Osama bin Laden's latest tape, which the CIA has said is probably him, is quite interesting. In it, he offers Europe a "peace treaty" if they withdraw from Muslim countries.

Osama Bin Laden Speech Offers Peace Treaty

This speech sounds like it comes out of a liberal Press Briefing:






The introduction is quite strange, and the offer even stranger:



The last paragraph concerns me, since it twists the events of the past decade very carefully in an apparent attempt to lend Al Qaeda's cause legitimacy.

There is just something to this message that doesn't feel right...

Anyway, the questions for Debate:

1. Is this a serious offer by bin Laden?
2. What are his possible motivations?
3. Should the Europeans accept this offer?

just an answer to 3 - i think they should entertain the offer to test OBL and see if he is serious and can keep his word. if not, he will be ridiculed. also, we will know that he can not be negotiated with and : BANG :. problem solved

peter

This makes me think...

So if we are to pull out of Israel all together and no longer support them financially and leave their well being to that of the UN and NATO, and pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan that terrorism would cease?

1. Is this a serious offer by bin Laden?
No. Bin Laden can't possibly be serious. Supposing the Europeans did accept this offer (and they won't), does anyone really believe that Bin Laden is going to send out some message to his terrorist cells in the area and tell them to pack up their bags and come home?

2. What are his possible motivations?
I suppose only he knows his motivations, but I would surmise the following:

- He is targeting the muslim world moreso than Europe. What he is telling them is that I'm not only alive and well, but in a position to make demands of the western world. The western world has attacked and yet he has come out unscathed and no worse for the wear. In short, it is a combination of a propaganda message and a taunt.
- He is doing this because he knows our culture very well. Our politicians will have to entertain this offer and when the inevitable next strike comes after they reject it, their reputations will be damaged.


3. Should the Europeans accept this offer?
Absolutely not, because Bin Laden has given them absolutely no reason to trust him. Additionally, negotiations would prove that this is an effective method of warfare for terrorists and would probably worsen the situation.



That is a little below the belt don't you think? Not to mention, patently absurd?

Let me qualify:

Evil leaders rarely overtly state their beefs with their enemies. The causes are left to the reader, the methods and results are then more easily interpreted and "spun" since the desired result isn't known ahead of time.

But why would OBL care about Haliburton? Why would he specifically mention it, rather than the US in general. It's propaganda.

Sorry if it is perceived as below the belt, but something seems fishy to me...

The last time a madman offered Europe a truce, it ended up that he attacked them anyway. I am speaking of Hitler and the deal he made with France and Britain during WWII

I think this offer is bogus and Osama is not serious

1. Is this a serious offer by bin Laden?

Who cares?

2. What are his possible motivations?

Who cares?

3. Should the Europeans accept this offer?

No. Not unless he was offering an unconditional surrender should Europe make any deals what so ever with Osama Bin laden or any other of his murderous ilk.

Let them all burn in the shadow of a B52.

Bin Laden wants a truce? Usually this is a sign that the opposition is losing.

1. Is this a serious offer by bin Laden?

Not at all. GoAmerica is right, if you give them an inch, they'll retract any promises and proceed with their violent agendas.

I think Bin Laden sounds more like John Kerry in this tape than anything. I was listening to someone on the radio today who was comparing, nearly word for word, comments by both men.

I believe Europe's response to the truce offer, even by the most liberal goverment Amlord, belies your dig at liberalism.

Europe's unilateral response, from all Europeans wieghing in so far, mimics Moifs response.

I think so far, Europeans war on terror has been much more focused and common sense than ours anyway, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and they know it. OBL is a real terrorist, and a real evil guy, that threatens thier security, and they are far more aware and focused on this problem than us.

Well, I had intended to write that Osama bin Laden should take his offer with him to the lowest and hottest circle of hell and we should speed him on his way, but apparently the true intent of this thread is to just engage in more liberal bashing by the board's right flank.

So why bother?

To nighttimer: What is the point of this?????
So if the right flank cristisizes you, critisize them back....

SO back to the subject......
I think Europe would be foolish to take OBL's offer.....
Some times enemies ask for truce just to think you can let your gaurde down....

1. Is this a serious offer by bin Laden?
Hardly. He knew the answer to this offer before he made it. Secondly, its inconsisent with Al Qaeda's its current goal, which includes:

2. What are his possible motivations?
I think his motivations are two-fold. And I will preface this by saying these are just personal theories. First, I think he dislikes the attention Muqtada al-Sadr has been getting of late. Al Qaeda dropped from the headlines a bit during the Fallujah standoff and he wants the spotlight back. Second, I think its pure propaganda. If he were serious about this offer, he would ask his operatives to cease operations for a week to let the Western Devils taste the possible peace and then offer for it to continue if they leave.

3. Should the Europeans accept this offer?
Haha, no. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are a HUGE network and it would be incredibly naive to think that A) UBL is remotely sincere, and B) that the remaider or the terrorist network would honor the truce. This is pure folly.

Doc

And why does our CIA say stupid stuff like it's "probably him"? Why can't they say "Y'know, this doesn't sound like him at all. Must be a fake." Hello? Psy-ops anyone??

As already stated, the intent wasn't to make Europe respond -- but they did anyway -- but to get the Muslim world to view AQ as an "us vs. them" conflict, which it's not, but that really doesn't matter.

I did not mean to imply that ObL is somehow in cahoots with any group of Westerners. What I meant to say is that it seems that bin Laden is probing the West for its weakness, which lies in the Left's criticisms of Bush. He parrots those same sentiments, hoping that they will resonate with Muslims.

Seriously, why would he care about Haliburton? Because Haliburton has been used as a club to beat Bush over the head. He just picks up the splinters of that club and is attempting to undermine the resolve of the US and its Allies by bringing up an issue that he thinks will stick.

There is some underlying meaning to bin Laden's message which is not apparent at first glance. There is obviously some other purpose rather than a truce which he must know will be rejected by any rational government.

Luckily, Europe has shown wisdom : Europe Rejects Bin Laden 'Truce Offer'



This shift in position by bin Laden indicates that something has changed. The only question is: what?

If what the The Daily is saying is true, then the change may be that the balance in Al-Queda could be disasterious to Osama or he may be losing more support then we think. Why his organization is losing may be because Al-Queda members are figuring out that fighting the United States is futile because we are powerful and they are not

I think Osama is losing the muster to keep Al-Queda together

"I think Osama is losing the muster to keep Al-Queda together "

AS much as I would hope this to be true- I am more of a pessimist than this- and think Al-quaida is quite a bit stronger now than ever, and are getting more followers than ever.

If anything- - If Amlord was not just trying to dig at "liberals"- than if OBL is smart, and, nobody says he is not- then of course, he will go after what is truly wrong. You don't have to make up bad stuff we have done, it is self evident.

OBL is a socio-path, and therefore will seek to exploit the weakness of his nemesis while denying responsibility for his own evil. Haliburton, the invasion of Iraq, GW's business dealings are all legitimate weaknesses and bad things GW has done, and is rightly critisized for, but does not excuse OBL's behavior either.

The European's of every stripe, even the new Spanish leader, saw right through this very quickly, to thier credit.

Yeah. As opposed to his earlier calls for death and holy war, which parroted the blind hawkishness of the Right...

Jeez. I'm with nighttimer on this one. Could have been an interesting debate. Too bad it had to be spun in such a twisted way right from the start.

I'm perfectly willing to give you the benefit of a doubt, Amlord, that you are actually just being really, really misunderstood - or that you mispoke... and if you can confirm that with some sort of explanation, maybe we can focus on the topic at hand more clearly.

Osama's latest tape


1. Is this a serious offer by bin Laden?

At first, like many other AD members, I thought this message was quite odd and so unlike previous Osama messages. After a few rereads and some deliberation, I believe he is quite serious and his message has at least a two-fold purpose.

2. What are his possible motivations?



Osama is calling upon the European people who feel (as Osama and his followers do) that oppression is being forced upon them by their leaders' decision to support the bloodshed (war).



The European people and Osama/followers have a common goal in preventing those European leaders who shed the blood of the people for their own self-interest and out of servitude to President Bush/administration.



In response to the positive developments: the bombing in Spain, the uprising of its people protesting their leaders' decision to support the war in Iraq by sending troops, voting against these leaders and replacing them with leaders who oppose the war and will withdraw their troops; the European opinion polls indicate to Osama that most European people favor peace and thus oppose the war.

Osama is delegating his followers to establish a permanent committee or group and via the vast media to "spread the good word" among the European people as to the justness of their (Osama's & Co.) cause.

Osama is ordering his people to inform, and recruit European sympathizers who will join with them in their cause to rise up against the "merchants of war"- overthrow their country's government - as the people in Spain did.



If the people uprise or overthrow their country's government and replace their leaders with ones who refuse to support the war, the peace treaty can be renewed at the end of one government and the beginning of another government as agreed to by both sides.



Osama is giving his followers three months from April 15th to organize, inform, and recruit Europeans to convince their leaders into withdrawing support and troops from the war. Or to overthrow their current government and replace it with one who will refuse to support President Bush/administration.

Those European people/leaders who don't accept the conditions of Osama's Peace Treaty will suffer the consequences per the orders of Osama and through the fault of their own folly rather than Osama's and his men of war.

3. Should the Europeans accept this offer?

Heavens NO regardless of whether they are for or against the war. So far leaders from Spain, France, Germany, and a few others who rejected the war in Iraq , have been quick to publicly announce their refusal to negotiate with or accept Osama's offer.

Osama may have, in his perverted way, done President Bush a favor. Time will tell!

Desert Resident



Which is also probably a threat of action timed three months from now...

I might also point out that AQ may be gathering its strength to try and hijack the re election chances of George Bush if they launch a major attack against a European target in three months time.

Would Bush survive the election if only a few months previously a major attack had been carried out in Europe?

If Al qaeda wishes to repeat their tactic of influencing an election as they did in Spain, but cannot carry out an attack inside America itself, how then do they strike at the Bush administration/ America?

There are many US military installations in Europe, all of which would be just as vulnerable to a terrorist attack as the USS Cole or the Marine barracks in Beirut were. If AQ wishes to strike at America, then they don't have to do so in America itself. It would be far easier to smuggle something into Europe given the geographical impossibility of securing Europe from the rest of the Eurasian landmass. Al qaeda for example have boasted that they have at least one ex soviet suitcase nuke. If that were so, and it were smuggled into Germany, it could be used to strike at (for example) Rammstein AFB.

The possibilities are endless since there are literally hundreds of US bases and embassies in Europe.

1. Is this a serious offer by bin Laden?

Honestly, I'm not sure if this nut believes he's serious or not. But the fact of the matter is this: that if accepted, Osama would not stop there. He would get an inch and take it a mile.


2. What are his possible motivations?

Again, not sure. A few possibilities. One (and most likely), he's trying to separate the coalititon...pull Europe further away from the U.S., which would of course help his forces (and indicate that he is not serious about a truce). Second, the guy has simply lost it even more than before and truly believes Europe may accept this. Third, he's desparate. He can't see a positive end result for his forces, and sees this as one of his only possibilities of victory.


3. Should the Europeans accept this offer?

Only if they want to inflict more damage upon themselves, not only by the terrorists (who know they can now influence the country) but also by the other countries in the coalition who will most certainly view the negotiating country as a trailor.




Honestly (and not to sound too insensitive), I don't think this would have a major effect on Bush's campaign. If the attack were to occur against Americans or on American soil, though, I can see many American voters getting rilled up enough to vote him out.

I don't think bin laden has the power to uphold any truce even if he was a recognized leader of terrorism at one time (Clinton/Bush admins). It might have been his idea or some close associate of his to create the cell network, where each cell supposedly stands on its own. What might have been a brilliant, though for heinous reasons, tactical move also carries with it the inability to control what's been created.

As far as taking this offer seriously, it's never going to happen. Nobody negotiates with terrorists -- that's a fundamental principle repeatedly expressed over the decades of terrorism.

Obviously, the bin laden tape is a propaganda tool that has as its intent the withdrawl of US and other foreign military presence in Iraq. That it also serves as a tool for liberal-bashing is a side effect probably not intended by its author.

That is, if this really is a bin laden tape. I don't know, it just seems to me that our intelligence isn't very reliable. A few grains of salt is called for.

Part of my suspicion here involves anti-Dean ads that ran his face with bin laden's, a clear attempt of the Bush campaign to smear Dean as pro-terrorist. I expect the same as Kerry moves on into the frey.

How convenient, eh? Even this thread starts out with that theme, and apparently some Republican talking heads have had fun with comparisons. And who knows, this might even help reelect President Bush for a second term. I would not be surprised.

The liberals write OBL speeches? Have you been listening to Sean Hannity again?

Change liberals to jews and i think ive heard all this right wing propaganda before... hmm.

If any one is interested, this question was put to a panel which included Geoff Hoon (British Minister of Defence) on BBC's 'Any Questions?' programme;

follow the link below; choose to listen to Radio 4, then choose to listen to 'Any Questions?';

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/

Listening to the BBC broadcast, I find it slightly troubling that the statement to the effect of "I find it troubling that bin Laden's stance seems rational, while the Bush/Blair position seems irrational" received more applause than the statement by Geoff Hoon that those who see accepting this as a possibility are deluding themselves.

The answers were unanimous that this offer should be rejected, the reasoning seemed to differ somewhat. it was brought up that bin Laden does not have absolute control over those who operate in the name of "al Qaeda", and that even if bin Laden is serious, the results will be under his control. Even this tape was used as an opportunity to jab at the Bush/Blair position, inferring that it was so unpopular that European heads of state felt it necessary to even deign to respond to this offer rather than simply ignore it and reject it out of hand. That the need to respond indicated that they was some grain of legitimacy in bin Laden's offer.

Moif

IMO, one of Osama's goals is to create further division between our European allies' people and their governments which would lose the U. S. coalition support and hopefully disrupt coalition efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and possible future negotiations with Palestine and Israel. He liked the end results in Spain: the bombing, the Spaniards uprising against their leaders who supported war by voting them out of office and replacing them with leaders who refuse to support war in any form. Osama is using the events and the outcome in Spain as a model for his followers to create future uprisings against European countries where their merchants of war (leaders) offer any form of support in war and against the WOT.

As a side note...the new President of Spain was quick to announce, after Osama's tape became public, that he will not negotiate with Osama or terrorists period. Now what does his condemnation against Osama's peace offer do to his threat to Bush of withdrawing Spain's troops from Iraq at the end of June? Osama just may have made it quite embarrassing for the President of Spain to withdraw troops or it will look like he is honoring Osama's peace offering.

My interpretation is that Osama/al Qaeda will never give up in their attempts to attack the hated Americans whether on our soil or abroad. Although, attempts to attack Americans abroad seem to be more readily accomplished than on U. S. soil-not to say we are free and clear from future attacks, but do think our security measures since 9.11 have closed some loopholes. Osama is offering our European allies (people and governments) a truce that if they withdraw their support for war and the WOT, per Osama's truce offer, there will be no more attacks directed at them. If they don't, then they can expect future attacks just as the Americans can.

Osama/al Qaeda hate Americans period as his 1998 declaration of war stated. It doesn't matter who is in office or which party they represent....they are all "merchants of war." If Kerry were to win the election in November, how would he erase the threat from al Qaeda/Osama other than withdraw all troops from everywhere and sign off on the WOT and he is not going to do that. Which also should be noted that Osama is quite aware that even with a change in government, the U. S. is fully engaged in the WOT and will remain so for as long as it takes. Osama's goal is to disrupt the gathering European countries support against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the WOT as a whole.

Yes, the three month deadline could also be a target date for more attacks. But, it is unquestionably an order to his followers to incite and recruit the European sympathizers to uprise/overthrow their "merchants of war" leaders.

When we see how many different factions (inside and outside which make for strange bed partners) are joining forces in Iraq with the common goal to disrupt Iraq from establishing a democracy...it does enforce the idea that although their ideologies are vastly different, they share a common ultimate goal that unites them to further their cause and achieve their goals.

The U. S. and its allies do not negotiate with the likes of Osama/al Qadea and terrorists in general. IMO, the European leaders wanted to publicly reaffirm their sentiments to their peoples and the world-allies and foes. Remember Bush's warning to all..."You are either with us or against us in the WOT....if you harbor, finance or aid the terrorists in any way...you are just as guilty as the terrorists."

Amlord




I think Susan Kramer's remark was meant to indicate her concern that Bin Laden sounds closer to how a large portion of how Europeans are feeling. What she actually says with regards to Bush and Blair is that Bin Laden is using their inflexible stance, especially with regards to the recent developments in Israel, to make himself seem the reasonable party.

I don't believe, and I don't think Susan Kramer believes, that Osama Bin Laden is at all 'reasonable'.

I think rather that the fear is that Blair and Bush have been out maneuvered by what is a cunning piece of 'psy-ops' by Bin Laden specifically meant for the people of Europe and not the European leadership. Obviously Bin Laden has adopted European rhetoric in order to attempt to hammer a wedge between the various nations involved in fighting terrorism and I think the applause Susan Kramers remarks generated reflects the common perception in Britain and Europe that our leaders, by adopting the double standard of continually letting Israel off the hook, are not seriously addressing our position with regards to the root cause of all this terrorism.

Michael Ankrom (sp?) who spoke prior to Susan Kramer also said something similar when he made the point that the terrorists, by exploding their bombs in Madrid directly before the Spanish elections, have managed to take responsibility for the results, regardless of the fact that the election results may very well not have been influenced by the bombings at all. This he points out is very dangerous, because it leaves the impression that terrorism works.

Mr Hoons answer, though valid, does not seek to address this point either. He merely states that we can't accept this absurd demand from Bin Laden. Since this is a given, then his answer I'm afraid, does not look beyond the obvious.

As a member of the British cabinet, he alone on the panel has the insight into British government thinking on this issue, and yet he reveals no particular interest in answering the unspoken question of why is all this happening at all. He merely replies that we must retaliate against these terrorists.

The vast majority of Europeans, whilst agreeing with that sentiment, are not satisfied by it. They/ we want to know why our leaders, why Bush and Blair continue to allow Israel the freedom to act in the way it does.

I might as well point out that on the basis of his record in previous decades Ariel Sharon is widely perceived in Europe to be a war criminal not much better than Bin Laden himself. Whilst this may not be the case in the United States, it was in Israel when Sharon was found guilty of causing mass civilian deaths in Beirut.

Whether he did or not though is not my point. My point is that many over here believe Sharon is a wolf in sheeps clothing who has been allowed to do pretty much as he pleases, kill who he wishes and act in a manner which many over here regard just as much as terrorism as the attack on the World Trade Centre.

The difference (or should I say the problem with the difference?) between how Americans seem to be looking at this 'War on Terrorism' and how Europeans are looking at it, is the perception that America does not fully understand why we are seeing this wave of terrorism.

In Europe the perception is that the west has caused so great an imbalance between the middle east and the west by its continued interference in the region, and its unquestioning support of Israel, that we ourselves are responsible for this terrorist movement. That by pushing these people further and further we have now come to the point where we have pushed them over the edge.

This point of view I believe has a certain validity. We, in Europe and America have been meddling in the region for centuries now, Even Napoleon put troops into the middle east, and one has to be naive to think they would thank us for that. Would you, or any other American calmly accept outside interference in how America was run?

Wasn't America founded as a republic on the basis of wishing just such a freedom?

To Clarify; My point is that there is a gap between Europe and America which has been widening throughout this conflict. It is this gap that Bin Laden is trying to use, for his own nefarious purposes, and it is this gap which if anything, threatens the fight against terrorism far more than the terrorists themselves.

Whilst it is for Europe to reign in its more ambivalent elements with regards to the middle east and the validity of the War against terrorism, it is also time for the American people to come to the understanding that for as long as America continues to blindly support Israel regardless of that nations violations of UN resolutions whilst using the UN as a tool to continue to interfere in other middle eastern nations then it will not matter if we catch or kill Bin Laden or Sadr because there will be ten more Bin Ladens and Sadr's waiting to take their place.



Desert Resident



This is a very good question. It reflects the question of what will America do when it is the time to hand over authority to the Iraqi council? However I must point out that the Spanish president did not threaten Bush with pulling Spains soldiers from Iraq. He promised the Spanish people to disengage Spain from a perceived illegal war which had nothing to do with terrorism. The difference may appear subtle, but in light of Bin Ladens attempts to use Spain's policies as a tool I think the distinction is very important. If the common perception is that Spain is leaving Iraq due to terrorist pressure then Bin Laden gains.

America is currently building permanent military installations in Iraq to replace those it will vacate in Saudi Arabia and cannot really up and leave Iraq now. Just as the new Spanish government must carry out their policy whilst not being seen to cater to terrorist demands, so must America continue to dominate Iraq whilst appearing to be guests of that nation.

In either case, the problem lies in one of perception. If the Spanish are seen to be weak, then this will certainly breed further confidence on behalf of the terrorists. In the same way, if the Americans in Iraq are seen to be an unwelcome military presence then they will undermine the Iraqi authority they themselves put in power.

The answer, I believe is for the Spanish to continue as they have said they would. The Socialist government came to power on the basis of pulling its troops out of Iraq whilst continuing to focus on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. They must do just that. What the answer for the Americans is I do not rightly know. For my own part I cannot fully bring myself to support the use of one nation by another for geopolitical gain which is what I believe is and always has been America's agenda in Iraq.




This is indeed the very clear danger which the fight against terrorism risks and the very thing Bin Laden is banking on. He knows that a heavy handed approach by the coalition will push more and more people in his direction.

...and its this that scares me the most. Watching Blair simply following Bush who is simply following Sharon and all in the name of a show of unity and strength is like the blind leading the blind whilst following the deaf.

I cannot comprehend any reason that justifies allowing Israel to violate United Nations resolutions whilst enforcing other such resolutions against Iraq. There is no justification or excuse for such an imbalance between the two. Not the Holocaust nor Israel's democracy excuses it.




For my part I most fully agree with this sentiment. However, I'm afraid we certainly do negotiate with terrorists when its to our perceived advantage. Tony Blair negotiated with the IRA back in the nineties to end the troubles in Northern Ireland, and more recently he was seen shaking the hand of the dictator/ terrorist leader, Ghaddafi.

Now, I personally do not know how much blood there is on Ghaddafi's hands, but I do know that I personally would never allow myself to stoop so low as to show such a dictator any respect what so ever, regardless of whether or not he was guilty of terrorism.

Again, it is this indefensible division of favour between one party and another which so charaterizes the west's position in relationship to the middle east that Bin Laden has seized upon and which, so long as it continues will ever be the fuel for the terrorist fire.

1. Is this a serious offer by bin Laden?
I don't believe so, no.
What are his possible motivations?
I think, as moif does, that this is a canny, spin-led move by a sharp operator that is dribbling water into the cracks between European electorates and their governments and between Europe and America. When AQ attacks another major European target - and I think it is a "when" not an "if" particularly as bin LAden himself talks about a three month deadline - he hopes that there wil be a freeze inside these cracks, and that the ice that then forms in this increasingly strained metaphor will split the cracks wide open.
I think that his statement indicates he thinks that he influenced the Spanish electorate into electing their new socialist government. Since almost the whole of America seems the think the same thing - that the attacks intimidated the Spanish into voting for people they would not otherwise have chosen - he is not alone in this.
As moif's quote from Michael Ancram indicates, nobody knows whether this is the case or not.
From everything I've read, the polls in Spain were very close at the time of the Madrid attacks, and the cynical ploy of the then conservative governmnet to make political capital out of the train bombings by immediately blaming ETA was a big turn-off, and was the main reason the Spanish voted out the incumbents , as opposed to voting in the oppostition, which I think is what they actually did.
The Socialists' opposition to the Iraq war reflected Spanish public opinion anyway, and was an open and clear policy they always had, not something they suddenly adopted after the Madrid attacks.
Never, though, have they opposed the battles in War on Terrorism that are directed against terrorists (as opposed to the few foreign dictators who don't play ball with the US neo-conservative worldview). I'd be willing to bet that despite their opposition to Iraq, the March 11 atacks will serve to harden Spanish resolve to do what they can against al-Quaeda.
The Spanish electorate, like most Europeans, see Iraq and the war on terror as two separate issues. While the coalition leaders, including the outgoing Spanish leader, do everything they can to conflate the two issues, and American public opnion has largely taken this conflation as read, I think that (rightly or wrongly) most Europeans still see two distinct issues, and that they routinely link both of them to the Arab/Isreali conflict.
So, taking all this into account, I think OBL is cleverly trying to exploit a perceived gap between European public opinion and European governments, so he can drive a wedge between them when his next large scale attack takes place. He will be able to say "See, I offered a truce, and your leaders rejected my offer. So it's their fault that hundreds/thousands of your fellow Europeans are now dead, not mine".
In this, I think he has misread us. Europeans have long experience of terrorism and know that terrorists are the ones to blame, not the governments of the day.
I think that an attack in, say, France, far from rallying the French public to a position more sympathetic to AQ and it's aims, will just make them more determined to crush them. And, whatever you think of the French, they have a robust recent history of ignoring foriegn opnion (South Pacific nuclear tests, sinking Greenpeace ships, even their vocal opposition to the Iraq war) to carry out what they see as their national interest. In this, they are much like the USA. For this reason, I would say that OBL is more likely to choose Italy, Germany, or the Netherlands (The Hague, perhaps?), than France.
I frankly doubt he would attack Britain just yet, though I'm sure he'll try sooner or later. It's just that the geographical, political and cultural distance between Britain and the rest of Europe would be less likely to stir the kind of Europe-wide reaction OBL seems to be fishing for. Not forgetting that it would almost certainly drive the British electorate even further against AQ than they already are, and most likely keep the Blair government in power even longer. Most people are easier to persuade than to force, after all.
Which leads me to the last question, should Europeans accept this offer? to which the answer is of course they shouldn't. I really do not think that they will, either. The fact that he has made it at all demonstrates, I think, that while he superficially understands Europe, he doesn't REALLY understand it - in much the same way as those Americans who think assume the Spanish are somehow chicken-hearted for voting the way they did in their recent elections.