English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I suppose we could stop supporting Isreal, if Al Qaeda promises to stop attacking us. Its better for Al Qaeda to attack Isreal than us, right?

I suppose we could give Al Qaeda weopons, if they promise not to use them of course. We can trust them, right?

We could "admit" everything is our fault, assuming Al Qaeda promises not to attack us.

It's always better to negotiate, right?

2007-09-16 01:32:09 · 33 answers · asked by kimmyisahotbabe 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Sillyworld, it sounds like you DO want to negotiate with Al Qaeda. What concessions could we make to them? Any idea (other than "Bush bad")?

2007-09-16 01:47:17 · update #1

Ken, they could promise not to cut off any more heads, or kill innocent people. Wouldn't that be good?

2007-09-16 01:48:18 · update #2

33 answers

Of course we should negotiate with them. We should ask them if they want to be hung or have their head cut off when we catch them.

2007-09-16 02:25:27 · answer #1 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 3 0

What Meth are you taking?????
Isreal? Al Qaeda's fight HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISREAL. Bin Ladden's Orignal beef is with the Saudi Royal Family, our support & at the time troops based there.
Give them Weapons???? You are on Meth or maybe just Cindy Shehan!!!!!

Our fault?? WTF????

Babe, you may want a Burka and some nee pads. But I like Freedom & Bacon too much. So, The day I "trust", " Talk", "Negotiate" to Al
Qaeda is the day at the firing squad line. They can "Negotiate" for the blindfold & cigs before I shoot them!!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-09-16 02:13:05 · answer #2 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 2 0

After 9/11 the President should have followed up on his warnings about harboring terrorism. He did not. It was all talk. We should ahve invaded Pakistan at the same time we invaded Afghanistan. Hussein would have seen this and **** himself. Pakistani leaders are too weak to keep terrorism at bay in their own country. We could also employ old soviet tactics in fighting terrorism. Let's publicly cut some of the heads of their family members off and post it on the internet. Fight fire with fire. Just use a bigger fire that burns longer.

2007-09-16 02:59:48 · answer #3 · answered by david m 5 · 1 0

You have given good reasons for NOT negotiating with
AlQaeda. They want US dead and cannot be trusted. Their
own citizens are even under attack. They can't be safe
in schools, libraries, the market place, or even in the
streets. That's why they called on our help. Everyone
calls on US when they need help. We could give them
everything they want during negotiations (money, weapons,
promise to worship Allah, citizenship in America, power
in the United Nations, social security, free schooling in
America, tax-free living, new car every year, estates in
numerous states, passes for every sport or entertainment
occasion; and I still would not trust them as sooner or later
they would mow US down as that is their only goal.

2007-09-16 01:42:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

The only concession we should make with Al Qaeda is that we would provide them with a quick and merciful death in exchange for their surrender.

Jack

2007-09-16 02:31:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

You do understand that "nemesis" is defined as somebody's worsts enemy, do no longer you? you need to exchange your call. Calling people names and accusing them of nonsense merely to get an echo from somebody who already agrees with you isn't an extremely helpful try against tactic. We help Muslims merely the way we help Christians. We have self belief they have the superb to exist and to have self belief what they choose, as long as that would not contain killing individuals. We despise the terrorists of 9/'11 merely as much as we do Scott Roeder, a Christian who killed somebody because of the fact he disagreed together with his ideals. We additionally understand that Muslims have been living right here for over a century and brought about no issues in any respect. We understand the version between a non secular individual and a individual who makes use of a faith as an excuse to exert their very own potential over somebody else. appreciate your echoes, yet understand that the commencing place of Nemesis, a god from Greek mythology, became the god who punished people for hubris.

2016-11-15 09:02:10 · answer #6 · answered by gjokaj 4 · 0 0

No, but we should talk more to legitimate coutries (like Iran ans Syria) that might harbor them. Skilled diplomats should be able to convince them it is in their interest to expel al Qaeda. Eventually they will have no safe place to go.

The current policy of not talking to these courties is making safe havens for them and we can invade everyone.

2007-09-16 01:53:03 · answer #7 · answered by arvis3 4 · 2 0

i seem to remember it all going down at the time. it (the war with Binladins follower's and believer's) all related too the Iraq war of the early 90's, and the left-over troops that stayed on the holy land in Saudi Arabia. so perhaps a withdrawal of troops from the holy land's, for this whole question only united in a cause when this occurrence happened.

2007-09-16 01:46:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

We do not EVER negotiate with terrorists.

They kill thousands of americans, so we give them something they want?! Why wouldn't they say to themselves 'man that 9/11 thing worked pretty well, they gave us what we asked for. Why not kill a MILLION americans now? I bet we can ger EVERYTHING we want.'

You don't try to bargain with the bully in the school yard. You punch him in his damn fool nose.

P.S. We've given Osama Bin Ladin weapons before... we are still missing a few buildings in NY.

2007-09-16 01:52:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

You can't negotiate with them because they are a diffuse group made up of many diferent factions all over the globe. To be honest the name gets over played because politicians like us to think they are all one group. The only thing these idiots have in common is to kill people even at the expense of their own sorry lives.

2007-09-16 01:37:07 · answer #10 · answered by h b 4 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers