advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: January 19, 2006 09:46AM
[www.breitbart.com]

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: January 19, 2006 10:41AM
"The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by the Arab broadcaster."

Well, that was useful.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 19, 2006 11:02AM
Al Qaeda has become a philosophy or movement & Bin Laden may not speak for all. We've p.o.'d a large portion of the world's Muslims and anything we could do to score some p.r. points would be smart.

Once we stop the war Fox News fans will have to settle for catfights:
[www.breitbart.com]
I'd buy a ticket.

Nothing will deter the Bush gang from their crime spree though. Iraq is just a pothole on the road to world domination.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: JoeM
Date: January 19, 2006 12:56PM
"We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat...."

Uh, yeah and if you believe that one I got a nice bridge over the Euphrates River I can sell ya.

Hey, Refurbvirgin, nice doggie!



JoeM
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Jimmypoo
Date: January 19, 2006 01:22PM
Nationstates do not deal with outlaws and individuals. Especially those wanted for murder worldwide.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 19, 2006 01:46PM
Jimmypoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nationstates do not deal with outlaws and
> individuals. Especially those wanted for murder
> worldwide.

So why should any other nations deal with Bush? We attacked and invaded two nations for what outlaws and individuals had done, and the second nation had nothing to do with the crime. Bush was going to "smoke bin Laden out of his hole" then as soon as he got boots on the ground in Iraq he "could care less about him." We treated bin Laden as if he was acting with the complicity and agreement of all the Arabs, so why not parley?

I often wonder if bin Laden didn't die in Tora Borah and the CIA or Office of Special Plans just keeps fabricating these messages to maintain the boogeyman to scare the American sheeple into compliance with their wars of aggression. We need that scarecrow there to sow the fear and anger from which Bushco harvests power. We had bin Laden surrounded and Bush pulled the troops out to send them to Iraq. Was it because of W's long family business relationship with the bin Ladens? Or because he needed Usama alive or plausibly alive to preserve an enemy for Amerikans to focus upon?

Gotta go. The rain has stopped and Sunny needs a swim. Bring your hound to the beach, Joe.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: the_poochies
Date: January 19, 2006 03:13PM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once we stop the war Fox News fans will have to
> settle for catfights

Or just run endless stories on missing white girls.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Furiously Stylish
Date: January 19, 2006 06:04PM
Hell, no. This crap has gone on for centuries.

[www.globalsecurity.org]

Quote

Presley Neville O'Bannon

Presley Neville O'Bannon later known as the "Hero of Derne," was born in 1776, in Fauquier County, Virginia. He was appointed a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps, 18 January 1801, and was promoted to first lieutenant on 15 October 1802. After serving at various stations in the United States, O'Bannon was assigned to duty on board the USS Adams early in 1802, and sailed for the Mediterranean in June of that year. He returned to the U.S. in November 1803, and was assigned duty at the Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C. He again sailed for the Mediterranean on the USS President on 25 May 1804, arriving at Gilbraltar, 13 August 1804. He was transferred to the USS Constitution on 22 October 1804, and to the USS Argus on 26 October 1804. While serving as Marine officer in the latter vessel he was selected for a special mission, which was destined to be commemorated on the colors of the Marine Corps and forever recorded in the Marines' Hymn in the words "To the Shores of Tripoli."

For many years the United States had maintained peace with the Barbary States (Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli) by "buying" treaties and paying tribute to the reigning pasha. Although Algiers, Morocco and Tunis were not entirely satisfied, they were more or less complacent, whereas Tripoli continued to make threats against the United States while demanding larger and more frequent "payments." Finally, on 14 May 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusut Karamanli, indicated his extreme dissatisfaction with our "tribute" by having the flagstaff cut down in front of the U.S. Consulate. This act led to a declaration of war against Tripoli and the sending of more U.S. war vessels to the Mediterranean. During a storm one of the ships, the USS Philadelphia, went on the rocks off Tripoli and her crew was captured and imprisoned at Derne. After a bombardment of Tripoli by U.S. vessels and the offer of $100,000 ransom for the crew of the Philadelphia had failed to move the Pasha, William Eaton, "Navy Agent for the several Barbary Regencies," suggested forming an alliance with Hamet, elder brother of the reigning sovereign of Tripoli. The plan was approved by the U.S. Government and Eaton commenced putting his plan into execution.

On 29 November 1804, Eaton, First Lieutenant O'Bannon, Midshipmen George Mann, U.S. Navy, and seven Marines landed at Alexandria, Egypt, from the USS Argus, and a few days later proceeded to Cairo. The party arrived at Cairo on 8 January 1805, where they learned that Hamet and a few Tripolitans had joined a band of rebellious Mamelukes who were defying the rule of the Turkish viceroy. Eaton then pushed on to Fiaum where he communicated with Hamet and made arrangements with him for his cooperation with the expedition against Derne, Tripoli. On 8 March, Eaton and his motley army of about 500 men, 100 camels and a few mules started the long march across the Libyan desert. He arrived at Derne the night of 25 March, and the next day, under a flag of truce, offered terms of amity to the Governor of Derne on condition of allegiance and fidelity to Hamet. The reply to this offer was "My head or yours." Shortly thereafter, the USS Nautilus arrived in the harbor of Derne, and the next day the USS Argus and Hornet dropped anchor nearby. When the combined land-sea attack commenced on 27 March, Lieutenant O'Bannon, with his Marines, a few Greeks, and as many of the cannoniers as could be spared from the field piece, passed through a shower of enemy musketry, took possession of one of the enemy's batteries, planted the United States flag upon its ramparts and turned the guns upon the enemy. After two hours of hand-to-hand fighting, the stronghold was occupied and for the first time in history the flag of the United States flew over a fortress of the old world.

The Tripolitans counterattacked the fortress a number of times, but were repulsed with heavy losses. Finally, on 28 May, Eaton's forces launched a spirited bayonet charge which drove the enemy from the vicinity of Derne. For many years, memories of the dauntless Americans lingered in the songs of the women of Derne, one of which featured these words: "Din din Mohamed U Ryas Melekan manhandi," which means "Mohamed for religion and the Americans for stubbornness."

Before they parted, Hamet gave O'Bannon a jeweled sword with a Mameluke hilt which he had carried while with the Mamelukes in Egypt. Upon his return to the United States the state of Virginia presented O'Bannon a sword modeled after the original Mameluke blade given him by Hamet. The sword bore on one side of the blade the inscription: "Presented by the State of Virginia to her gallant son Priestly (sic) N. O'Bannon." On the reverse side was inscribed: "Assault the conquest of the City of Derne in Africa, 27 April 1805." Underneath the eagle's head on the hilt is a gold plate depicting Lieutenant O'Bannon holding in one hand the National Colors of the United States and in the other a sword. He is standing on the walls of the fortress of Derne with the city of Derne in the background. The blade of this sword, a true scimitar, has more curve than the modified blade adopted for the U.S. Marine Corps officers' swords, which continues to be a part of their uniform although now worn only on special occasions.

O'Bannon resigned from the Marine Corps, 6 March 1807, and went to Kentucky to live his remaining days. When he died on 12 September 1850, at the age of 74, his remains were interred in a small cemetery north of Pleasureville, Kentucky. On 14 June 1920, the Daughters of the American Revolution removed his remains to Frankfort, Kentucky, where a memorial was erected to his memory. His heroic service on the "the shores of Tripoli" is commemorated in the Mameluke sword worn by U.S. Marine Corps officers, a sword patterned after the famed blade of Damascus presented to O'Bannon by Hamet in appreciation for services rendered on "the shores of Tripoli."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Bernie
Date: January 19, 2006 06:26PM
Back then we kicked butt and came home. We were not occupationists.

I love that story. Not the way my D.I told it, but a good tale any way it is told.





Staunton, Virginia
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 19, 2006 09:47PM
After 9/11 we had the sympathies of the world and their cooperation in seeking out the surviving conspirators. Many nations, including Canada, our closest ally, supported us in entering Afghanistan seeking out the masterminds. We had them surrounded in Tora Bora, then Bush pulled the troops out to attack Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. At that point we started to lose the sympathy and support of the world.

Three to four thousand Iraqis are dying a month now, and no one can claim they are better off than they were under Saddam, at least not with any credibility. The analogy between dealing with pirates and dealing with suicidal zealots, intent on paying us back for generations of slaughtering Palestinians and supporting evil dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and, yes, Iraq, doesn't work, Furious. I admire O'Bannon, but not guys like this:
[www.cbc.ca]

Can you see the difference between Charles Graner of Abu Ghraib fame, and O'Bannon? The latter was a genuine hero, but the soldiers occupying Iraq are doing it for lies, and the greed of multinational corporations intent on world domination. This ain't your father's Marine Corps.





Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: January 19, 2006 11:23PM
This idea of a truce with Al Qaeda is a very good one.


























FOR ME TO POOP ON!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 19, 2006 11:55PM
Triumph, baby! Sunny's been sniffing around for you!

I don't think Usama's still alive. Is it possible this is all a CIA ruse to set the American people up for another attack? Bush knew Al Qaeda was planning to hijack airliners, but did nothing. What better way to get the American people fired up again, and back on the war wagon than to have "Usama" tell them he is going to attack again, unless we swear a truce, giving Scott McClellan the opportunity to talk tough about "putting terrorists out of business." Then the guard is let down again and some more U.S. military grade anthrax gets released in San Francisco. Pat Robertson gets the evangelical base frothing about God's revenge on gays, and Bush shames Pelosi into supporting nuking Iran.

This world conquest stuff is really easy, if you know how to play the rubes.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Marcos Malo
Date: January 20, 2006 01:51AM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Triumph, baby! Sunny's been sniffing around for
> you!
>
> I don't think Usama's still alive. Is it possible
> this is all a CIA ruse to set the American people
> up for another attack?

Geeze, that's even more warped than my wanting to compare Usama to Lucy and the U.S. to Charlie Brown.



_____________________________________________
I think….
there….
4a.m.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: HeyDude
Date: January 20, 2006 08:01AM
its a trick
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 20, 2006 08:39AM
Phantom Osama Groomed For A Return
By Kurt Nimmo

[www.countercurrents.org]

"After a long and suspicious hiatus, Osama bin Laden has resurfaced with new threats against the Great Satan.The latest incarnation of Osama was vetted by the CIA, the spook agency responsible for promoting the original Osama’s illustrious career, that is before he died of kidney failure in December, 2001"



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: incognegro
Date: January 20, 2006 01:30PM
even "lefty" NPR said the idea of a truce w/UBL is ludicrous. he's trying to assert his power, and send a message to radical Muslims that he's in control.

it's not a serious offer - we could never comply with his demands, and there would be no telling what he'd ask for next. pretty much akin to extortion on a global scale.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Marcos Malo
Date: January 20, 2006 02:37PM
The only offer the U.S. should entertain would be if Usama and the leadership of Al Kaida surrendered themselves in exchange for the U.S. to leave Iraq and Afganistan.

That is the only sincere offer of truce they could make in my mind.



_____________________________________________
I think….
there….
4a.m.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: HeyDude
Date: January 23, 2006 09:52AM
Actually, the only way would be to invite Osama to a neutral meeting ground, but he will never do that because the US would track his butt back to whereever he traveled to from there.

If he did not show, he would lose face, and that's very important to a radical.

It's a trick, just like I've already wrote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: RgrF
Date: January 24, 2006 11:47PM
Marcos Malo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only offer the U.S. should entertain would be
> if Usama and the leadership of Al Kaida
> surrendered themselves in exchange for the U.S. to
> leave Iraq and Afganistan.
>
> That is the only sincere offer of truce they could
> make in my mind.
>

That presumes there is an Al Qaeda with any sort of traditional leadership structure. An iffy proposition at best.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bin Laden offers truce : Should we take it?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 25, 2006 08:42AM
Al Qaeda has become a mindset held by Muslims all over the world, but not necessarily with any physical links, and Bush is the cause.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 182
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020