He appeared that America negotiates with the Al

He appeared that America negotiates with the Al-Qaeda ؟

She was a group then it became movement, then what soon to an international power became mobilizing for it the armies, and it holds from its sake the sittings, and takes by its respect the decisions and for it the research centers and the studies arise .

Its side fears
But and she requests from it the truce
It is the jihad base

To Allah a level O Osama
No breaking up Vuk O doctor Ayman
Allah fixed you O the age friend Mullah Mohammed Omar
The God's prohibitions the supporters and the emigrants

Los Angeles Times it spread an article in 19 September 2005 by an address :

Is Al Qaeda asking to negotiate?
" Does the Al-Qaeda request the negotiation "
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/ la-oe-zerkin19sep19,0,400520.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

The essayist Alien G Zirkin is researcher colleague in the center of the preparation for the confrontation of the disasters - New York university, and a part-time professor in Wagner school of the postgraduate studies in the public service by the same university .

As is the habit of many of the West book then after it finishes the reading of the article it will find that the topic he " the negotiation with the Al-Qaeda becomes necessary for us "

Anyway then the writer who participates in the American decision making, and the newspaper " Los Angeles Times " one of the strongest the instruments of the formation of the American public opinion .

=the translation =

The plan has failed ( أ ) for the war on the terrorism, but it listened well, Qqd there is a practical plan ( by ) by the political dealing

Not he becomes clear to America and her allies now that they can will not eradicate of the rule, or they secure us from its attacks on us in our countries once again ؟ as the British in July recognized that London attacks was Matta's issue they do it and it is not an issue what if they did it, and he it is certain that the terrorists will not triumph in this war, and we also will not triumph in it .

The severest risks are serious he that the Al-Qaeda - he reached the time or a palace - it will be able to attack on us by biological weapons or a nuclear, and is not only by the ordinary explosives that it exploded in London and in Madrid or by suicide bombs with the horrible influence as the one that they explode in Iraq in the last days . And in the same time the strategy with distant time will be for the gain of hearts and the Islamic world minds - through the democracy and the popular diplomacy and the improvement of the economy - it is not except offering few very in a very late time . And until assuming that we are Istatna the gain of some minds and the hearts, that will not affect rushing new fighters to the Al-Qaeda lines every day and especially in the Sunni areas that our forces are centered in .

Do we have a plan ( by ) an alternative ؟

The recorded message is from Ayman Zawahiri - the second man in the Al-Qaeda network - and that announced 4 August for our recall by that possible a kind of the political dealing .

Not reasonable ؟

In its message Al-Zawahiri pointed to the presentation of the truce that Osama bin Laden offered to any European country " I promises the abstention from the attack of the Muslims or the intervention in their affairs ", and the European governments have hurried into the refusal of the presentation

Why؟

At first because the West believes that there is not what the negotiation on it is possible concerning the Al-Qaeda, and that the terrorists works she is nothing but a foolish violence - and this what means that there is not what the negotiation is possible on it - or that these works are part of a plan for the destruction of our life way - and this also the negotiation is not possible on it - as Scott Mcclellan the spokesman of the White House said : " the terrorists will take any pretext for doing wicked attacks on a people free " .

And from the dominant beliefs also at us that the truce is impossible because bin Laden and his partners will not abide by what say, Colin Powell the former Foreign Minister has said : " how do we hold an agreement with a terrorist ? " and in the end even if he was in the possibility that we hold an agreement with the Al-Qaeda then we should not carry out that - since the dealing with the terrorists encourages them .

The time has come that we repeat the view in this logic .

Do I have the rule targets not negotiable ؟ Al-Zawahiri said : " no rescue of you until you withdraw from our countries, and if you abstain from the theft of our oil and our wealths, and that you end your support of our referees the bad unbelievers " ... Some argues that this is a primary list of the demands - and that the true target is the imposition of the Islam on the West " .

To be that .
But what she is the substitutes ؟

The Al-Qaeda program is what it says its leaders repeatedly : the eradication of the military presence of the West is in the Muslims countries, and the stop of the unconditioned support of Israel, and the end about the support of the bad regimes of the rule in the Middle East " . And in this context, most Muslims scientists say that the jihad is a defense principle, and that the attacks that are launched on us annul their understanding that they are a retaliation for supposed violations, and that the Al-Qaeda program - that remained stable since 1996 - it is a must from its taking literally .

But do it is possible holding a deal with the terrorists ؟
The British in the end held a deal with the Irish Republican Army, and the French with the national Liberation Front and since few months the news reported that officers Americans negotiated with rebellion leaders in Iraq .

As for what relates to the principle of the negotiation with the terrorists, there are matters worthy of the consideration : it when an authoritative government neglects ends with complaints, these parties most probably resort to the violence, but the authoritative government fears if she negotiated with them that it bestows a legitimacy on their tactics, at that time it keeps the complaints and the violence continues . They called us that remember the American colonies citizens and George The “rd ( their time Britain king ) or the Zionists the toppers and Britain .

The time lengthened or became short that will find ourselves without a choice but we request a truce from the Al-Qaeda whatever that was bitter for us, and the waiting until the number of the dead become proud from the Americans - and the Europeans and the Egyptians and the Saudis and the Iraqis - it leads only to the weakness of our situation because it will become clear that the plan ( أ ) it has failed and that we became desperate .

Do this be considered a naive ؟
To you this : in the wake of the terrorist attack in Bislan not is other than the view of the new governors Richard Baebs that Nadi Al Rousi Vladimir Putin that it negotiates with the terrorists on the independence of Chechnya, based on the conflict for it historical roots - it means that there are true complaints - and based on that the Chechens have " they resorted to the terrorism to the achievement of a limited target and he is the independence of Chechnya and not to the destruction of Russia " .
Then Baebs tried that he differentiates between the Russian situation and between " the American war with the Al-Qaeda ", confirmed that the last situation is not negotiable because he - contrary to the Chechen situation - " he is not aroused and have not specific targets, but the rule is part of an attack general to the Islamic extremists the destruction of the civilizations that are not Islamic aims .

But the Al-Qaeda certainly feels that it is aroused, then blew that it was proved that its targets are specific therefore, Baebs's advice to Putin is applicable to us .

Some of them he argues that we must change the policies that the Al-Qaeda Tstdghb, and I argue them that it if this happened, we risk the impossibility of getting on the peace that seeks it, since we by this have lost the power of our negotiation site .

What I offer is not here a suggestion that we hold direct negotiations with the Al-Qaeda, or that we stop the pursuit of these who commit terrorist acts and who help them, but through back channels it is possible that we make sure that bin Laden will draw his fatwa against America against the change of some policies, or if the rule was on the readiness for a less acceptance from the maximum to their requests, and if the most rushing followers will abide by the truce .

There are evidences that the affirmation is the answer to all these questions, but they are not final, but being the price is expensive Ales it is useful that we make sure .