36 Comments

1. Shochu John:

So Let me get this striaght, OBL offers a truce on extremely favorable terms to him over four years after the world’s only superpower vowed to hunt him down. On top of that, if (when)we turn the truce down, he can say to the Muslim world that his demands are reasonable. All he wants is for the Americans to go home and leave Muslims alone. And this all shows he is losing? I want some of whatever Hitch is smoking.

Jan 24, 2006 - 1:04 pm 2. rjschwarz:

Historically followers of Islam only offer up truces to infidels when they need a time-out to regroup. They have a term for it but I don’t recall what it is off hand.

The mere offer of a truce is a sign of weakness that everyone in the Islamic world will recognize. When he’s openly aknowledging he’s the weak horse to the House of Islam, and depending upon western peaceniks to save his neck I think its fair to say he is losing.

Jan 24, 2006 - 1:32 pm 3. RogerA:

I think Hitchen’s laid out a pretty good case in the slate article and he didnt include all of the events going on in the Arab world. More significantly, I think that when we see OBL’s manifesto of five years ago and compare that to offering a “truce” now, I think Hitch has it right, and Sochu John doesnt–OBL is increasingly looking like the black night in the Monty Python movie. Its hell not being able to have a bowel movement for fear a predator drone is going to introduce you to a hellfire missile!

And I dont think Hitch’s problem is what he is smoking as much as what he drinks—

Jan 24, 2006 - 1:33 pm 4. RogerA:

I am going to assume readers know that I meant knight for night in my post above–but lest that not be the case……..

Jan 24, 2006 - 1:36 pm 5. Bostonian:

Shochu,

The word you need to learn is hudna.

***
“[The Hudna's] purpose is not that we lay down our arms, but that we join forces [to rebuild] and continue our struggle. It is not damaging; it is the ‘respite of the fighterÖ’”
[from http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP60803

***
For an example, go here: http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=bk801b
“If the Arab governments are truly interested in offering something genuine, that is the initiative they should espouse: A truce agreement (hudnah) in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from all areas occupied in 1967, the removal of all settlers from the West Bank and Gaza and the release of all Palestinian prisoners. Once the term of the hudnah approaches an end, it would be up to the generation living then to decide what to do: that is to renew it or resume the struggle for the liberation of the rest of Palestine. ”

***
A Muslim is FORBIDDEN from letting a hudna last longer than ten years at the most.

Go read up on it.

Jan 24, 2006 - 1:37 pm 6. Sandy P:

What was even better was his explaination that Islam forbids him to lie…..

Jan 24, 2006 - 2:26 pm 7. Shochu John:

rjschwartz, “The mere offer of a truce is a sign of weakness that everyone in the Islamic world will recognize.”

Well, technically speaking, al Qaeda has always been fighting from a position of weakness. It is, after all, an asymetric conflict. Demanding the giant go home as a precondition to them making peace, temporarily or not, does not signify that they are losing. If you notice, they are making demands as a precondition for peace, not concessions that would encourage their enemy to accept it.

Bostonian,
I apprecaite you adding the above to the discussion. I believe it bolsters my point nicely. As you cite, “[The Hudna's] purpose is not that we lay down our arms, but that we join forces [to rebuild] and continue our struggle. It is not damaging; it is the ‘respite of the fighterÖ’” What here would tell you that calling such a respite would signify they are losing?

Jan 24, 2006 - 2:28 pm 8. RogerA:

Sochu John: I think you are ignoring both tactical considerations and strategic considerations in your assertion that somehow al-quaeda is not “losing.”

Of course their foot soldiers continue to blow themselves up in Iraq–often with great loss of innocent life; and other foot soldiers continue to kill innocent people including innocent muslins–these are not tactics that resonate with Muslims generally. But more significantly, as Hitch and others have pointed out, the movement is certainly not embraced by every islamic government and has come under attack from within:viz the al zawhiri letter–they find themselves unable to even go into a safe house without a visit from a Predator that killed 4 or 5 key leaders–

While it might be romantic to think the OBL and al quaeda are not losing, looks like to me, its hard to lead the fight when you can’t put your head outside a cave. Rather like Ernesto Che Guevara finally dying an ignominious death in Bolivia while trying to lead a revolution there.

Jan 24, 2006 - 2:45 pm 9. Bostonian:

Shochu,
I’m not sure you’re quite paying attention.

The idea is that you convince your enemy to give you a break until YOU are ready to fight again. There is NO obligation to wait until your enemy is ALSO ready–nor is there any obligation to notify your enemy that the hudna is over.

It is a profoundly dishonest state of affairs.

The fact that “OBL” is asking for this tells us that Al Qaeda needs a break. Good. That’s where we want them.

Jan 24, 2006 - 2:47 pm 10. Ed Poinsett:

Sochu

If OBL weren’t losing, why would he be discussing a truce at all, even a false one. Does he think he is offering Bush a chance to get off the hook for Iraq and Afganistan? OBL is unimportant these days, his time in the sun was four years ago. He’s lost his training camps but the thousands of terrorists that Clinton let him train are all over the world and don’t need him for inspiration. The jihadis get all they need from their local mosques.

Jan 24, 2006 - 3:07 pm 11. WhatDoIKnow:

Hitchens says it clearly: Why are formerly triumphalist jihadists using the language of “truce” at all? Not very long ago, God was claimed to be on their side and victory certain. You don’t have to be a Hitchens to realize this, all one needs is common sense. Why in the world would bloodthirsty psychopaths offer “truce” to their hated enemy, the American Untermenschen ? Out of… generosity ? Did they suddenly get in touch with their inner child and crave for their lost innocence???

Let’s not forget that their idea of victory implies total defeat of the enemy. Best thing the defeated enemy could hope would be a life as valuable as that of house pets. Benevolent truce offers don’t really fit in this picture.

Isn’t it more than obvious that they are doing this because things aren’t going quite the way they envisioned (to put it mildly)? Far from being defeated, the islamists are today further away from their final victory over the Satan then they were several years ago. They know it and they don’t like it.

Does this fact really need to be “interpreted” by Schochus ? Well, ahm…. sure, they offered truce, but only because they feel they are, ahm…. winning. We can and should argue about the WOT, but this “truce” offer speaks of anything else but strength and confidence on the side of the terrorists. How deep must one fall not to be able to see this ? The depths of BushDerangamentSyndrom are indeed fathomless and scary.

Jan 24, 2006 - 3:08 pm 12. Sandy P:

Yemen has detained 19 people on suspicion of planning attacks against Westerners on the orders of the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a state-run Web site said on Tuesday. The September 26 site (www.26sep.net) quoted government sources as saying those held would be questioned before possibly standing trial for planning “sabotage and terrorist attacks” in the port of Aden.

Several members of the group had returned from Iraq after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi told them to go back to Yemen and carry out terrorist attacks, including killing American citizens,” the site quoted a source as saying….

Via Rantburg.

Jan 24, 2006 - 6:56 pm 13. Shochu John:

Ed says, “If OBL weren’t losing, why would he be discussing a truce at all, even a false one.”
WhatDoI says basically the same, but includes a barb, “We can and should argue about the WOT, but this “truce” offer speaks of anything else but strength and confidence on the side of the terrorists. How deep must one fall not to be able to see this ? The depths of BushDerangamentSyndrom are indeed fathomless and scary.”

Well, first of all, WhatDoI, you and Ed are the only ones that have even mentioned Bush in this entire conversation. Who’s deranged again?

Second, as far as this only losers discuss truces thing, you may be right IF there were not conditions. Imagine you are being sued. The plaintiffs offer to settle the case is exchange for your half of your posessions. Would you conclude they had a weak case because they were not taking it to trial? The same can be said here, OBL is offering a truce is exchange for MAJOR concessions. No concessions, no truce. Now we can debate where OBL’s cause is going. We can debate exactly how much value an OBL truce has. What simply does not wash is this suggestion that only people who are losing ask for truces, even with significant concessions. By that logic, every ceasefire proposed by a winner to end a war was done becuase they were losing.

Jan 24, 2006 - 8:29 pm 14. jonathan riley:

Shochu John,

i love this new jihadi strategy that you espouse: the west is full of infidel rats, and we holy warriors must rush them in the name of the most high and mighty allah, in order to WIN CONCESSIONS!

Jan 24, 2006 - 8:58 pm 15. klrfz1:

I think Tom Daschle (remember him?) did the Bush administration and Republicans a tremendous favor when he focused the Democrats attention on Osama bin Laden.

Link…

Now the Democrats always have to respond whenever bin Laden speaks. And their response is increasingly to give bin Laden whatever he wants. Yes, that’s going to help us trust the Democrats with national security.

The fact is bin Laden doesn’t have the power to make a truce on behalf of all of the world’s terrorists. The war on terror will never end as long as there is even one Democrat who is ready, willing and able to surrender. The Democrat desire to surrender encourages the terrorists to keep killing.

I too would like to mention George Bush. You know, President George W. Bush, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. I feel safer with him as president than any Democrat I know.

Jan 24, 2006 - 11:13 pm 16. Bostonian:

Shochu:

Put aside your Western notions for a bit, and go read up on the hudna.

While you’re at it, read about taqiyya.

Jan 25, 2006 - 6:13 am 17. Tom O'Bedlam:

All he wants is for the Americans to go home and leave Muslims alone.

All he wants is for the Americans to stop their troublesome interference in the plans of Muslims like himself for future terrorist attacks. You know — act like we did in the 1990s.

And this all shows he is losing?

It shows he wants a change in the status quo. If he thought the status quo were favorable to him, would he want to change it? Answer the question yourself. My take: you can quibble over words like “losing” as much as you want, but bluntly put — yeah, it shows he is losing. Or he thinks he is losing.

I want some of whatever Hitch is smoking.

You don’t need anything to smoke. Your perceptions are distorted enough.

Jan 25, 2006 - 7:38 am 18. byrd:

Sochu John: you’re not really paying attention to what these people are saying, are you?

No, they are not saying that the stronger force, on the verge of victory, is losing when it offers terms to the vanquished. What they are saying is that when someone in the midst of struggle asks for a timeout to catch his breath, he’s on the defensive and is losing.

Do you know anything of the history of war? The winning side would never make such a request.

Jan 25, 2006 - 8:03 am 19. waterdragon52:

Sochu John:

Hitchens’s points aside, what about the timing of the offer falling on the heels of

a) the US missile strike in Pakistan that reputedly took out four or five A-Q men, including a top bomb maker and one of Al-Zawahiri’s sons;

b) the news that Zarqawi’s technique for extracting support from Sunni tribesmen — killing any leaders who don’t kowtow to him — is backfiring to the extent that if they aren’t outright hunting down and killing the foreigners who killed one of their own, they are letting the Iraqi and Coalition forces get them; and

c) Zarqawi’s announcement that he’s sleeping with a bomb belt on… …suggests the fellow is a little worried about being captured, doesn’t it?

Jan 25, 2006 - 9:12 am 20. Shochu John:

Bostonian, the “hudna” concept does not actually help your point. Before you tell me to read up on it, perhaps you should read your own quotes, “It is not damaging; it is the ‘respite of the fighterÖ’” See, NOT damaging. Ergo you cannot read into it that they are losing, as that would indicate damage. While you may enjoy trying to beat me over the head with “hudna,” you may actually want to see if the concept actually supports your case. Also, let me re-iterate, he is demanding terms, which would suggest that what is at play here is not just a respite. If they will only take a respite if they are paid handsomely, does that suggest to you that they really need it?

Tom O’Bedlam, “All he wants is for the Americans to stop their troublesome interference in the plans of Muslims like himself for future terrorist attacks. You know — act like we did in the 1990s.”

You really have to appreciate the pure political hackery of ignoring the substance of an issue in favor of getting in petty digs at Clinton. Let’s get back on topic, what say? OBL has not been shy about why he is attacking the US, and it isn’t because he “hates our freedom” or some such jingo fodder. The underlying concept behind many of his ultimate demands as to the US is what he considers inappropriate interference in the Muslim world.

More Bedlam “It shows he wants a change in the status quo. If he thought the status quo were favorable to him, would he want to change it?”

Because he thinks his hand is strong enough to get hima far better deal than the status quo, which is why the two options he has left open are: 1. Fight on. 2. Enter into a truce but only if his steep price is met.

byrd, “No, they are not saying that the stronger force, on the verge of victory, is losing when it offers terms to the vanquished. What they are saying is that when someone in the midst of struggle asks for a timeout to catch his breath, he’s on the defensive and is losing”

He ISN’T simply asking for a timeout though. If that were it, there would not be terms. He is offering us terms favorable to him. Did the Nazis in May 1945 say they would continue hostilities unless the allies met their demands to withdraw into their own countries and leave the Reich alone? No. Because they were actually losing. The terms of the ceasefire are far more important in determining who has a better hand than who offers it first. If the terms are to simply stop fighting full stop, then your analysis of “I guess they need a break.” would make far more sense. That, however, is not the case here.

Waterdragon, to answer your points, I think you may be reading too much into relatively minor news. Being an al Qaeda operator is a high risk business. Peoplein that organization get killed with startling frequency. There are always more that seem willing to replace them, though. As for Zarqawi, I’ve been hearing that his techniques are alienating the locals for well over two years now. I’d hardly call such stories a new development. As for c, if true, it’s not surprising. Just because al Zarqawi’s managed to avoid getting bumped off so far doesn’t mean it he can avoid it forever, and when the time comes, you know he wants to go out with a bang.

I will add, as an aside, that al Qaeda is fragmented by nature. The strength in that is that it is very hard to kill. The weakness in that is it is very hard to lead. Even if OBL were possessed with the light of peace and called a truce unilaterally with no strings attached, folks like Zarqawi probably wouldn’t honor it. He had his own outfit before he affiliated with al Q and he could break off as easily as he joined up.

Jan 25, 2006 - 10:45 am 21. Bostonian:

Shochu,
Is your reading comprehension that bad?

RESPITE OF THE FIGHTER means that the fighting will resume again.

From wikipedia, which is not too bad on this point:

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi’i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: “if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud” (’Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

***
Historically, Muslims asked for hudna when they were in a weak position militarily, and they ended it just as soon as *they* felt like it.

It makes absolutely no sense to give the losing side a chance to regroup. I cannot imagine why you defend this.

The other point that I am trying to get across to you is that Islam forbids making permanent peace with non-believers. Get that through your head and you might be starting to understand what this war is about.

Jan 25, 2006 - 12:14 pm 22. Shochu John:

Bostonian,
Whether the fighting will resume again is not at issue. Whether permanent peace can be made with infidels is not at issue. Get that through you head. WE’RE NOT DISCUSSING IT HERE. The POINT AT ISSUE is whether making this offer is a sign that they are losing. I submit it is not for reasons I have outlined above in several different ways.

“It makes absolutely no sense to give the losing side a chance to regroup. I cannot imagine why you defend this.”

Show me where I defended this. Show me where I said it was a good idea to accpet OBL’s truce terms. You can’t because if you had been paying attention to a word I’ve written, you would know that’s not even what I’ve been talking about.

Is your reading comprehension that bad?

Jan 25, 2006 - 12:56 pm 23. klrfz1:

Sochu John to the world:

SHUT UP! YOU CAN’T DISCUSS THAT HERE!!! ONLY THE POINTS I WANT TO DISCUSS CAN BE DISCUSSED HERE!!!!!!!

You are just hilarious, SJ. So long and thanks for all the laughs.

Jan 25, 2006 - 3:42 pm 24. Bostonian:

Shochu, you said this:

“All he [OBL] wants is for the Americans to go home and leave Muslims alone. ”

I’m sorry if I am wrong, but you certainly seemed to be saying that his “requests” were in some sense reasonable; that’s typically implied by the “all he wants” construction.

***
As for what we are “really” talking about, you cannot meaningfully discuss this offer for hudna without understanding the tradition of hudna.

Certainly by disregarding history, you can make any sort of interesting argument. But it is a meaningless, empty argument with no relevance to today. As such I treated your comments.

Jan 25, 2006 - 3:47 pm 25. Shochu John:

klrfz,

You can discuss whatever you want. Just don’t pretend you are discussing it with me when you are addressing points I’ve not made.

What is it with people here? Do you actualy read what you are responding to?

Jan 25, 2006 - 3:47 pm 26. Shochu John:

Bostonian,

Put that quote of mine in context. I said, “On top of that, if (when)we turn the truce down, he can say to the Muslim world that his demands are reasonable. All he wants is for the Americans to go home and leave Muslims alone.”

As in, the “all he wants,” is in the context of the way he is presenting his position to the Muslim world.

You comments regarding the hudna were interesting, but did not actually buttress the Hitchens allegation that OBL thinks he is losing. As I laid out previously, your introduction of the concept further undermines Hitchens’ position.

If you think I have disregarded history in any way, I’d be happy to learn why. So far, nothing in the historical concept of hudna is at odds with an argument I’ve made here, despite this misperception that I somehow think its a good idea to enter any sort of agreement with Osama bin Laden.

Jan 25, 2006 - 3:57 pm 27. Bostonian:

Shochu:

Well, as for whether OBL is reasonable, I misunderstood your feelings. This happens.

Your overall argument is uncompelling because you suggest a kind of situation that has never occurred in history, let alone in the history of Islamic jihad.

Show us one, just ONE, incident in history where the winning side offered a truce like this.

You can’t. There are no such cases. It goes against human nature to act that way, and history shows that.

On the other hand, the history of fighting among or with Muslims is full of cases where the losing side proposed a hudna.

Jan 25, 2006 - 4:05 pm 28. Shochu John:

It is against human nature for a side that is winning to propose to end the conflict in exchange for a handsome sum? Odd, it happens in our nation’s justice system rather frequently. My law suit example wasn’t pulled out of thin air. That’s just not one example. That’s example after example happening day in and day out.

In any of those hudnas you bring up in which the losing side proposed the hudna, how many of them were offered ONLY IF singificant payment/concessions were made by the other side?

Jan 25, 2006 - 6:50 pm 29. PSGInfinity:

Shochu John,

The thread got so tangled that I had to go back and reread your opening [gambit]post.

Let me get this straight:

We give up Afghanistan and Iraq, throw 50 million people under the bus, permanently destroy our credibility, and render our [expensive, world's-best] military a laughingstock, in exchange for OBL promising to leave us alone?

Q: How often do people roll up a newspaper and try to beat some sense into you in real life?

Jan 25, 2006 - 9:21 pm 30. Shochu John:

Perhaps you should read more carefully, PSGI. If you did, you would not make asinine comments like the above. I never suggested entering into an agreement with OBL. In fact, I said this, “So far, nothing in the historical concept of hudna is at odds with an argument I’ve made here, despite this misperception that I somehow think its a good idea to enter any sort of agreement with Osama bin Laden.”

Look up “misperception” if you need to.

Jan 26, 2006 - 9:57 am 31. Bostonian:

It’s your theory, Shochu, and the burden of proof lies on you.

Cough up some historical precedents and we’ll talk.

Jan 26, 2006 - 10:12 am 32. Shochu John:

Well Bostonian, it would be true that the burden of proof would be on me if I thought that the historical concept of hudna were relevant to this particular case. That, however, is your assertion and not mine.

I will, however, take your dodge to mean you cannot cite any historical cases of a hudna which were conditional upon a high price being met. Seeing as you are the one who is asserting that the historical cocnept of hudna has some bearing on this case, the burden of proof is actually on you to prove this particular assertion. Lacking that, there is no reason to believe your entire historical examination of the hudna has any relevance to the deal offered by Osama bin Laden here. This leaves us with a pure and simple transaction that he is proposing and should be judged as such. Hitchens’ notion that it indicats weakness is fallacious given that OBL is presenting not an offer of peace, but rather an ultimatum that promises more bloodshed if his price is not met.

What in the concept of hudna suggests it can act as an ultimatum in this fashion? If there is nothing, then why is the concept applicable here? If the concept is not applicable, what sort of historical evidence would you suggest I cite?

Jan 26, 2006 - 10:54 am 33. Tom O'Bedlam:

…pure political hackery of ignoring the substance of an issue in favor of getting in petty digs at Clinton.”

Forget Clinton. Would it have made you happier if I had said, “act like we did in the 1980s and the 1990s”? The point is, failing to react to episodes of terrorism — and OBL is essentially proposing that we terminate our current response to 9-11 and its predecessors — was BAD POLICY then and it would be BAD POLICY now.

I was particularly concerned to make this point because I was mind-blown by all the implications built into your claim that all we have to do is “leave Muslims alone.”
Given that the virtually the entire Muslim world, wherever it exists (outside, perhaps, of Mecca and Medina) exists by virtue of conquest on the part of Muslims — and rightly so, in the opinion of Islamist extremists like OBL — its risible to suggest that OBL’s version of “inappropriate interference” in other countries or civilizations amounts to anything other than a self-interested double standard in favor of Muslims.

Now, maybe I’m misreading you. Perhaps all you were doing was channelling OBL, paraphrasing what you took to be his view. If so, apologies.

Jan 26, 2006 - 3:03 pm 34. Bostonian:

Shochu,

You’re the contrarian who showed up here with an utterly unconvincing theory.

You shouldn’t be surprised when you then fail to convince anyone.

Jan 26, 2006 - 3:53 pm 35. Shochu John:

O’Bedlam, http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/01/the_good_hitch.php#c73606

Bostonian,
Well, I enjoyed the discussion up until you tried to apply your argument to undermine my point, failed, and then said my argument was unconvicing because it did not fit into the paradigm that you asserted applied. People who try such rhetorical stunts tend to be unconvincable.

Have a good day, all.

Jan 26, 2006 - 4:56 pm 36. klrfz1:

Paradigm? Isn’t that one of the words dumb people use to sound smart?

Jan 26, 2006 - 5:25 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: