I do agree with most of the GUARDIAN's leader: In the shadow of Bin Laden


This will not be to be treated as a genuine truce offer, for it would provide al-Qaida with the time, space and place to resume planning a renewed terror campaign. There is, though, a political claim in this message that cannot be completely disregarded, designed to play into a naïve belief in some parts of the west that negotiations with Bin Laden may offer a way out of the terror and security-dominated world in which we now live.

Two further remarks: (1) I am amazed that this whole thread is only about a minor part of BL's speech, and not about the major part. Not once the word "threat" has been used so far.
(2) I'm with McGrath, the McGrath way back in 2001, who has reminded us then that the WTC attack should not be seen as a war, but as a criminal act and that BL and his ilk should be hunted down as one hunts criminals. There can be no truce with criminals, only perhaps negotiations about the conditions of surrender.

The Bobert type reaction upon reading the word 'truce' is the left mirror image of GWBush's 'war against terror', similarily misguided and wrong.

Wolfgang