In a new video aired Monday, al-Qaida's No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri mocked President Bush as a "failure" in the war on terror, called him a "butcher" for killing innocent Pakistanis in a miscarried airstrike and chastised the United States for rejecting Osama bin Laden's offer of a truce...If all they want is the "Butcher of Washington," and then they would stop their terrorist attacks, why don't we hand the beast over?
...He said the airstrike in Pakistan by an unmanned Predator craft targeted himself and four of his "brothers" in al-Qaida. Instead, he said, it killed 18 civilians — "men, women, and children" — and he called Bush "the butcher of Washington." "
Bush, you are not only defeated and a liar, but, with God's help and might, a failure. You are a curse on your own nation and you have brought and will bring them only catastrophes and tragedies," he said.
"Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses, enjoying God's blessing of their support, care, generosity and protection," al-Zawahri said.
So, today's question for bloggers is simple. Let's call it Windspike's Speculative Ultimatum (oh, and spare me the discourse on not discussing hypotheticals. If we can invade Iraq on a hypothetical, we can certainly discuss them as we exercise our First Amendment Right):
1) If the terrorists were to guarantee no more attacks and to work for world peace if we simply handed George W. Bush over to them so they can bring him to their form of justice, would you?
2) That is, we see that al-Zawahri is able to seek refuge and safe harbor among the common Muslim people. If Shrub came to you for safe haven and harbor from those who seek to bring him to justice (yes, I know theirs is a different definition) would you house Shrub or hand him over if it meant that you would be guaranteed peace?