Al Qaeda leader's brother offers peace plan

[PointOfViewGun]

Exclusive: Al Qaeda leader's brother offers peace plan

Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- The brother of al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri is proposing to mediate a peace deal between the West and Islamists.

His six-page proposal offers a 10-year truce if the following terms are met. In brief they are:

• U.S. and West to stop intervening in Muslim lands.
• U.S. to stop interfering in Muslim education.
• U.S. to end the war on Islam.
• U.S. to release all Islamist prisoners.


The document also calls on Islamists to change their behavior too:


• Stop attacks on Western and U.S. interests.
• Protect legitimate Western and U.S. interests in Muslim lands.
• Stop provoking the U.S. and the West.

Probably doesn't hold much weight or influence but still interesting. Would U.S. benefit from such an arrangement? The answer could go both way for the same reason; no, because Al Qaeda no longer poses a serious threat so U.S. doesn't need to give in; yes, because Al Qaeda no longer poses a serious threat and it would be a step forward to wipe them out completely.

[visser300]

He just gets bored

[Comrade_Rory]

Hmmmm. It will have no weight to it at all.

"• U.S. to end the war on Islam." There is no war on Islam. If the US was to accept such a proposal, it would be an indirect confession of such a war existing and that would give other extremist groups an excuse to rally.

"• U.S. and West to stop intervening in Muslim lands." Is a very vague request and right when Iran is attempting to arm itself with nuclear weapons, I hardly see this as being an option. Even if no US soldiers were anywhere near Iran, a simple rumour could be an excuse for Al-Qaeda to continue attacks.

"• Protect legitimate Western and U.S. interests in Muslim lands." Again, as with most things Islamic, is very vague. Who's to say what is legitimate? Who's to say that if the US gave Al-Qaeda certain information about said interests, they won't dispute the legitimacy and attack.

And finally...
"• U.S. to stop interfering in Muslim education." What education?




I may be completely wrong with any of these points. This is just the way I'm seeing things at 5am.

[Admiral Piett]

We don't negotiate with terrorists. We'll negotiate with the Taliban, as they aren't terrorists per say.

[priam11]

Anyone else notice the irony in the following:

• U.S. and West to stop intervening in Muslim lands.
• U.S. to stop interfering in Muslim education.
• U.S. to end the war on Islam.
• U.S. to release all Islamist prisoners

Much if not all occurred after 9/11 where most never heard of Al Qaeda until that day.

[Bleda]

We don't negotiate with terrorists. We'll negotiate with the Taliban, as they aren't terrorists per say.

And the Taliban offers more flexible terms...

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well its a good starting point but neither side will every come to any sort of agreement whatsoever. They both have different goals. The Islamists want to cover women up and exclude them from school and stone sluts and the west wants to stop that . Its quite a conundrum.

[Armenum]

Neither the US nor the Islamists would accept this. Of course, for it's own sake, US could adjust it's policies related to the Muslim world, become less interventionist, back away from a blind support of Israel, which would diminish Muslim furore against US foreign policy.