"we will not negotiate with terrorists"

[*gwen*~*grover*]

January 20, 2006
U.S. Rejects Truce Offer From bin Laden
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Jan. 19 - Breaking more than a year's silence, Osama bin Laden warned Americans in an audiotape released on Thursday that Al Qaeda was planning more attacks on the United States, but he offered a "long truce" on undefined terms.

It was unclear when the recording, broadcast by the Arab satellite television station Al Jazeera, was made, but the Central Intelligence Agency verified its authenticity and said the station was probably right in saying that it dated from early December.

American officials said the release might have been timed to assure his followers that Mr. bin Laden was alive and well days after an American bombing of a house in a Pakistani village where senior Qaeda officials were said to have been killed.

In the tape, Mr. bin Laden addressed the American people directly, saying of his supporters, "Our situation is getting better while yours is getting worse."

"My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them," he began. "Bush said, 'It is better to fight them on their land than their fighting us on our land.' I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no letup, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor."

He said the lack of Qaeda attacks in the United States since Sept. 11 was not related to improved security, and he pointed to terrorist attacks in Europe as evidence that his fighters could penetrate all such barriers.

As to what attacks Americans can expect, he said, "The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through, with God's permission."

Vice President Dick Cheney, asked by Fox News about the tape, said it now seemed likely that Mr. bin Laden, whom some had believed dead, was alive. But, the vice president said, Mr. bin Laden has clearly had trouble getting his message out and added, "We don't negotiate with terrorists."

"I think you have to destroy them," he said. "It's the only way to deal with them."

Mr. bin Laden offered the American people a vague truce, saying "both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan." Later in the statement he quotes from a book which calls for an end to what he termed "American interference in the nations of the world."

The statement noted that American opinion polls had shown the nation's desire to withdraw its troops from Iraq and its feeling that it is better that Americans "don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours."

Regarding an American withdrawal, he said, "There is no shame in this solution which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign."

Nearly all of the video and audiotapes attributed to Mr. bin Laden in the past have turned out to be authentic. His voice, this time, sounded somewhat more labored, lacking the energetic quality typical of earlier recordings. There was also a pronounced echo as if he had been inside a room, in contrast to previous recordings that seemed to have been made outdoors or in large spaces.

Like some of his other recordings, this one made reference to recent events, including in this case to a report in a British newspaper in November that President Bush wanted to bomb the headquarters of Al Jazeera in Qatar, a claim dismissed by both the American and British governments.

The bin Laden broadcast comes just days after the United States launched airstrikes on a Pakistani village aimed at Mr. bin Laden's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Mr. Zawahiri was not at the site, but two senior members of Al Qaeda and the son-in-law of Mr. Zawahiri were among those killed in the strikes in remote northeastern Pakistan, Pakistani officials said.

The attacks caused anger across Pakistan, particularly in the autonomous tribal regions, and led the government to condemn the intrusion.

Some analysts saw the message as a triumph for the leader of Al Qaeda. "The fact that he was able to record the message, deliver it and broadcast is in itself a victory for him," said Muhammad Salah, Cairo bureau chief for the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat and an expert on Islamist groups.

Mr. bin Laden typically chooses his timing and messages carefully to prove a point, Mr. Salah said. "He is playing on the American people's desire to get out of Iraq and the Islamic fundamentalist swamp," he said. "And he is telling Bush that 'I am winning and I am still there.' "

The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters that President Bush had been told about the tape on Thursday morning after an appearance in Virginia. Mr. McClellan said American intelligence agencies were trying to determine whether the tape provided clues about Al Qaeda's operations.

"If there is any actionable intelligence, we will act on it," Mr. McClellan said.

"We are winning," he said. "Clearly Al Qaeda and the terrorists are on the run, and that is why it is important that we do not let up, and do not stop, until the job is done."

Mr. McClellan added: "We continue to act on all fronts to win the war on terrorism, and we will. The president is fully committed to do everything within his power to prevent attacks, and to defeat the terrorists. We are taking the fight to the enemy, we are working to advance freedom and democracy, to defeat their evil ideology."

Mr. bin Laden's message said his followers were not afraid of further American attacks because "a swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain," but he promised the same treatment for Americans as they had given others.

"This says the man is still very much in action," said Riad Kahwaji, founder of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, a security research firm in Dubai. "He's saying the war is still on, and he's talking about ongoing plans for operations and strikes elsewhere. He's also mentioning recent events to give authenticity to the recording that it is recent and he is keeping up to date with developments."

Mr. bin Laden was last heard from in an audio recording in December 2004, in which he called for Iraqis to boycott the elections in January 2005. That broadcast prompted President Bush to take the unusual step of responding to the message, declaring that the call by Mr. bin Laden made the stakes in the Iraqi elections clear.

thats was long... but worth discussion. "we will not negotiate with terrorists"... part of me wants to agree, but part of me wants to shake them and say "why the hell not!!"
now, this bothers me the most, McClellan:
"We are winning," he said. "Clearly Al Qaeda and the terrorists are on the run, and that is why it is important that we do not let up, and do not stop, until the job is done."
im sorry, i just dont see how he got that...
so.. comments?

[OTH man]

if we "nogotiated" w/ terrorists we would be stupid and pretty much setting us up for failure- i say we need to capture bin Laden thats the only way to deal

[Andrew]

I'm pissed that he's still uncaptured and able to make that message...

Anyway... I do agree with the "no negotiations" though; you can't really negotiate with terrorists. You would have to bend-over backwards with optimism to see any sort of trustworthiness.

On the other hand, the guerilla warfare continues. Destroy one group, and another one pops up. Go after the new group. Destroy that group. Another one pops up.

vicious circle...

[Summer_Roberts2]

I'm angry we haven't been able to catch him yet, too.

As for the "We don't negotiate with terrorists-" I fully support that. The world would end as we know it if country leaders started the trend of negotiating with terrorists.

[Ol'blueyes]

Got to love Cheney. Jeeze, reading Bin Laden's comments on our situation in Iraq, he sounds like a democratic hopeful for 2008. Negotiating with terrorists is wrong. We would be showing that we are weak and that they have won.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

alright... i agree on the negotiating with terrorists part, on principle... i think negotiating with them validates their cause, and of course i dont agree with that... but in this case, i want to know what his demands are. this is because he is threatening another attack on the united states, and i dont see any evidence that he is weak or uncapable of this, and we havent caught him in the 4 years since..
i mean, okay, not negotiating with them does give the united states a power stance over any terrorist with a grude against the united states; in that we wont negotiate with any of them... so im still kind of torn... viscious cycle, yeah... obviously none of the demands he could make would help the united states... but i would want to hear them anyway

alright, im just saying the same thing over... so im gonna go get a bagel and think this over :lol:

[Centerfinn]

God how stupid is that! like honestly how many times have i heard
"we will not negotiate with terrorists" cant they just do it already so we
dont have to get all mean at them seriously what is up with them

[*gwen*~*grover*]

well, it really is a double sided issue
if they did negotiate, yes, there is less likely a chance of an attack... but also can you really trust negotiations with people who have bombed us? and also, what would they ask for? money? well, we dont want to give them money... our soldiers out of iraq? would they take over? i mean, it depends on what they ask for... but also, if we negotiate with them, every asshole terrorist with a grudge would demand something from the government or they would bomb us...
at the same time though, europe has negotiated with terrorists, and they have had some better results from it

so i agree that its bad from a political standpoint... but i just have to rant a little, and say that i hate the way that they present this idea... because it is not presented like "we dont want to give the terrorists the advantage over our power stance...", its presented to appeal to every joe-shmo in his living room (im sorry, excuse the stereotype and bad cliche) who believes that we're closer to finding osama bil ladin and that the fact that hes on the run means that hes powerless... its presented in a "we will not negotiate because we are AMERICANS and they are powerless, haha"... so thats especially why it annoys me...

[Summer_Roberts2]

God how stupid is that! like honestly how many times have i heard
"we will not negotiate with terrorists" cant they just do it already so we
dont have to get all mean at them seriously what is up with them

I'm confused. You think we should negotiate with terrorists so we don't have to be mean to them?

[*gwen*~*grover*]

hmmm, im not sure... :lol:

[Ashlyn]

I get it, the idea of negotiating with terrorists isn't pleasant.

However, we're never going to kill them all, so it's either do some sort of negotiation, or we've got to be involved in a war for forever. I don't think anybody wants that second option, as bad as the first may seem. So somehow, and hopefully on our terms, we MUST negotiate.

Oh, and it shows exactly what a great job we've been doing overseas, that 3we've managed to be responsible for thousands of deaths, but still haven't got Osama. :rolleyes:

[*gwen*~*grover*]

i agree with you, but the countrys obviously going for the second one... after all, thats why were in this war (ironically, didnt bin Ladin point out on the tape that half of american citizens want the soldiers out of iraq, and bush wasnt going to move them...? not that i support bin ladin, but its true...)
so thats why the "we will not negotiate with terrorists" line irks me so much... its propaganda for supporting the war in my opinion

[Ol'blueyes]

Right, so lets just NEGOTIATE with someone who killed 3,000 people in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. This would be playing into his hands. If you don't agree with whats going on with the war today, ok I understand, but you would rather make agreements with Osama bin Laden then have faith in your own president?

[*gwen*~*grover*]

i dont think thats really the question... and im still undecided on whether i would want them to negotiate or not
the thing is, that there have been threats made by al-quaeda, the same people who killed the 3,000 people, and i really dont see any signs of their power weakening. we need to deal with them somehow, and i dont see "the war on terror" being won anytime soon... until they tell me how they are currently catching osama bin ladin, no, i dont have any faith in our president.
yeah, it would be playing into his hands, and i dont like that. of course i dont want to negotiate with him, but i dont see a way around that... and i hope that they find one, but i dont want another attack...

sorry, the rant i was giving about the phrase was really a separate argument, it was just bugging me :lol:

[Andrew]

Hmm... there seems to be only one viable solution: nuke the entire planet, ending all life on Earth.



...well, except cockaroaches... those bastards :cussing:

[ocjagfan]

umm my parents say it's good...but i disagree. i mean, what are they gonna say when there's another attack on a big city...like chicago.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

they say not negotiatings good?

oh, andrew, i completely agree. ive been thinking that for a while. i mean, that would really solve all our problems, wouldnt it? no war, it would be awesome... AND we wouldnt even have to worry about being bothered by cockaroaches, pesky bastards that they are.

[Ashlyn]

Right, so lets just NEGOTIATE with someone who killed 3,000 people in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. This would be playing into his hands. If you don't agree with whats going on with the war today, ok I understand, but you would rather make agreements with Osama bin Laden then have faith in your own president?

No way in hell do I want to make agreements with him, I want him caught, but President Bush seems unable to do that, so it's hard for me to "put my faith" in a man who has spent so much money and had so many people die mostly in a revenge act for September 11th and still has not been able to kill the man responsible?

I guess we're stuck in this deathly limbo until we get a new President. Bush will continue the BS status quo until he's done.

[Ol'blueyes]

So you don't think we should be in Iraq right now? Have you heard the latest news about the journalist, Jill Carrol who is now held hostage by these evil disgusting people. No we shouldn't be there right because Iraq before we were there was absolutely beautiful and peaceful and we destroyed it right? This war just shows evidence of how SICK these people are and regardless or not of whether or not we would be there today, they still would and whose to say they still wouldn't be capturing Americans. We were not in a war with them, but yet they killed 3,000 of our people.

[Ashlyn]

.. and now we've killed 26,000 of theirs.

Something has to be done to end this senseless killing, and us being over there isn't helping anything, truly, it's not.

Right now, we need to slowly recall troops as we stabalize Iraq, yes. I don't believe we should have done anything more than just capture Sadaam over there in the first place.

... the point is, what we're doing obviously isn't working with Osama Bin Laden still alive, so something needs to change. How can you argue with that? We MUST change our methods if we want to be successful.

To many people have died for us to have not yet got the mastermind of September 11th.

[Heather]

No way in hell do I want to make agreements with him, I want him caught, but President Bush seems unable to do that, so it's hard for me to "put my faith" in a man who has spent so much money and had so many people die mostly in a revenge act for September 11th and still has not been able to kill the man responsible?
Kinda funny that you said that since I heard a liberal on the radio make the same argument.

I think there is a vital principle that you are overlooking. The war on terror is a covert operation. That means the public doesnt know what is going on, or what has happened. Its the way a war should be fought. We have attacked Al Queda all over the world, and set them on the run. We just captured their top bomb maker, and more than once captured their #2 guy. Yes, we havent captured Osama yet. But that doesnt mean that we're not hunting for him, and that we wont find him.

America is the Superpower. It has more than enough resources to fight the war in Iraq, while focusing other resources on a covert war, with one very specific agenda. Capturing Bin Laden.

As for why we're in Iraq? Its simple. Democracy is contagious. Look at our history. We became a democracy, and less than a decade later the French Revolution took place. Democracy spreads. Set up a stable democracy in that volatile region, and it will spread. Thats how we beat our enemies, with freedom and enlightenment. And thats what we are doing there. And guess what, its already working! Because we have terrorists from Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, etc...trying to stop the progress in Iraq.

As for negotiations....Im sorry, but thats just ridiculous. These people are inhuman. They have beheaded more than one Westerner, and videotaped it over the internet. They are worse than animals. How do you negotiate with people who have no souls? People who want to destroy you? People who have stated that their mission is "death". Their is no such thing as negotiating with monsters like that. You meet them halfway, there is nothing to stop them from turning around and doing it again, and worse.

Nonaction during the 1990s and the Clinton Administration didnt protect us from 9/11. So there is absolutely no way to believe that it would protect us now. I said it before, and Ill say it again. The best defense is a good offense. I would rather take the fight to them. Make them run, then sit back and wait for another attack.

[OTH man]

as for them attacking Chicago- it is actually one of the nations top targets bcuz of the Sears Tower so very possible but if they do... id be pissed and probabally in tears :(

[Centerfinn]

I think we should negotiate with terrorists but my opinion doesent really mather

[Ashlyn]

Yes, we havent captured Osama yet. But that doesnt mean that we're not hunting for him, and that we wont find him.

Of course we're still hunting for him, but you can't act like we haven't been completely failing in finding him thus far. We SHOULD have found him by now. The fact that he has not been captured is insexcusable.

America is the Superpower. It has more than enough resources to fight the war in Iraq, while focusing other resources on a covert war, with one very specific agenda. Capturing Bin Laden.

Okay, so we have the resources despite the fact that we're bombing in Iraq. That doesn't change the fact that we haven't found him. Maybe the fact that we're in Iraq has contributed to that or maybe it hasn't, you can't really prove one way or another.

As for why we're in Iraq? Its simple. Democracy is contagious. Look at our history. We became a democracy, and less than a decade later the French Revolution took place. Democracy spreads. Set up a stable democracy in that volatile region, and it will spread. Thats how we beat our enemies, with freedom and enlightenment.

Freedom and englightenment hardly comes from a deathly military occupation. I'm definately on board for helping and supporting countries who want a democracy, but this is not the way to do it. Also, the difference in the French Revolution was that they did it themselves, and rebelled, and then we supported them. America should step in to help countries willing to fight for their own independence and democracy, but us installing one will never hold up.

As for negotiations....Im sorry, but thats just ridiculous. These people are inhuman. They have beheaded more than one Westerner, and videotaped it over the internet. They are worse than animals. How do you negotiate with people who have no souls?

People who have no souls, really? Doesn't that COMPLETELY go against the entire Christian religon?

and, Centerfinn, your opinion matters just as much as anybody else here.

If we do not negotiate in someway, we will be in war for the rest of the history of the earth. I am not willing to do that. It's a silly waste of life.

[Faith]

I think we should negotiate with terrorists but my opinion doesent really mather


Dont be afraid to speak your mind :)

The convos here always get pretty heated and its easy to feel like its personal, but its not... everyone is just very passionate about their views :)

[Centerfinn]

Yeah well okay:)

[*gwen*~*grover*]

yeah, it gets personal very fast, but its all good :lol: plus, if people dont speak, we'll just be arguing with ourselves :lol:

yeah, so im not going to repeat all of what Eyeshine said (who i assumed was liberal... :drunk: :lol: )

first, yes america is a superpower, but as to having all the resources to fight the war... we are trillions of dollers in debt and our troops do not have adequate supplies... just saying :drunk:

peace in the middle east, spreading democracy there, is much harder and different that spreading 'enlightenment' to france... france is a contained nation... the middle east on the other hand, politics are too involved throughout every country. religious barriers are different than the land barriors, and the different religious groups will constantly be fighting... the point being that there is no way to 'spread democracy' without restructuring the entire area... which seems impossible, as every different religious group is fighting over land, probably the same land... and restructuring the entire middle east anyway would be no easy task...
i mean, i already expresses my concerns about the troops in iraq and this war not being able to be won on the "we will win the war on terror" thread...

im not defending clinton and his policies... but if i remember correctly, there was a report given to bush before 9/11 talking about terrorist attacks having to do with flying planes into buildings... which was never read... do i want to sit and wait for another attack? no. is an offence good? yes. just give me someone who i can trust in protecting the country...

and organizations like al-quaeda are very often on the run... yet they have shown that they can operate like this anyway...
and this is an honest question... bc i dont actually know the answer... but if bin ladin is captured... how much of a difference does that actually make? would the organization completely fall apart therefore destroying it (for some time at least)... or would it continue to run under someone else?...

yeah, thats all i can think of right now (the, um, "soul" issue im not going to address, bc thats another problem for me entirely...)

[Summer_Roberts2]

Nonaction during the 1990s and the Clinton Administration didnt protect us from 9/11. So there is absolutely no way to believe that it would protect us now. I said it before, and Ill say it again. The best defense is a good offense. I would rather take the fight to them. Make them run, then sit back and wait for another attack.

I agree. Terrorists are never going to stop hating the United States. Even if we negotiate with them, they are still going to keep attacking our country. We have to keep fighting them.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

but, i mean, this is not a conventional war... were not fighting a country or one group of people... were fighting a sporatic grouping of people who are hiding from us... yes, id rather them be in hiding, but they are still fully capable of executing terrorist attacks... this is not a few nitwits who are hiding in someone's attic, it a worldwide organization that is oerfectly capable of threatening the united states... then again, maybe im wrong and it is only one man that we need to get, and al-quaeda will fall apart.

there is also something to be said for the numbers of citizens killed in the persuit of "keeping them on the run"

there will always be terrorism in my opinion... someone isnt going to agree with your values, and will at least attempt to attack the source... i dont know how you can prevent it forever, so i say, how can we prevent it now... fighting has been going on for years, and al-quaeda is still strong, terrorism is still happening and i have no idea how its can be fixed...

[Noah]

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Luxembourg
5. Canada
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland

What does this list represent? The top 7 countries with the highest Human Development index. Sure, the US comes in at a modest 10th. The difference here however is that these countries all have a higher standard of living than the United States. Better education, better life expectancy and a better quality of life. And with the exception of Canada, these countries are also non nuclear countries with no nuclear weapons programs.

So, these 7 countries who do not wage wars or take a neoimperialist position on foreign policy don't have to deal with threats from Osama Bin Laden, and terrorist attacks, nor do they have a problem with being hated abroad or negotiating with other countries. I'd say, thus far, our reckless offencive strategy and irresponsible domestic and foreign policies are turning into one collosal mistake after another, and this administration doesn't seem the least bit interested in rectifying any of these mistakes.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

*shakes noah's hand for saying what i so tried to get out, yet in so many less words* :lol:

but now, since the united states has worked itself into this 'predicament', what can they do to get out of it...? thats where this argument comes in...

i mean, as much as i support that list, America is one of the world's superpowers, and therefore, the "string of mistakes" i guess can be traced back to WWI and further... like the conflicts in the middle east, i dont think it can all be blamed on one administration (oh, how i wish it could be though... :lol: )... while i feel that Bush has made many mistakes in executing post (and pre) terrorits attack plans and has done nothing to make the circumstances better, it cant all be blamed on him... however, a bunch of it (like destoying america's alliances with other countries) can...

[Noah]

obviously the many situations in the middle east can't be blamed on this administration or the United States at all. and, yes, the question is what is this administration doing to rectify their mistakes and, perhaps, build a road towards creating solutions to the problems we face today.

like for instance creating alternative sources for energy and fuel to end our dependence on foreign oil?? Of course, this is a silly question. Because if we weren't dependent on oil then that would pretty much completely eliminate Dick Cheney and the Bush crime family because their power would cease to be. but, alas, there is nothing we can do but be held hostage for the next couple of years...

[Heather]

like for instance creating alternative sources for energy and fuel to end our dependence on foreign oil?? Of course, this is a silly question. Because if we weren't dependent on oil then that would pretty much completely eliminate Dick Cheney and the Bush crime family because their power would cease to be. but, alas, there is nothing we can do but be held hostage for the next couple of years...
Last time I checked it wasnt Cheney OR Bush stopping us from using the untapped oil resources we have domestically, but rather the liberals.

[Noah]

alternative sources of energry, meaning not oil.

[Quinton]

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Luxembourg
5. Canada
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland

What does this list represent? The top 7 countries with the highest Human Development index. Sure, the US comes in at a modest 10th. The difference here however is that these countries all have a higher standard of living than the United States. Better education, better life expectancy and a better quality of life. And with the exception of Canada, these countries are also non nuclear countries with no nuclear weapons programs.Just took a look at the list, Luxembourg jumped 11 places to #4 this time around. That's awesome stuff! I also thought the Netherlands would be a little higher based on what I've heard about the place.

As far as Bin Laden's message... I'm on the fence with this one. A chance for peace is a chance that should be taken but then again he is a terrorist and I would be against trusting someone like him.

[Noah]

I've heard wonderful things about The Netherlands, but then on the other side I've heard that with their lax drug laws there is a lot of drug abuse and people who are in really sad shape because of drugs. They fell seven places down to no. 12 so I don't know what's going on there.

I'm definitely with Q on the fact that a chance for peace is definitely something to be explored. Firstly, regardless of what administration is in charge of the executive branch, I wouldn't expect a president to agree to Bin Laden's terms and simply remove all American troops and influence from the 'Holy Lands'. Then you have the fact that Bin Laden is the head of one fringe group - a very dangerous group, indeed - but just one small group of people that in the big scheme of things really have no pull in the Middle East and the Muslim world.

Right now the United States (and the world) has a much bigger fish to fry with Iran's nuclear policy. What I'm pissed off about is the fact that Bush and his administration vowed to the American people that they would "bring those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice" and they would "leave no stone unturned" until they did. Needless to say they have lied to and failed the American people, as it has become quite evident that the Bush administration isn't the least bit concerned with Bin Laden.

If the United States is going to take the policy that "we do not negotiate with terrorists" and that no American person will be harmed in this country, or abroad and if so those responsible will be brought to justice with extreme prejudice then I expect a HELL of a lot more from this administration. If they are going to talk the big talk then I expect them to walk the walk. The response to the 9/11 attacks should have been swift and devastating. Instead this administration has pussy-footed around and involved us into an impossible conflict that has NOTHING to do with 9/11.

If Bush wants to talk like a gun-totin' cowboy then I expect some action. I'll take a phrase from Jed Bartlet here and say that we should have blown Bin Laden and the terrorists off the face of the earth with the fury of God's own thunder. But we didn't. Thousands of Americans are dead... nearly 30,000 Iraqis have died, and Bin Laden is still able to make videos and get them played on Al Jazeera, so the Bush administration has failed- miserably.

[Heather]

Jed Bartlett? Tell me you are joking?

And what exactly is Bush supposed to do about Hamas? Id be interested to know your take on that one.

[Noah]

Jed Bartlett - oh, I'm dead serious.

Hamas; well, hmm. The Palestinians elect a terrorist organization to take over parliament in a fairly overwhelming majority. In the days after the election I heard many interviews with representatives from Hamas and in basically every interview I hear a journalist ask whether or not Hamas is going to denouce violence. And every response is "well... blah blah blah, Hamas is commited to peace, and purity and ending corruption in the Palestinian Government" but none of them simply say "yes, Hamas is abandoning violence and denouncing those who use violence in order to advance their message".

A year or so ago I visited hamasonline.org, and what I saw was pretty scary, and it seemed that the message of Hamas was pretty straight-forward. After the election, I tried to go back to visit the site and it was no longer there. It seems the mainpage has been taken down but other pages are still online. But, when I hear that Hamas won the election, I immediately remember pictures of guys wearing masks, posing with AK's and big graphics with explosions and dedications to people who have died and all of that.

I find it hard to believe that Hamas is going to abandon violence and work to create peace in the region. I don't know what the EU and the US are supposed to do about this. Right now all they are doing is waiting to see just where Hamas stands, and just see what happens. It's definitely unpleasent to think what could happen.

Of course, I'd personally like to see Hamas abandon violence and commit themselves to peace with Israel, and for the EU and the US to work with them and the Israelis create stability in the area. With Hamas being elected, tho, it seems that the Palestinians have only dug the hole about a hundred meters deeper and now we're that much further to some sort of solution.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

ok ^^that

not that this really has anything to do with this, i just wanted to say that 13 members of al quaeda escaped from prision... so...