood fighting against the evil oppression of the evil empire.

Unfortunataly for Bin Laden and the rest of his loony tunes associates hiding up there in the hills, they have stiff competetion for the much sought after position of top religious psycho... a certain Mr Ahmadinejad has started to eclipse the al qaeda sun with his talk of actualy doing something against the wicked infidels and their regional pit bull; Israel.... and Mr Ahmadinejad has a big ace up his sleeve.

Some observors predicted this latest message from al qaeda, saying the terrorists were going to have to make a move soon or be left behind in the struggle for the hearts and minds of Islam.

More over, this struggle may now be producing a much needed backlash. According to the BBC the Arabic media is shunning the latest messages from the bearded ranks. It seems not every one in the middle east regards killing civilians in Iraq as a noble cause.


But if course there are!

Osama Bin Laden was a good terrorist before he became a bad one.

Which part of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" does this argument apply to, then?


Yep, I remember Arafat. I was going to bring that up but since you did... Which part of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" does negotiating with Arafat apply to?


I see. So if we wait long enough, then Bin Laden will eventually be okay to deal with?


I think you're mincing words here, Amlord. Are there terrorists who we negotiate with and terrorists we don't negotirate with? Which part of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" does this apply to?

Well logophage you sure are forgiving.

If they are not active in performing terrorism, are they terrorists?

Do you fault the British government for seeking peaceful political solutions in Northern Ireland?

Is Germany now an enemy of the state because of their appointment of Joschka Fisher as Foreign Minster?

Even the forsaken Muslim Brotherhood gets a pass from many here in the US because they have chosen to use political outlets.

This "hypocrisy" certainly isn't something the Bush admin has a monopoly on. Remember Jesus died for our sins...

I have no problem with people seeking peaceful, diplomatic negotiations. We should applaud the Bush admins open attitude towards Qaddhafi and encourage them to seek the same with others.

I have an odd twist to OBL's speech to share..
Osama's Book Club

1) Why Ghaddafi and not bin Laden?

As some have related, Ghaddafi gave proof of his bona fides. And to put that into context, if you can find or name one truce [in Arabic, hudna] that went into effect when the Muslim side had the upper hand, please let me know. The reason for a hudna in Islam is so that the Muslim side can gain the time to regroup and/or grow stronger [well, that, and hope that the other side converts (excuse me, reverts) in the interim]. So when Ghaddafi promised to dismantle his objectionable programs, allowed for inspections, did some creditable work in crushing al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists in Libya, and otherwise agreed to pay monetary compensation, such was taken as Ghaddafi departing [rather entirely] from the prior Islamic precedent regarding hudna/truce [i.e., it was clear that he wasn't trying to stall for time until his side grew stronger]. And going back to the sovereign nation versus shadowy organization dichotomy, yes, Ghaddafi did what he did in order to preserve his own place and the existing power structure in Libya. As someone reported, Osama simply cannot have that as his justification, and that justification is also our security [i.e., the man was bombed and almost killed, and now he sees the error of his ways and is apparently willing to repent].

And never mind that we didn't really negotiate with Ghaddafi, unless of course, going back to another post of mine here today, we regard killing as negotiation. And also never mind that Dubya began the WOT by saying that we were giving one and all the chance to come in from the cold and renounce their terrorist ways. So maybe it's just a matter of timing, i.e., Ghaddafi came when we called but Osama did not, and so it's too late for him and his.

And related to the matter of timing is positioning. As someone reported, we hadn't heard a peep out of Moammar for a while. So our WOT wasn't against him per se [i.e., when you were thinking of WOT, Ghaddafi wasn't in the scope]. And so, when Dubya said join us or be against us, what were we to say when Ghaddafi said, I'm with you? What message would we have sent if we had rejected his offer? That all our words are insincere and that we don't care if you want to join us, and give us your help, we'll still crush you anyway?

And back to historic hudna, what is Osama offering by way of his truce? He says he is still planning operations, so he hasn't renounced terrorism and thus is still a terrorist. And while Osama spends much of his recent proclamation expounding on just how badly we are losing in Iraq, the reality is different, as his call for a truce makes plain. He wants hudna in its traditional Islamic sense, i.e., he knows that US, other Coalition members, Iraqi, and Afghani forces are crushing his operations and so he wants a truce in order to regroup and rebuild. And since he knows that his followers have a good understanding of the traditional hudna, he spouts on and on about how that isn't so since we are losing and they are winning, and all the truce is for is to help rebuild Iraq, etc.

A close comparision would be Arafat and Oslo. After Oslo, Arafat told his people, well, this says it best:

"Arafat has also compared the Oslo accords to peace treaties that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, signed and then later discarded. In the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Quds on May 10, 1998. Arafat was asked: "Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?" Arafat replied: "No .... no. Allah's messenger Mohammed accepted the al-Khudaibiya peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted."

The Khudaibiya agreement was a 10-year peace treaty between Mohammed and the tribe of Qureish. After two years, when Mohammed had improved his military position, he tore up the agreement and slaughtered the Qureishites. Salab a-Din was the Muslim leader who, after a cease fire, declared a jihad against the Crusaders and conquered Jerusalem.

In an interview with Egyptian Orbit TV on April 18, 1998, Arafat declared that the Oslo accords are comparable to "when the Prophet Mohammed made the Khudaibiya agreement.. .we must learn from his steps.. .We respect agreements the way that the Prophet Mohammed respected the agreements which he signed.""

See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Peace_treat...mporary_measure

You'll have to forgive me, but Osama's comment has all the marks of Mohammed and his treaty with the tribe of Qureish. Which is to say that Mohammed only respected a hudna so long as his side did not have the superior hand.

And see also:

http://www.meforum.org/article/480

2) Re genuineness, as related, Ghaddafi has done more than enough to prove the same, which is not to say that we won't be watching him like a hawk nonetheless.

And, lastly, for more on what hudna really means:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45..._With_Hamas.asp

And from that last, the words of Major-General Amos Gilad:

"For us as a nation, it is forbidden to interest ourselves in this hudna, which is a threat to any kind of peace."

So too with respect to Osama's latest. You know, logo, we all want to lives of peace, but wishing for the same, no matter how hard that wish might be, won't make it so.....

And, sorry, but one more, the words of Majid Khadduri [from his The Law of War and Peace in Islam]:

"The Islamic state...sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no state other than itself. Consequently, according to this view, the only permissible form of peace agreement is a temporary one, since a permanent, full peace would constitute recognition of a non-Muslim state."

And by way of example, going back the Hamas hudna, when Hamas called for and observed its hudna, its leadership made clear that it was not recognizing Israel's right to exist ["Israel is a temporary phenomenon and will have to go"---Mahmoud Zahar].

If the US doen't negotiate with terrorists, then why does Gaddhafi get negotiated with and not Bin Laden?

As has been mentioned, these are entirely different situations. Qaddhafi is the leader of a nation, which was under strict sanction for years, during which time there was (ostensibly) no terrorist backing. The families of the victims themselves were placing heavy pressure on Western governments to lift the sanctions so they could be compensated. There was an avenue in which to negotiate, and a means of enforcement to ensure that he complies (constant open monitoring and cooperation and victim compensation or sanctions go back).

Assuming Bin Laden's truce offer is not genuine, why consider Gaddhafi's efforts to "normalize" relations with the West as genuine?

I think I explained this above. I believe what you are getting at is the underlying question...Do we negotiate with terrorists? The answer is of course, yes, under the right conditions (which I don't believe exist in bin Laden's case). "We don't negotiate with terrorists" has a much more snappy ring to it than "We will negotiate with terrorists under reasonable conditions" though, and you don't actually expect a political leader of any country to say that do you?

Bonus Question: Are there "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists?

No, but there are prudent and imprudent foreign policy decisions. The objective is, of course, to eliminate (or seriously curtail) terrorist activity and giving in to demands usually encourages it, which is the reason for the aforementioned unambivalent political statement.

If the US doen't negotiate with terrorists, then why does Gaddhafi get negotiated with and not Bin Laden?

Of course, these are entirely different situations. Most every situation can be argued to be entirely different. These are not "black and white" times, are they? However, given the unambiguity of "we don't negotiate with terrorists", I admit I am a bit perplexed.

Assuming Bin Laden's truce offer is not genuine, why consider Gaddhafi's efforts to "normalize" relations with the West as genuine?

As to the last question, yes, I do expect the political leader of a country to state exactly that. I expect the leader to say: "we negotiate under the right conditions" and then enumerate what those "right" conditions might entail. I expect that and I am, of course, inevitably disappointed.

Still, I disagree with the underlying question you present. The underlying question is do we permit moral relativism to enter our foreign policy? This is what I'm getting at because this is precisely what we have here. Qaddhafi's terrorism is less morally reprehensible than Bin Laden's terrorism because of what... time? Does time justify a morally relative position? Perhaps, it does. What I'd like everyone to admit is that this is in fact moral relativism being followed.

Bonus Question: Are there "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists?


So, there are "prudent" terrorists and "imprudent" terrorists? It is the "prudent" ones we should deal with? Again, I think this is mincing words. Let's just admit that we deal with terrorists, okay?

It is not moral relativism.

Moral relativism would be if both were unrepentant then we would treat them differently. Or if both were actively pursuing terrorism we would treat them differently.

It would be more accurate to equate Qaddhafi as a convict who has served his time. He paid through sanctions. He paid through payment to the victims. He paid with the lives of his countrymen (and by some accounts, his family).

What has bin Laden paid? How is the situation equivalent?

This is not moral relativism, it is the consequence of change. It is political metamorphism.

America sets a standard by which she feels is an appropriate means of political discourse, appeals and existence. OBL does not follow these standards or accept our political morals, so we have chosen to disqualify his position and it's methods.

If he was to seek acceptance then he would need to accept our standards.

Qaddhafi did just that, he did not request a truce, or suggest for us to just walk away and allow him to do what he likes and we do what we like, instead he accepted our standards of political existence and changed.

Negotiating means we would agree to alter our set of standards..to find a common existence ...should we for OBL? I don't think we should and I certainly don't think we did for Qaddhafi either. it was not a negotiation that occurred.

You seem to not wish to acknowledge the principle of past present and future, and man or society's continual evolution within it. Are we to always be judged and judge others based on their entire existence and actions? Must we always approach the Germans, Italians, or Japanese as the axis powers? Or do we recognize the passage of time and their acceptance of our standards? Do you believe that rather than defeat their political existence we negotiated with it? Do you feel that their political standards were allowed to be bartered or in some form accepted and married with our own political beliefs? Or did they experience a complete change of political existence?

I think you have to recognize the difference between defeat and negotiations.

I don't think you want to go down this road, Amlord. But, let's explore it.

In the 1980s, Bin Laden was a freedom fighter. In the 1990s, Bin Laden is/was a terrorist.

In the 1980-90s, Qaddhafi was a terrorist. In the 'noughts, he is a foreign leader.

In the 1980s, Saddam was a foreign leader. In the 'noughts, he became a terrorist.

What's the difference? It's just time, right? These folks were useful in certain times and then not useful in other times. We see these people through the lens of the political "reality" of the time. They are good/useful during certain times and bad/harmful at other times. Do you think they changed or we did? I think it unlikely that they changed that much; I think it's mostly us.

Did Bin Laden "earn" the right to continue his "freedom fighting" because he fought our enemies? No? Then, does any <insert terrorist leader here> fix their problems with the US after blowing citizens up by "doing the time", as it were? Even better start a WMD program and then dismantle it. The US will forgive you. Of course, that didn't seem to help Saddam. Apparently, that strategy doesn't work all the time either.

What does seem to work is attention span coupled with too many balls being juggled. Qaddhafi is "forgiven" of his sins because our attention cannot be focused everywhere. Better to bring a "tame" terrorist into the fold rather than continue to fight him. Do you think Qaddhafi has suddenly changed then? He's seen the light; the benefits of Western society and being integrated into the international marketplace? He's suddenly defined as being a probationary upstanding citizen because he "did the time"? This is the man who orchestrated and funded many, many terrorist bombings/assassinations in the 1970s, 1980s and even the 1990s. But, he "did the time" so all is forgiven.

So, it's 2015 and Bin Laden hasn't done anything for say 9 years. And he offers a truce just as he did the other day. Do we take it? Maybe, we're still fighting in the Middle East. Maybe, China's getting all uppity about Taiwan. Say, Bin Laden offers a tangible accounting for the dismantling of his terrorist network or some such thing. Do we take it? Do we let the architect of 9/11 go free? Afterall, he's "done the time" being holed up in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Isn’t it more relevant to say that their actions, for or against our interests (which haven’t changed much) is the key factor here.

Russia was an “enemy” in the Cold War and now an ally. Did we change or did they. Bin Laden was a “freedom fighter” in Afghanistan fighting against a totalitarian occupier. Today he is a stateless terrorist bent on our destruction. If we “changed” to deserve this hatred what exactly was that change and do we deserve his enmity because of it?

He wants us out of the Middle East – this is not in our interest or that of Saudi Arabia etc. He hated Israel and they are an ally. He has acted against us based on these issues and I fail to see why we should feel that because he was once supported by us he has the right to dictate out political behavior – and if we do not comply kill thousands of us. HE not us is at fault.
Is it likely BL would “give up” his war with no substantial demands that could not be agreed to? IMO he will not stop his Jihad until we meet his demands.

Similarly I am sure Ted Bundy was a nice kid and youg adult – right up to the time he decided he needed to become a serial murderer.

I'm inclined to agree with Logophage. There is no real difference between Khaddafi and Bin Laden and the day Tony Blair shook hands with Khaddafi (apart from illustrating his total lack of credibility) for all the world to see he (Blair) sent that message loud and clear.

Of course, we'd already seen it in Northern Ireland. Tony Blair, is a political realist who understands his own limitations and will work towards goals within those limitations.

I have to say that although I cannot like the man, I must admit to his intelligence for I believe knowing one's own limitations is the pinnacle of intelligence.

So, there is no difference between Bin Laden and Khaddafi. The difference lies in how we perceive them. Our shifting political necessity's have moved on and now it is convenient to have Libya as a 'reformed nation' rather than a 'rogue state' and Khaddafi proved his intelligence for he saw the opportunity and he took it.

Khaddafi has not paid for what he did. He has not 'done time' for the murders of Lockerbie or of WPC Yvonne Fletcher or of any of his many victims. The man murdered our civilians and in return Tony Blair shook his hand.

It says more about us and the truth of our political reality than it does of Khaddafi and Bin Laden.


edited to clarify a sentence

I am finding it difficult to continue this debate with the comparisons being made..both differ so greatly contextually .
I personally feel this comparison is fatally flawed from the start as it was initially pointed out....states or nations are dealt with differently than individuals.

The more than obvious and incompatable difference between the two men is one is a state leader and represents the state or nation in question and one is not.


The Security Council this morning welcomed Libya’s decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programmes, as well as the positive steps taken to meet its commitments and obligations, including its active cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

You think the above welcoming could be made for OBL? No it can't so while you are condemning or questioning the views or perspective of America or Tony Blair, or George Bush on OBL compared to that of Qaddhafi take note that the entire world as a collective views each of these people differently.

And no it is not convenience...how convenient is it to have to view terrorist acts or support as the actions, support or conditions of a state compared to that of a man? It is much easier to assign a man these conditions then it is to assign these to a state. When it is a nation or state in question we have higher or more regulated measures and conditions set upon us to follow and adhere to.

As we have seen with the terrorist support from nations such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Sudan it is much more difficult to seek retribution, or adherence to our demands and that is because of our commitments to view each nation's rights to sovereignty and legitimacy to diplomatic solutions. OBL does not have this right. He is not a nation or state, he is not a member of the UN, he has no forum to which we must recognize his rights or existence, he only has terror and terrorism is not enough.

Not only do we not negotiate with terrorists we have no condition of requirement or forum that demands this of us.

All right. So, if a terrorist is the head of state, then his terrorist acts can be forgiven? Otherwise, they can't be forgiven. Is this what you're saying?


Fair enough. However, this didn't seem to help Saddam, did it?

I am not making a moral equivalence argument. I am questioning the "morality" which we apply to terrorism.


I think that welcoming can be done if the political climate permits it. I also think it's wrong. I think the message is clear: all will be forgiven in the right context.

I am also completely bewildered by the adage: "After 9/11, everything changed." Where is this change? What I see is that terrorists can get away with their actions if they just wait for the right political context in which to do so. I think this is morally repugnant. Yet, I also see why it is useful. It is within this gap that I argue we find our moral relativism.

I wonder at the "beds we make". Are we playing one terrorist leader off another or are they playing us? The good guy becomes the bad guy; the bad guy becomes the good guy. Or perhaps, terrorists are okay as long as they're our terrorists.

Is this how we win the "War on Terror" then? We don't actually need to fight terrorists or bring them to justice. No. We just need to redefine them as not being terrorists anymore.

Are they? The IRA were not a state. They didn't even represent a state. They were, and are, terrorists with a capital T.

Bin Laden is a terrorist. So is Khaddafi. That Khaddafi represents a state didn't make any difference when Reagan bombed that state so why does it matter now?

The answer is, it doesn't. Its just a convenient excuse for bringing Khaddafi back into the warmth. Khaddafi suddenly made the US/UK agenda look good, so suddenly all was forgotten. Rest In Peace Yvonne Fletcher.

The IRA had no such excuse so others were created for them. In Bin Laden's case, he was once excused because he was fighting against the Soviets and in the future, should it become politically expedient for the west, other reasons/excuses would be used.


Yes. If it were in the political interests of the USA to do so, then an excuse can always be found and given enough time, even the anger generated by 11 Sept will fade, just as the anger over Lockerbie has done.


The 'entire world' holds no collective views on anything at all.


I'm not sure I understand this, but if you are saying what I think you are then I would answer that Libya, just like Iraq, was always treated as the property of the man who ran it.

Khaddafi was not punished for his crimes. Libya was.

And in Iraq, for decades it was the people of Iraq who bore the punishment for Saddam Husseins crimes.

These higher, more regulated measures and conditions you say have been put upon us have never been adhered to because the truth is, there is no one 'putting' such measures upon us. The only reason why the people of Iraq have been liberated (as opposed to the people of Saudi Arabia) is because it was politically expedient to do so in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Those who oppose the USA are removed. Those who comply are tolerated and even supported. Saddam was supported when he was being a good boy then punished when he got out of line. Khaddafi was out of line, but as soon as he took the chance to get back in line, he was forgiven. If Saddam Hussein had been a smarter man, he would have complied with the UN inspectors, swollowed his pride and submitted to the will of the USA. If he had, he would still be in power today.

That these men were national leaders made no difference to how they were perceived or how the west dealt with them. It simply gave them better odds in the diplomacy stakes.


And neither was the IRA a member of the UN. It didn't have a forum which recognized its right to exist or any national or democratic platform to justify its actions.

And yet...

...Tony Blair did negotiate with the IRA just as he did negotiate with Khaddafi and the reason was very simple.

It was not because Tony Blair is an bad man, it is simply because he did what he had to do in order to pursue his political agenda, just as he always does.

It was politically expedient to negotiate with these terrorists and rest assured, if in the future, it becomes politically expedient to negotiate with Osama Bin Laden, then the western democracies will do so, regardless of how many people died on 11 September 2001.

I'll admit, its not likely to happen, given the continued threats made by Osama Bin Laden and the meager resources he commands but no one can see the future. If, for example al qaeda acquires four nuclear bombs and places them in four US cities. How long do you think the 'we don't negotiate with terrorists line will hold out of al qaeda holds these cities hostage?

I would say Bin Laden and Zawahiri are simply trying to position themselves as the Democratic Front Runners in '06.

Here's why:

1. They hate Bush.
2. They talk of a Truce.
3. They are reading Poetry

All they need to do is eat a plate of beans & rice and hug a few trees.

Just to correct a factual error...



It wasn't called a hudna or truce at the time, but I would refer you to the "Medina Contract." While not an actual document, this agreement between the Muslim occupants of Medina and the other (Persian, Bedouin and Jewish) occupants of the city certainly comes across as an earnest and peaceful "truce" like cessatation of hostilities. This is from an essay I wrote about a year ago:



Baban, Feyzi. “Community, Citizenship and Identity in Turkey.” Citizenship in Turkey. Ed. Fuat Keyman. Routledge, 2002. 52-69.

If the US doen't negotiate with terrorists, then why does Gaddhafi get negotiated with and not Bin Laden?

Because the United States does negotiate with terrorists, but that doesn't sound nearly as good as far as sound-bites are concerned. The United States took a role in negotiating with the Palestinian Authority during the second intifadah in spite of their role in terrorist activities. The U.S. has negotiated with "terrorist" leaders whenever they belong to a group which can advance American interests. I ask, what is the difference between Augusto Pinochet and Fidel Castro? Both took power in violent revolts, both tortured and killed their own citizens, and both rejected any sort of substantive democracy. However, only one attacked U.S. property.

What is the difference between Saddam Hussein and Pervez Musharraf? One attacked United States interests. The other supported it. I'm not suggesting that the United States is morally bankrupt or evil, but rather that her foreign policy is inherently pragmatic. Pronouncements like "dead or alive" or "we don't negotiate with terrorists" notwithstanding, the U.S. government (and others) has demonstrated that it will pursue its own interests regardless of the "character" of whomever it is negotiating with. Bin Laden has nothing America wants or needs, and any other compelling reasons to make peace are overwhelmed by his involvement in attacks on U.S. interests.

If the US doen't negotiate with terrorists, then why does Gaddhafi get negotiated with and not Bin Laden?
I don't think Gaddhafi has been formally charged with any terrorist crimes, and so I'm not sure that he can be considered a terrorist. What Gaddhafi has been accused of is allowing terrorist groups to train on Libyan soil in exchange for the groups paying taxes to his government. In this respect, he's no different from the Arms merchants who sell weapons to the terrorist groups.

Here is a rhetorical question. Is assassination of Qaddhafi a reasonable alternative? Is assassinating bin Laden? Isn't there just a wee bit of difference between those two actions or is that "moral relativism" too?

The difference is obviously that each action holds a completely different set of consequences. I don't understand your argument. I would shoot a thief if he was skulking around my house in the middle of the night. I would not shoot him if he was in jail or even inside my house if he was accompanied by armed guards. This is true though the thief's character is the same in any of those instances, and I do not tolerate thievery. Is that a double standard?

A lawyer is able to dismiss evidence against his client (a murderer) in court due to legal loopholes and he is doing his job well. Another person covers up the same evidence outside the courtroom and he is commiting a crime. Is that moral relativism? For that matter, the state can lock up offenders, so shouldn't I be able to keep those who offend me in my basement dungeon? How "morally relative"!

1) First off, I don't think a truce was what we were offered here- what we got was the "you are either with us or against us speech" from the bin laden perspective- the old carrot and stick- IF we pull out of Iraq and pull our support of Isreal- well then, we can all be friends and sing Kumbayyah together and such. I didn't see much of any real offering to "negotiate" the end to hositlities or anything.

2) America has a really nasty foriegn policy- it is very tough for me to find one military action ( or covert action) we have had since Korea were we have even been "the good guys"- short of Grenada- after all, they did hack up the duly elected guy. Vietnam- we were the bad guy, and on and on. We have backed despots and murdered democratically elected leaders at damn near every country we mingled in (Shah of Iran, Pinochet etc etc) - and we are horribly hypocritical with our dealings with Isreal. So exactly what are we supposed to change now? Libya has never 'paid for thier crimes" so to speak- probably just seen a another market to exploit. And of course- Libya is a country, Al-quaida an idea- you can't really fight an idea- ESPECIALLY as dumb as we have been going about it. You just can't bomb poeple into liking you- no matter how many you kill.

We not only negotiate with terrorists and war criminals- we frequently put them in power, or prop them up as it suits us- the rest is just a sound bite.

If the US doen't negotiate with terrorists, then why does Gaddhafi get negotiated with and not Bin Laden?

Gaddhafi didn't claim responsibility for attacking the WTC. There was also no film footage that hit the airwaves where he was talking about the bombings and rejoicing with his fellow Muslims as there was with Osama bin Laden.

Plus, whether or not Libya had WMDs and the capability to harm any of the allies of the U.S., it was a major political relations coup having him come forward as he did and for the U.S., the U.K. et al. to accept his gesture.

Assuming Bin Laden's truce offer is not genuine, why consider Gaddhafi's efforts to "normalize" relations with the West as genuine?

For the reasons stated above.

Bonus Question: Are there "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists?

Not in my opinion. But for the United States (and I would hasten to add, other nations that work in a similar manner), a "good" terrorist would be someone fighting our enemy du jour; our hands remain clean while they do the dirty work. But hey, a good terrorist always has the option of becoming a bad one, and even can become a "bad" terrorist when a country that previously backed him decides he is a bad guy.

Isn't this "coincidentally" advantageous to Bush with his seriously flagging public approval ratings to have the Supreme Bad Guy show his face again with fresh threats?! Whoa, let's get scared again and join behind the President and let him do anything he damn well pleases, including compromising the Constitution, to make us feel "safe" again! The reality is, we are in no more danger than we were during the days, weeks, and months BEFORE this latest announcement from bin Laden. Once we realize that it's impossible to be totally safe and secure and that we never were safe, we can lose some of that fear and concentrate on preserving the freedoms implicit in the Constitution (that "g-d----ed piece of paper"* as Bush allegedly referred to it).

As logophage has put so succinctly in his signature line:



----------------------------------------
*Caution: There are other swear words in the link.

WHOA

The Bogeyman Bin Laden shows up again just in time for King George.

His ratings in the polls are still in the low 40's(if that) and his authority to spy on American citizens is shaky if not illegal.

So he brings out his best foe and bogeyman,Bin Laden to bring back those favorite words: TERROR AND FEAR.

Hey, it has worked for him in the past, so why not use it over and over and over. Until the poor american public catch on to this scenario.

Remember,I and only I(King George) can keep you safe from terror and Bin Laden.

But didn't George tell us in 2004, that I truly am not that concerned about him(Bin Laden)?

Again you attempt to remove the examples from their substance...what is the point of having a debate that lacks substance?




The IRA was a terrorist movement from within, it was a domestic issue. Nonetheless the IRA chose to pursue a diplomatic and political path much like the Muslim Brotherhood and so we must , imo, recognize this offering or metamorphosis. Sorry I am not one for absolutes.

The political system within Northern Ireland has recognized the IRA as a legitimate political power within the state under set conditions and so I believe Tony Blair is obligated to take their view or the very least accept it.
As again has happened with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Political discourse, political paths, political solutions to change is what we seek, not violent actions of force.

I also feel we must rely on context and substance to determine which changes can or can not occur or should or should not occur. All terrorist movements seek some kind of political change or appeals through force but only some have valid outcomes or conditions that could in fact be implemented politically......many seek a path that could never be attainted politically.


The UNSC does not issue welcomings and forgivings for individual men. It is the United Nations not the gates to heaven.


Again context is an important thing..in the context of the UN the entire world does hold a few views as a collective. One would be who is recognize as a nation/state and member of the UN and who is not...is Osama Bin Laden considered a representative of his own nation/state? That is what my comment was in reference to, the comment you yanked out of context. In context of the UN we view Osama and Qaddhafi differently and they are not considered like comparable things. Qaddhafi is represented in the UN and has a seat in the UN...Osama Bin Laden does not. Why do you feel this has no bearing or significance on how we must view and interact with these two individuals?


Right like with Afghanistan, take a look at the history of UN conditions/sanctions set upon this nation for harboring Osama Bin Laden. Read it and then tell me that America's interests and demands were sought and achieved.. Because they weren't the UN failed America as much as you perceive it has failed the "oppressed". Do I get to call America oppressed now because the UN refused to take serious action against Afghanistan for harboring a known terrorist who ultimately killed thousands in America. I wish we could say that America always "had her way" with the world then I would imagine Osama would not have "had his way" on 9/11. Truth is many in the UN oppose our demands, or our conditions or our desired outcomes...and in some cases so much so that it has cost us a tremendous amount of innocent lives.

I'm not arguing for absolutes either. In fact I'm saying the very opposite. There are no golden rules as to who is and who is not a terrorist. There is only a dictionary definition of the word and what ever the current political point of view dictates.


As I recall it, it was Tony Blair who took the initiatve to allow the IRA in from the cold. He led the way when he first came to power, but be that as it may, it doesn't matter why the IRA were recognized as a political power, the fact remains that they were.

Several previous British governments had refused point blank to deal with them because they were terrorists.

For Tony Blair, his political agenda for peace in Northern Ireland meant that he was prepared to deal with the IRA, despite the fact that these had once blown up half the Tory British government in Brighton.

It all comes down to simple, political necessity. If Bin Laden became useful to a later US administration, then he would be given the same way out as Blair gave the leaders of the IRA and Bush gave Khaddafi.


Yes, exactly.


Again, I agree because 'context and substance' are subjective perspectives that allow a terrorist to suddenly become a friend, or vice versa.


I'm sorry I don't understand your point. What does the UNSC have to do with how the USA may come to view Osama Bin Laden in the future?


This is only true in as much as we can agree that the UN speaks on behalf the world... which it doesn't. It only speaks on behalf of its members.

And even if we can agree to that, then there are precious few topics on which the members of the UN reach anything remotely resembling universal agreement.

With regards to Bin Laden, and I'm sorry if I 'yanked' your comment out of context... you must understand that your context does not necessarily correspond to mine, or any one elses.... all debate is subjective... with regards to Bin Laden; You are correct that he is not currently the leader of a state, but so what?

As I already said, the IRA leadership were not leaders of a state either, but, they could become so.

There is nothing to stop Bin Laden capitalising on his own popularity to get himself elected some where. Unlikely any time soon I'll admit since he'd probably be pounced on by the CIA ...but that is exactly what Arafat did. He went from being terrorist enemy Nr. 1 to Nobel peace prize winning president.

If Bin Laden did the same thing, then he would enjoy the same benefits as the IRA, as Arafat and as Khaddafi.


You've lost me again... how does this have anything to do with the two paragraphs of mine you quoted?

And, I'm not saying America always gets what it wants.


So what?

Afghanistan has been defeated and its Taliban government overthrown ...with UN backing... so how did the USA not get what it wished for?

The UN is not the beginning and end of all geo-politics. It is merely one 'theatre of politics'. The USA is not an omnipotent political force that always gets its way but it is still the most powerful nation on Earth today and its political will is foremost among the nations of the UN.

I'll quote myself:

Let's say that Qaddhafi and Bin Laden are completely different situations. Nevertheless, they both masterminded and funded terrorism. By bringing Qaddhafi into the fold (as it were) what are we saying to future terrorist masterminds?

As to your rhetorical question, I am not sure what you're getting at. You mean that assassinating heads of state is more wrong than assassinating heads of non-states? Fine. I'm not proposing assassination; that's your proposal, Mrs. P.


You keep thinking I'm making a moral equivalence argument; I am not. Let me state it again right here. Qaddhafi and Bin Laden are not the same person. The situations are different; I accept that. I have never stated otherwise. However, I think you are failing to see the point I am making.

We have brought a known terrorist back into the fold. And we make excuses for his actions by saying he's a head of state and heads of state are different than non-heads of state. The point is that we brought him back into the fold even though we know he's a terrorist (a real honest to goodness one).

What does this say about our War on Terrorism? What does this say about our relationship to terrorist leaders in the future? Saddam was a head of state and was captured. But, Qaddhafi is a head of state and is welcomed. Bin Laden is a non-head of state and is enemy numero uno, yet the IRA/Sinn Fein is a non-head of state and is brought back into the fold. And then there's Arafat/PLO...

Again, what is the lesson to be learned by future terrorist leaders. Clearly, there should be some pattern to be divined from this, correct? I think there's two things which can be learned.

1. Terrorism works. Just not all the time.

2. If you wait long enough, the US may see you move from its enemy to its friend. Maybe, because as Amlord puts it, "you've done the time".

Well, I’d say you are basically right. But then, we don't need the terrorism example to discern that violence works. If a person is holding a gun to your head, do you give them money? It's the fact that violence sometimes works that makes it so difficult to control. The point of punishment is to deter violence. Each case is individual to the crime, criminal and circumstance. If bin Laden is one day a world leader and lies low enough for long enough, anything is possible in an imperfect world...though I seriously doubt it.

We've had some unconstructive responses to this topic (some of which have been deleted). I think this is because many are very enraged at Bush's foreign policy, so they lash out as a reflex reaction as though he coined the phrase, "we don't negotiate with terrorists". Far from it. Personally, I don't want any president of any nation to state otherwise, just as I don't want the head of the police department to get on television and say, "If you are smart, it is very unlikely that we will catch you if you commit a crime. Crime can pay very well." But it is essentially true. "Violence never works", "crime doesn't pay", "looks don't matter" are all things we repeat as a society to discourage violence psychologically and/or make everyone feel better.

I think a more realistic way to look at it is not to hope to make things so that violence could never pay under any circumstances (an impossible goal for current day humans) but to make violence so unlikely to pay and the consequences so dire that it is better to try a more peaceful means to obtain what you want. In that vein, compromise with the leader of Libya, for example, is reasonable and doesn’t undermine that effort.

Let’s remember that we did not just let Qadahfi off the hook. The people responsible for Pan Am 103 were turned over for trial.

Can you imagine Bin Laden turning over all who were involved in killing far more Americans? Also I believe his offers of a “truce” in Iraq has some undertones. In a story on CNN 2 weeks ago it was reported that the head of the terrorists in Iraq was scolding the “faithful” there for their lack of dedication to the “cause”. In other words they are having problems getting new people to replace people we kill or who blow themselves up. Added to the fact that despite numerous statements by Bin Laden that his next attack in the US “will shock the world” he has not been able to pull it off.

IMO he is having money and people problems. He is not even able to pull off an Embassy bombing as he did numerous times in the 90s.

IMO the only basis for a truce with AQ is if they agree to turn over for trial all involved in any terrorist attack that resulted in significant casualties.

IMO this would never happen



http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/tucker/99/qadhafi.html

One thing in particular I'd like to point out is the open question as to what the real specifics are. What I mean is that it's kind of pointless debating whether the US negotiates/makes deals with 'terrorist' groups. The reason? Simple. Because the US, many times in its history and currently as well, works as the overseer with candid support for regimes which could easily be called 'terror regimes'. Negotiate implies separation. Working with implies collusion. In that light it's easy to see why people would spend time with the 'negotiating' aspect rather than the dark 'hand-in-hand' aspect.
Bin Laden, a creation of the US/CIA, died back in 2002. But it may be futile debating this aspect because there has been fakery heaped upon us before. The 'Osama 911-confession' video conveniently found by the US in 2002 I believe. Those led by the nose may recall this.

You can clearly see the forgery in image "E", the 'smoking gun' image.
So, in the end I think it's more important to ask "why" and not just "who" all the time. To consider root causes rather than the way-too-late optimism so prevalent in today's world. It makes for a more stable intellectual society which is, ironically, supposedly what makes America great.

edited image to be in accordance with the RULES

1.) Considering the events of which are questioned were way before my time, I have a limited amount of knowledge with which to form an educated response and so I will attempt to come up with something...

Bin Laden has no country that he is the head of state of; he neither speaks for nor represents a sovereign body. In effect, it makes the point of trying to make sense of the issue rather easy because Bin Laden has no real power with which to base any kind of compromise.

2.) With this I have no real idea how to respond...

3.) Not really. Unless of course we go back in time to the United Kingdom and label Washington and Revere, Adams, etc. as terrorists... in retrospect, they are "good" terrorists for us. In two hundred years, perhaps some Islamic super power will look back on America's bad terrorist Bin Laden and call him "good."

"He has acted against us based on these issues and I fail to see why we should feel that because he was once supported by us he has the right to dictate out political behavior – and if we do not comply kill thousands of us. HE not us is at fault."


Funny thing is... bin Laden could make the same claim.. with almost exactly the same words.

You lost me. When has the US dictated to Bin Laden regarding anything not related to his attacks on the US starting in the 1990s? If anything we did not perused this man as aggressively as we should have after he “declared war” on us.

He tried to dictate to the US about troop deployment in a country he was banned from (Saudi Arabia). And because we did not concede to his demands he has killed thousands of Americans. I fail to see any basis for you statement.

An interesting piece on ole Moammar:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7341/has_ga...i_reformed.html

And at the recent AU summit, Ghaddafi was observed sitting, not in his assigned seat [the seat for the Libyan representative], but next to Salva Kiir, the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement. He's otherwise been heard speaking of a United States of Africa. His speech at the recent AU summit can be found here [it makes for another interesting read]:

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=507818

And for another good read:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/689/op5.htm

And then there's this [http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=January2006&file=Local_News2006010434748.xml]:

"Gaddafi had warned US

Doha: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi told Al Jazeera TV Channel in an interview that years ago when he cautioned the Americans against the threat of terrorism and fundamentalism, they did not listen and rather went ahead backing Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. He was referring to the Taleban without naming them and implied that it took them (the Americans) a 9/11 to realise that what "I was saying was true". Gaddafi's long-winding interview was aired by Al Jazeera a few days ago. About the Green Book (Gaddafi's code of conduct for good and democratic governance launched in 1977), he said it was now available on the website of Libya and anyone who wanted to read could access it. The Green Book is unofficially banned across the Arab world."

And the alternative to ole Moammar is the Muslim Brotherhood. To put that into persective, Osama is a Muslim Brother. And please see:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6617/libyan_expert.html

So, Moammar knows that he and we face the same threat....



Ultimate Joe:

Sorry for my rather belated response to your "correction", but re Medina, what happened to the Jews of Medina? And when was the document otherwise enacted [or when did it come into force]? And was Mohammed in the minority? It is always easy for the minority and/or the powerless to be tolerant, the question is, when the minority and/or the powerless become the majority and/or the powerful, what then? So what happened when the Jews of Medina rejected Mohammed as a prophet of God and Mohammed became powerful enough to assuage his injured pride and gratify his lust for power? The history is that two of the three Jewish tribes were deported, and the third was exterminated. Which is to say that Mohammed and about 70 or so follower-families [as it were] fled [the "Hejira" or "Flight"] from Mecca to Medina, with Mohammed arriving in 622 CE. The Document/Covenant that you mention was otherwise enacted or went into force in that same 622 CE. So how powerful do you think that Mohammed was at that time? And how powerful had he grown when the Jews of Medina were deported and exterminated? And please note that he deported two of the tribes one at a time, and then exterminated the third and took their women and children as slaves.

And what about the Jizyah? The English would roughly be "writ of protection" [in exchange for payment of the Jizyah]. As one French writer whose name escapes me so astutely asked, if the Muslims are in power, just who do the dhimmi need to be protected from? The Muslims themselves? Here in the US, we call that a protection racket, and it is in violation of the federal RICO statute.

And the document that you refer to is very likely a forgery. First, no Jew in his right mind is going to sign a document that reports that in the event of a no resolution dispute [as it were], the dispute is to be referred to Allah and Allah's Messenger Mohammed [and so much for equality as well]. Second, Mohammed was supposed to be the arbitrator of the dispute, and it is almost unknown to history for the arbitrator to gain some benefit from the arbitration by way of the document resolving the dispute.

And, lastly, for "tolerance", this explain the subsequent history of Arabia, at least in a certain respect:

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 965)."