The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3627775.stm[/URL]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3627775.stm
I'm surprised to see nobody else had anything to say about this.
Undoubtedly a ploy to divide the west on Iraq (in particular it didn't extend to the US) and such interventions, and predictably European leaders have all rejected the 'offer'.
However, I doubt it's aimed at politicians so much as civilians, a possible escape from the fear of terrorism, it must look pretty tempting.
That is if they trust Al-Qaeda to be good to their word of course.
The timing is interesting: The 3 month deadline takes us just past the June 30th deadline for the hand-over of sovereignty to Iraq. Although it was planned to keep troops in Iraq for longer than that, it would be a neat way for states to tie up their loose ends and leave the remaining work to the US.
If Al-Qaeda are active in Iraq though, perhaps they see the time following the hand-over as their best opportunity to take control?
There would certainly be an instantly diminished resolve of the coalition forces (and policy makes), since Iraq would officially, not be their responsibility in the same way.
Meanwhile this would be the time when Iraq's own powers would be at their weakest, and the appointed government would have little more claim to legitimate rule than any group who sought to displace them.
But are Al-Qaeda involved in Iraq? Or is this just opportunism, using the negative feeling in western electorates that was created in Iraq to serve a different agenda?
There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that AQ are involved, and the media are now making Shia extremists into the new bad guys, but surely AQ would be missing a huge opportunity for their own development if they didn't get involved somehow?
On a more optomistic note, perhaps this stunt could open lines for some sort of communication, even negotiation, between AQ and the west.
That still looks like a long shot, and Bin Laden certainly doesn't seem to have warmed to the US at all lately. But just maybe...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3627775.stm
I'm surprised to see nobody else had anything to say about this.
Undoubtedly a ploy to divide the west on Iraq (in particular it didn't extend to the US) and such interventions, and predictably European leaders have all rejected the 'offer'.
However, I doubt it's aimed at politicians so much as civilians, a possible escape from the fear of terrorism, it must look pretty tempting.
That is if they trust Al-Qaeda to be good to their word of course.
The timing is interesting: The 3 month deadline takes us just past the June 30th deadline for the hand-over of sovereignty to Iraq. Although it was planned to keep troops in Iraq for longer than that, it would be a neat way for states to tie up their loose ends and leave the remaining work to the US.
If Al-Qaeda are active in Iraq though, perhaps they see the time following the hand-over as their best opportunity to take control?
There would certainly be an instantly diminished resolve of the coalition forces (and policy makes), since Iraq would officially, not be their responsibility in the same way.
Meanwhile this would be the time when Iraq's own powers would be at their weakest, and the appointed government would have little more claim to legitimate rule than any group who sought to displace them.
But are Al-Qaeda involved in Iraq? Or is this just opportunism, using the negative feeling in western electorates that was created in Iraq to serve a different agenda?
There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that AQ are involved, and the media are now making Shia extremists into the new bad guys, but surely AQ would be missing a huge opportunity for their own development if they didn't get involved somehow?
On a more optomistic note, perhaps this stunt could open lines for some sort of communication, even negotiation, between AQ and the west.
That still looks like a long shot, and Bin Laden certainly doesn't seem to have warmed to the US at all lately. But just maybe...
I think the west needs to learn to stick together.
Osama is trying divide and conquer.
Although I still think it was a shambles going into the war, it was a bad move for Spain to pull out. Now Osama knows he can get his way, he's going to try someone else.
I think that the coalition needs to start working WITH the Iraqi's instead of containing them, then we might get some positive results in Iraq rather than more guerulla attacks.
Osama is trying divide and conquer.
Although I still think it was a shambles going into the war, it was a bad move for Spain to pull out. Now Osama knows he can get his way, he's going to try someone else.
I think that the coalition needs to start working WITH the Iraqi's instead of containing them, then we might get some positive results in Iraq rather than more guerulla attacks.
Ha! Sheikh Yassin looks like Saruman.
Yes it occurred to me that no-one had mentioned it, a ploy or his plan to get what he wanted in the first place? al-quaida(sp) only attacked america because of it's interferance in the middle-east.
I'm not so sure i would have turned it down so quickly.
I'm not so sure i would have turned it down so quickly.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3627775.stm[/URL]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3627775.stm
I'm surprised to see nobody else had anything to say about this.
Undoubtedly a ploy to divide the west on Iraq (in particular it didn't extend to the US) and such interventions, and predictably European leaders have all rejected the 'offer'.
However, I doubt it's aimed at politicians so much as civilians, a possible escape from the fear of terrorism, it must look pretty tempting.
That is if they trust Al-Qaeda to be good to their word of course.
The timing is interesting: The 3 month deadline takes us just past the June 30th deadline for the hand-over of sovereignty to Iraq. Although it was planned to keep troops in Iraq for longer than that, it would be a neat way for states to tie up their loose ends and leave the remaining work to the US.
If Al-Qaeda are active in Iraq though, perhaps they see the time following the hand-over as their best opportunity to take control?
There would certainly be an instantly diminished resolve of the coalition forces (and policy makes), since Iraq would officially, not be their responsibility in the same way.
Meanwhile this would be the time when Iraq's own powers would be at their weakest, and the appointed government would have little more claim to legitimate rule than any group who sought to displace them.
But are Al-Qaeda involved in Iraq? Or is this just opportunism, using the negative feeling in western electorates that was created in Iraq to serve a different agenda?
There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that AQ are involved, and the media are now making Shia extremists into the new bad guys, but surely AQ would be missing a huge opportunity for their own development if they didn't get involved somehow?
On a more optomistic note, perhaps this stunt could open lines for some sort of communication, even negotiation, between AQ and the west.
That still looks like a long shot, and Bin Laden certainly doesn't seem to have warmed to the US at all lately. But just maybe...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3627775.stm
I'm surprised to see nobody else had anything to say about this.
Undoubtedly a ploy to divide the west on Iraq (in particular it didn't extend to the US) and such interventions, and predictably European leaders have all rejected the 'offer'.
However, I doubt it's aimed at politicians so much as civilians, a possible escape from the fear of terrorism, it must look pretty tempting.
That is if they trust Al-Qaeda to be good to their word of course.
The timing is interesting: The 3 month deadline takes us just past the June 30th deadline for the hand-over of sovereignty to Iraq. Although it was planned to keep troops in Iraq for longer than that, it would be a neat way for states to tie up their loose ends and leave the remaining work to the US.
If Al-Qaeda are active in Iraq though, perhaps they see the time following the hand-over as their best opportunity to take control?
There would certainly be an instantly diminished resolve of the coalition forces (and policy makes), since Iraq would officially, not be their responsibility in the same way.
Meanwhile this would be the time when Iraq's own powers would be at their weakest, and the appointed government would have little more claim to legitimate rule than any group who sought to displace them.
But are Al-Qaeda involved in Iraq? Or is this just opportunism, using the negative feeling in western electorates that was created in Iraq to serve a different agenda?
There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that AQ are involved, and the media are now making Shia extremists into the new bad guys, but surely AQ would be missing a huge opportunity for their own development if they didn't get involved somehow?
On a more optomistic note, perhaps this stunt could open lines for some sort of communication, even negotiation, between AQ and the west.
That still looks like a long shot, and Bin Laden certainly doesn't seem to have warmed to the US at all lately. But just maybe...