Can we talk about "Talking to Al Qaeda" ?

by fnord Sat Mar 15, 2008 18:01

A fortnight under a year ago we were all treated to geopolitical theatre which I analysed as the beginning of the end the Iraq war & a logical settlement including the spheres of influence of both Iran & Turkey which left one thorny Kurdistan behind. You may remember the Brit marines being kidnapped as they did their spy work. It got a huge long thread, lots of comments & input & opinions. I had hoped people would get the "hostage game" (as in you decide how many you admit you have & are up for bartering) & also the sometimes the best diplomat is in fact a powerless enemy soldier. rule of conflict resolution which has been around since Tara had daily hot suppers. (a very long time).
23 days after that chortling bit of gepolitical bollox which 99% of people took seriously as a prelude to nuking Iran, I wrote this comment wherein I really hoped people would realise the Iraq war is over. Iran has been at the table since then. The sneaky Brits started talking to them. When I say the war is over, i do not mean the bloodshed, carnage, occupation, conflict, generational instilled selective and collective memory which continues spent war is over. Oh no. We have at the very least 15 years more of that. During which our supposed "enemies" will be just as threatened by the evil the war unleashed as we ever presumed (for no reason but lies, oil & drug supply routes) we faced.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81703?&condense_comment...89009

What do you want on the table?

Gitmo?
independence of Waziristan? [ i proposed that in mid-January when alledgedly a bunch of people over there wanted to bomb the city I live in.]
do you want to (in the words of "The Telegraph's" faithful commentators surrender to Islam/Al Qaeda the way Blair did to the IRA?
Do you want Sharia law for quickie divorces the way yer man the CofE archibishop of Canterbury suggested?
Are you up for losing topless beaches on the Egyptian riviera?
Can you face the social consequences of a hike in the cost of smack?
Are you prepared to do Saudi Arabia?

_____________________________

ah now that will get you. You expected "Are you prepared to pull the plug on Israel" not.... are you prepared to pull the plug on..............Saudi Family Oil & Religion Co. Ltd ®™

_____________________________

Coz I'm consistent & I honestly believe most of ye are too. I'd go for :-
* End occupation of Iraq.
* Get out of Waziristan.
* Gitmo is icing on a dark cake of secrets. Let's play the hostage game on that one.....................

_____________________________

Now.............. what do you in return?
* Cheap oil?
* dropping stock values in the new security industry?
* safe skyscrapers & no threat of an 11 thingy?
hmmmmmmmmm.

that's why wars go on so long after they've stopped. People don't like each others' quid pro quos

by Jim Sat Mar 15, 2008 19:56

Generally in Western style democratic societies there are free elections, parliamentary representation, independent media, open political discourse, free association, freedom of religion, respect for human rights, impartial secular law and secular government.

Al-Qaida are opposed to every one of these values.
Their alternative is Islamic fundementalist theocracy.
All who refuse to submit to the will of Allah The Merciful will be enslaved or killed.

by Bazooka Joe Sat Mar 15, 2008 20:40

There is no need for 'talks' or a 'process' with al Qaida as they have clearly outlined what they want from the US and it's criminal associates.

Al Qaida is waging war on those who have attacked them and continue to attack them in many countries. Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan, the 80 year illegal occupation of Palestine by the American backed Zionists is a major wrong that must be righted. The US backed Zionists have attacked Lebanon and the US has placed corrupt govenments and dictators all over the Arab world, in an attempt to steal oil or buy it for far less than it is worth.

The US still thinks it can win a war against al Qaida but it's own military admit they are losing.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/0...9.DTL

The US needs to cease all it's illegal aggression against Muslims and convince or forcefully remove the Zionists from the stolen Palestinian land. They would need to convince or force all the unjust administrations it has nurtured in the Muslim lands to reform and stop oppressing their people.

Otherwise the American gang will not only suffer continuing military defeats but will also experience political breakup, the end of it's own peoples belief in it's ideology, and finally the economic collapse of a system eaten from the inside out by years of futile fear and unwinnable wars.

by Sofia Sat Mar 15, 2008 23:48

....."world's anti-terrorism experts met for a conference in Stockholm this week and, as Roger Hardy, the BBC's Islamic Affairs Analyst, found, optimism was in short supply. As the event began - at a conference centre overlooking the famous Stockholm waterfront - we stood in silent commemoration of the victims of the Madrid train bombings of 2004. It was a sign, had we needed one, that we were gathered in the Swedish capital to discuss one of the most important and difficult issues of our time.
The participants came at the topic from every angle. There were senior soldiers and policemen, intelligence professionals, diplomats, think-tank experts, a handful of journalists - and, on the fringes, salesmen eager to explain the latest gadgets, designed to make us feel safer in a dangerous world......"

Feature coverage, guide to who is who in Al Qaeda just in case you get chatting & estimates from 30 years to 100 to deal with what nobody really has a good name for. Oh they get silly trying to come up with names though. One Brit Mlitary Intelligence head said "we're not looking for a needle in a haystack we`re looking for a straw". You might think that's clever. All straws might look the same to you. But you get long ones and short ones. Husky fibre weighty healthy ones & the ones that break the camel's back.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_corr...9.stm

I've told you how to do it in 15 years.

Take out Saudi Family Oil & Religion Co. Ltd ®™ & you know you'll kill two hunting hawks with one stone, nobody will bother going on holidays in Dubai anymore & Halliburton's new global HQ will be a big white oliphant on artificial sand. You make the pilgrim routes to Sion & Mecca safe for the Gawkers & Hajers & do little things like ease off on the Viagra & stop cloning and it's over. you'll have less twins too. & the evangelicals will be off the endtime conspiracy buzz by 2012. We've a planetary biosphere to save from less than two centuries of the side effects of hydrocarbon exploitation. No one ever pays the blind bit of notice to me. baaaaaa baaaaaa bleat bleat.

by jim Sun Mar 16, 2008 18:46

"The US needs to cease all it's illegal aggression against Muslims and convince or forcefully remove the Zionists from the stolen Palestinian land. They would need to convince or force all the unjust administrations it has nurtured in the Muslim lands to reform and stop oppressing their people."

If your going to make suggestions make serious ones rather than solutions divorced from reality.

The Sunni Arabs (Al-Qaeda are Sunnis) would have been wiped out if the Iranian Shia hordes had swept through the Middle East in the 1980's grabbing the Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oilfields and Mecca and Medina.
The US supported Saddam who held back the Shia human waves.
Saddam of course was a vicious tyrant but no other ally was available in the region.

President Bush Snr had the support of Syrian and Saudi Arabian troops who "liberated" Kuwait while NATO forces dealt with Saddam's Republican Guard in 1991.

The first WTC bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing, the bombing of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the bombing of USS Cole happened before 9/11 and before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were launched by Bush.

In fact Reagan supported the muhjihadeen (Sunnis) when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets and Clinton protected Bosnian and Kosovar (Sunni) Muslims from Serb Christian genocide in Yugoslavia.
The US toppled the Sunni Taliban who were oppressing the Sunni Muslim population of Afghanistan who Al-Qaeda supported and the new democratic government of Afghanistan is under attack from the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
The US also overthrew Saddam Hussein who was oppressing his people and Iraqis have voted for a new democratic government which is also attacked by Al-Qaeda.
For decades US was guilty of supporting unjust governments in order to secure oil resources but Al-Qaeda are not freedom fighters by any means
President Bush to be fair has been quite vocal encouraging these regimes to become democratic post 9/11.
However Al-Qaeda have declared their intention to replace unjust government with Islamic dictatorship following strict interpretations of Islamic sharia law (stonings, beheadings, execution of non-believers etc)
King Abdullah, Colonel Gaddaffi, Hosni Mubarack, General Musharraf etc. are vile pieces of work.
But kicking out the US puppets only to hand the Middle East to Al-Qaeda would be moronic.
The "Zionists" are unlikely to abandon Israel.

Al-Qaeda have imperialist ambitions - they seek to conquer the world and force the entire world to submit to Islam or die.
Osama Bin Laden and his stooges are clearly religious fanatics.
What possible credible negotiations could be bear fruit?

by Frankie B Sun Mar 16, 2008 21:59

When you negotiate you have to understand the motivation of the other side

Option 1. TRY TO BUY THEM OFF.
Given that suicide bombers are promised 70 virgins if they carry out their mission, we could perhaps put in a counter bid. Start by offering them 80 slappers, a nintendo, and an iPod to grass up their handlers instead.
Among the countries of the 'Coalition of the Willing' (tm) there's quite a surplus of slappers. We could send them Britney Spears, Girls Aloud, and the Spice girls to start with.
It's win, win. We get peace on earth, and maybe some decent music for a change.

Or... and this is a stretch... (option 2)
Western governments could stop dropping billions of dollars of bombs on the middle east, stop booting in doors of terrified civilians and stop selling $hitloads of weapons to corrupt dictators like the Saudis. Stop marching round like we own the place, levelling cities like Fallujah and torturing people, and instead pay reparations so places like Iraq can rebuild their hospitals, water and sanitation services, and get on with their lives free of foreign invaders, and cheer themselves up a bit when electricity is retored by watching the jailing of Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, etc live on tv. Then, there wouldn't be so much of a rush to join Al Qaeda to address the wrongs visited upon them...

Funny how to the average politician, option 2 is actually more far fetched than option 1.

by fnord Sun Mar 23, 2008 19:27

Of course the Americans are very upset about that...... "We do not believe that truces or talks with militants are productive,'"one US official in Islamabad told The Observer earlier this year. British diplomats do not dismiss negotiations entirely, but say that the success of talks 'depends on who is talking and about what.'"

Quite. Gurgle. Ribbid. C-o-n-t-r-o-v-e-r-s-i-a-l as I often put it. But jolly sensible too, it really does depend on who's talking to who about what.

You can read today's "Observer" newspaper on this here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/23/pakistan
You can read last Thursday's BBC report on "Waziristan" that bit of Pakistan which borders Afghanistan where Al Qaeda & the Taleban live. I reckon they should be given it as a homeland in return for leaving us all alone. But the BBC wonders at the implications of secular parties winning the majority in the recent elections. Read about that wonder here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7255642.stm & about the elections here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_general_election..._2008 & so you get background on it all you can read about Mr Musharref's emergency rule thing here http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84912 (when I first suggested to you a Waziristani state) - & when everything started going wrong for him here http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83379

Now the British line about "depends on who you talk to" is no more true than in Waziristan. Quite simply because up those dreary hills people have made credible statements in the name of Al Qaeda in the last four months which at first glance are completely incompatible. Such as claiming and disclaiming Bhutto's assassination. That's a pretty good example, I'll think you agree. Anyway, none fo you are to get too worried about all this. You're not members of the American century team, yours are not the ambitions of a noble war of attrition against the urchins of Baghdad or a frankly tiring decade of praise for Karzi's wardrobe. Yours rather is the hope for human rights and happiness no matter how high up a mountain you herd your goats or arrange your marriages. & that's where the real objections or heavy tweakings to these chitchats will come from. Towards the end of today's Observer article we may read "......'We are not talking about appeasement but taking a different approach by looking at law enforcement,' said respected analyst Samina Ahmed of the International Crisis Group in Islamabad. 'If you don't enforce the law, you won't get rid of what is an internal problem.'Ahmed pointed out that one problem will be the semi-autonomous status of the 'tribal agencies' where the militants are based. To end their special legal status, the legacy of British colonial government, will not be easy. 'You need courts, police, judges,' he said......."Crisesgroup is a secular group based in Islamabad who lobby on cross party basis and want to rewrite the tribal region clauses of the Pakistani constitution. You can read the whole Pakistani constitution linked to the comments at this article http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84912 or if you're too lazy find the section on tribal autonomy linked specifically to this comment http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84912?&condense_comment...14129 I reckon Crisesgroup are going to put "pan pakistani pride" ahead of "pragmatic give them waziristan" western desperation. But then again it's their country, the British invented it for them & they've enjoyed it ever since. If you want to learn about how they intepreted those days back last November "when things went pop" this was their thinktank's analysis in pdf-
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south...7.pdf

Of course there are other ways of stopping Al Qaeda than simply giving them their own country and calling it Waziristan. That's just me being ludicrously & C-o-n-t-r-o-v-e-r-s-i-a-l -l-y simple. Frankie B's comment (the last one) is pretty on the mark too. Or we could just remember one other element of my proposals & take out "Saudi Family Oil & Religion Co. Ltd ®™" The end of Saudi Arabia will mean at a stroke; more women drivers, states who need money selling oil at fair prices [the Saudi family haven't needed money for half a century now], muslim sentiments being voiced by pleasant westerners or silly gradually more unpopular Iranians, and secure peaceful routes for pilgrimage to Mecca. Of course it won't all be lollipops. Filippino workers will have a hard time finding golf caddy jobs where they get beaten to death. But they'll adjust with time, they may even like it.

You're now gurgle-prepared to read the 23/3/08 edition of the Observer -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/23/pakistan

fnord

by Me Mon Mar 24, 2008 16:27

there might be a taliban, but There is no Al Qauida

by Me Mon Mar 24, 2008 16:39

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/16751/Afghan_Warlord_is_sus...ended

On the 27th of December, 2007 Britian’s Daily Telegraph reported:

Agents from [British] MI6 entered secret talks with Taliban leaders despite Gordon Brown’s pledge that Britain would not negotiate with terrorists.

The latest ‘leak’ by the Karzai government, about Britain’s controversial role in negotiating with the Taliban, has hidden meanings.

Despite Mr Karzai’s claims to the contrary it appears he was a bit miffed at the British overtures to his enemies, so much so that he then blocked the proposed appointment of British peer and former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, Lord Paddy Ashdown, to the post of UN envoy for Afghanistan.

Why Mr Karzai is so unsettled can possibly be explained by the fact that what little support he has amongst Afghanis comes almost exclusively from the Northern Alliance. Re-entry in Afghan politics for the Taliban would weaken both the Northern Alliance and Mr Karzai.

Now someone is making moves against a major player in the Northern Alliance, at a time when the British appear to be moving towards the Taliban.

by touché Mon Mar 24, 2008 19:29

Very sharp & on the morphing googley ball types will remember that Scotland Yard were invited in by Musharref already to decide how Bhutto died but not (& that's a very important not) who killed her.

The new mister Pakistan is Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani who won today's election with 264 votes beating "rival candidate Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, fielded by the Pakistan Muslim League-Q and its allies with 42 votes".

& just as if you needed to be told, seeing you have all read the Pakistani constitution linked to above & through the article on how that state went pop ( http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84912 http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/amendmen....html ) all the detained judges and magistrates are to be released because Musharref was acting unconstitutionally when he did that. Quite. All the same he had acted unconstitutionally before & they let him away with it.

____________________________________

Now as the sort that champions genuine freedom of citizen journalism, I'm very interested (turned on almost) by the comment from "me" just two up the page. Don't be shy "me". Tell us, do you not believe in Al Q?

by puzzled Mon Mar 24, 2008 23:35

Benazir Bhutto speaks to david frost, 6 minutes in she casually mentions
the "murder of osama bin laden"

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1198861063

how come nobody talked about this??
frost just ignored it. odd