This should get some blood boiling.

And before you jump all over me I am not pro Al Qaeda, I do not Hate America, and I believe they are terrorists. That said:

Sooner not later, Al Qaeda, or some front group representing it will participate in some kind of peace conference.

I make this prediction because it has enormous historic precedent. The communists began as terrorists. So did the Zionists, the IRA, and the PLO. Some would say all these groups are still terrorists.

The collapse of Saudi Arabia is coming, and when that happens there is going to be a power vacuum. bin Laden (and his family) wield enormous power in that country, and with its huge oil reserves, that is quite a large pie.

The only way the US and the West (not to mention the emerging markets in China and India) will be able to continue to feed at this trough is if the area remains relatively peaceful. This will mean making some kind of deal with these zealots which has to do with us putting our people a little farther away from Mecca. Obviously they will have to lay down their arms and make other concessions, but the bottom line is right out of the Godfather. This isn't personal, it's business.

Comments?

Al-Qaeda does not use the negotiating methods the West became very fond of implementing in the begining of the 1900's. You are very misinformed and will most likely be wrong in every one of your predictions for the future.

Al Qaida is the definition of terrorism and war. Ridiculous.

What is the matter? Slow day at the office?

No parking tickets to fix, no wills to write?

The Jackson saga is over, feeling depressed?

Okay, everyone picked something out but where did you get this?

Okay, everyone picked something out but where did you get this? [/b][/quote]The Star Mag I bet.

Okay, everyone picked something out but where did you get this? [/b][/quote]Where did I get this? Good Lord, don't you people read? You need to start reading publications like the Economist & the NY Times, and stop watching Faux. For Starters go to Google or Yahoo or someplace and type in Saudi Arabia Future.

Okay, everyone picked something out but where did you get this? [/b][/quote]Where did I get this? Good Lord, don't you people read? You need to start reading publications like the Economist & the NY Times, and stop watching Faux. For Starters go to Google or Yahoo or someplace and type in Saudi Arabia Future. [/b][/quote]:rolleyes: Be easy. That was a normal question, I didnt find this article either.

:rolleyes:

Well, maybe people who write articles need to go back and check their sources again. At least I live in this part of the world. Royal family might have a problem but whoever take over (if such a thing happens in the first place) wouldn't be any kinder, in fact, it might even get worse.

Present Royal family of SA wouldn't put up with any Wahhabi who are actually memebers of Al-Qaeda.

The last part of your post being the reason Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan in the first place.

How are you, af? <3

I'm doing just fine! Actually just fixing to go to bed. I hope you are doing great as well! See you around!

Maybe these terror bastards know they have no chance to win against the USA and they want to weasel out of a fight they started. Not that easy! The USA will hunt each of them down and put an end to them all.

DS

last time i checked the terrorists were kicking the crap out of the allied nations.

Ouch! No my friend I believe that the Allies are doing a very good job. Where are the Canadian troops?

DS

in afghanistan's, picking up where you guys left off

i recently read a report saying that the allied troops have lost hundreds of more soldiers then the rebels.

well considering there are 100,000's of more troops than rebels that doesn't surprise me. That doesn't mean they are winning.

I believe we are still there my friend. Going after the bastards that attacked our country.

DS

Don T clearly states Al Qaeda OR some other front group. SO he is not totally wrong. While I don't believe that Al Qaeda themselves will ever agree to sit down and work towards peace, I do agree with Don T that sooner or later some group or government with ties to them will sit down to work towards some sort of peace.

So while Don T may be a bit off in saying Al Qaeda themselves will sit across a table, he is not that far off in saying that someone representing them will.

The reason that I agree with Don T that some front group, (which I happen to feel will be one of the governments in the middle east), will eventually sit down to work towards peace is because their decision to do so will be a direct result of our eventual success in helping to liberate Iraq.

Sooner or later these terrorist supporting governments will see that their own people will begin to thirst for the same freedoms that the Iraqi's were able to acheive with the help of the free world. This will scare these governments and rather than take on the free world, they will seek to negotiate and work towards democracizing their own countries without a military conflict.

So Don T is not really off in his prediction. When history eventually shows us that the Bush plan to democracize the Iraqi people was a successful plan, then Don T's prediction will probably come true.


Don Cardi

I do not see anyone associated with Al Qaeda sitting down with the Us or any other nation to try to bring about peace. People like Bin Laden are EVIL and want nothing to do with peace. All they want is to kill anyone who does not agree with their views about Islam.

DS

Well put, DS. Al Qaeda truly wanting peace? As we say down South, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'!"

I don't see Al Qaeda themselves wanting peace either. But I do see the governments that support or harbor terrorists eventually realizing that they will get their clocks cleaned if they continue their practice of supporting terrorism. This is what will make the governments themselves decide that it's time to make the peace.


Don Cardi

Much like President Bush did when Arafat was in control of Palestine, he will never meet with Al Qaeda because they are terrorists. First of all, they have no sanctioned, sovereign power. The other groups you've mentioned oftentimes also deny being terrorists (the PLO for example), while I think that it is pretty universal that Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist group. And lastly - what bargaining power do they have? No, they will never come to a peace conference, because it's not in their character, and it represents everything they are against - organized power that is beyond their control, something they cannot manipulate through fear and confusion.

Well yeah, but they have a warped view of peace anyway... remember after 9/11, they kept claiming over and over that their's is a religion of peace? :rolleyes: I think they still claim that, actually.

Hell, if that's peace though, they can keep it.

I don't know if Al Qaeda will make peace or not, but your statement on historic precedent is right. In Sri Lanka, terrorist organization called LTTE was fighting the government for several decades. Every other day there would be bomb blasts and assasinations. They even killed one of the former prime ministers of India. But today the government has reluctantly made peace with them. A signinficant region of Sri Lanka is "ruled" by LTTE. They have their own army, schools, public food distribution, radio etc. But the peace is only conditional and outward, with all their international peace conferences, ceasefires etc in the presence of mediating european countries. We have to wait and watch what Al Qaeda does.

Exactly my point SV. I doubt it will be Osama bin Laden, but it will be the equivalent of what Gerry Adams is to the IRA.

Yes, but also, look at Hamas and Arafat. He was only legitimate when the US payed attention to him during the Clinton administration. After GW took office, he refused to acknowledge him, and he was basically a hermit in that complex until he died, with no negotiating power until after he died and was replaced with someone willing to negotiate with the Israelis.

Good point Double J. Bush saw him for what he really was.... A TERRORIST!


DS

Actually Double J, the US dealt with Arafat from the Carter Administration forward. What happened at the very end of the Clinton administration was that Arafat broke his word to Clinton (as he had to so many others in the past) because the truth of it is he never really wanted to run a Palestinian state. There is a great story that during the last conversation between Clinton and Arafat, Arafat told Clinton he was a "great man," and Clinton shot back something to the effect that he might have been a great man if Arafat wasn't such a lying son of a bitch. Bush was absolutely right not to have anything to do with Arafat because he was a total liar, and it was a waste of time to try to make any deals with him because he always renegged.

I have spent some time in the Middle East and have met a number of Palestinians, many of whom said that Arafat was nothing more than a thug. He made a lot of his own people pay him "protection money," and when crimes were committed or whatever he always encouraged people not to go to the police, but to have him "fix" things.

It has been widely reported that the cause of his death was poisoning, and there is reason to believe he was poisoned by his own people, who have had enough of his crap.