Originally Posted by msgtmedleyusmc

I'm sure they want everyone to believe it. Perfect timing for the administration--with Congressional hearings over the domestic wiretapping coming up. If I were a conspiracy buff (I'm not even though I know the moon landing was faked and Standard Oil killed Tesla and took his induction motor) I would think they might have made it.

This tape is just like the one released to the EU not so very long ago. It's a divide and conquer technique, IMO. Just like the other tape was meant to drive a wedge between the Europeans and Americans with concern to Iraq, I think this tape is meant to make the rift between the left and right in America even wider.

I don't see how the tape can really help our current Admin, if nothing else it will give his detractors something else to scream about when we don't accept the "truce."

A lot of people seem to forget that Bin Laden "officially" declared war on us first. We pretty much ignored him in spite of that. Now that we're active against terrorism, I don't see why he should be allowed any room for movement.

One thing that does concern me about the tape's release is that the one directed towards the EU was released only shortly before the bombings in Spain. Makes you wonder if he has something up his sleeve.

Originally Posted by PJ24

I don't see how the tape can really help our current Admin, if nothing else it will give his detractors something else to scream about when we don't accept the "truce."

The defense of warrantless wiretaps of US citizens rests, to a large degree on the 1968 Safe Streets Act, which gives the President broad powers to protect against an actual or potential attack by a foreign power or gain essential intelligence to protect the United States. Since we are not at war (legally) the President doesn't have carte blanche to wiretap without warrants.

The emergence of a tape by OBL warning of attacks against the US does help this case. The typical detractor would not argue that wiretaps are okay if they do protect the US. Instead they tend to argue that these taps do not do that and should not infringe against civil liberties without hard evidence.

I think a OBL tape helps the Pres. more on this, but we will see.

You make a great point there MMUSMC. Ultimately there is no way to prove it without capturing someone in the Bin Laden org, or if someone from the administration leaks the story. It is interesting how truth becomes relative during wartime for some people.

In Muslim theological history, during ithe expansion of the Muslim Caliphate, it was common practice for Mohammed or his commanders to offer a truce prior to an attack. The residents of whatever village was about to get converted were offered terms -- convert or die fighting.

A truce is offered from a perceived position of strength, not weakness.

I note an incredible tendency here to simplifiy complex issues. This is one of them.

Anything dealing with history is a complex issue. I could easily write 5,000+ words on almost any historical topic I've seen on this forum. But I choose brevity for the sake of not boring people to death. I have found that writing enough to make and/or support my point is plenty.
As for what "Truce" means in the Islamic world, one just has to look at recent history. How many times did Militant groups ask for a truce while fighting the Isreali's? How long did the majority of these "truce's" last once the Militants completed re-supplying, or shuffling their assets?
These people do not follow what we in the west think of as "rules of war", they use them against us. They regularly murder the few legitimate POW's they get. They kidnap, then often murder people that by no stretch of the imagination are "legitimate" military targets. Nothing is as accurate as a bomb being worn by a human, and they use these to specifically target holy places, women, children, and hospitals.

Here is a link to what "Truce" means in Islam, along with historical background to why they offer truce's, and what the result of them were.
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/S...vine_truce.htm

Originally Posted by PJ24

One thing that does concern me about the tape's release is that the one directed towards the EU was released only shortly before the bombings in Spain.

Incorrect. Madrid bombings occurred in March 2003. The truce to Europe was offered in April 2004, three months before the London bombings, if anything.

Originally Posted by Forrest_Gump

Here is a link to what "Truce" means in Islam, along with historical background to why they offer truce's, and what the result of them were.
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/S...vine_truce.htm

best link EVER!!... totally worth my time thank you

Answering islam is one of the most anti Muslim sites I know of. They have also started a petty war with Answering-christianity.com using viruses and mail bomb software.

That source is as flawed as a piece on Al Jazeera about the Iraq civilian casualty figures.

Morten lapped it up I notice, but then that doesn't surprise me.

Here Morten, I've foudn something for you to play with:

And historically that piece is wrong where?

It's an opinion piece. What has history got to do with it?

Sure he quotes historical documents, but he quotes them in part and out of context.

here is an equal measure of propoganda for you to read.

here is another very Explosive arguement!

Originally Posted by headspace

It's an opinion piece. What has history got to do with it?

Sure he quotes historical documents, but he quotes them in part and out of context.

here is an equal measure of propoganda for you to read.

lmao... sorry.. but that link was useless... :/ it has NothinG to do with this subject...

Answering islam is one of the most anti Muslim sites I know of. They have also started a petty war with Answering-christianity.com using viruses and mail bomb software.