Hot Buttons: Talk show topics

WHERE'S OSAMA?

As the United States and its allies moved closer to a military showdown with Afghanistan's Taliban rulers Tuesday, the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan made a new plea for negotiations with Washington -- saying his government needed proof before it could act against Osama bin Laden.

"If the U.S. government contacts us directly and provides us with evidence against him, we can consider expelling him," Zaeef told CNN's Larry King in an interview from the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, referring to the Saudi fugitive, who's the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

However, he refused to accept evidence communicated via neighboring Pakistan, whose President Pervez Musharraf was briefed Tuesday by the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad.

"Why do it indirectly, from one hand to another hand, to another hand. Afghanistan is an independent country. It is a free country. We are a part of this world. Share the evidence with us. Directly," Zaeef said.

The Taliban ambassador said when Afghanistan asked for negotiation, it was told "this is not the time for negotiation, the Islamic government of Afghanistan must comply with the advises of President Bush." He added: "This is not the way of solving a problem. This is not the way to deal with an independent country."

Bin Laden has been hiding in Afghanistan since 1996. The Taliban has in the past offered to try him but never agreed to expel him.

As Zaeef spoke, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left for meetings in Uzbekistan -- widely expected to be the launching point for military action against the Taliban. Rumsfeld's schedule will take him to the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and Oman, as well as to Egypt and the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan, he told reporters at the Pentagon. Spokeswoman Tori Clarke added that what the United States calls its war on terrorism would be the main item on the agenda.

-- Should the United States take another crack at negotiations with the Taliban before taking military action? Why or why not?

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

As the U.N. General Assembly entered the second day of debate Tuesday on measures to combat international terrorism, most Muslim countries expressed reservations about the definition of terrorism and called for excluding Palestinian organizations.

While all delegates who spoke since the opening of the debate Monday supported recent U.N. resolutions and condemned the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, many Arab and Muslim nations insisted in eliminating from the definition of terrorism those fighting against "colonial or foreign domination."

The Iranian deputy foreign minister, Mohammad-Javad Zarif, told the 189-member assembly: "Legitimacy in the global struggle against terrorism rests on applying a single set of standards to all. The credibility of the campaign against terrorism is seriously undermined when policies and practices designed to instill fear and terror among the entire Palestinian people receive acquiescent silence, while resistance to foreign occupation and state terrorism is conveniently demonized."

"The Arab Palestinian people are victims to modern terrorism, in the fullest name of the word," added the Libyan representative, Abuzed Omar Dorda.

Hasmy Agan, the ambassador of another predominantly Muslim country, Malaysia, stressed that without a clear definition of what is terrorism, it would be difficult to formulate or enforce international agreements to combat the menace.

"Acts of pure terrorism, involving attacks against innocent civilian populations -- which cannot be justified under any circumstances -- should be differentiated from the legitimate struggles of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for self-determination and national liberation," Agan said.

Many Western countries -- including the United States -- have considered certain pro-Palestinian organizations like Lebanon and Syria-based Palestine Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad as terrorists.

-- Is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter mere a matter of who's writing the history? Why or why not? How do you define terrorism?

A PALESTINIAN STATE

President Bush says the possibility of a Palestinian state was always part of his administration's effort to negotiate a peace agreement in the Middle East, but that the status of Israel would have to be considered.

"The idea of a Palestinian state has always been a part of a vision, so long as the right of Israel to exist is respected,"' Bush said after a breakfast meeting with congressional leaders.

The president was responding to reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post that his administration was preparing a peace initiative that would've endorsed a Palestinian state. However, those plans were derailed by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

The Post reported that Bush also would have met with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat during the U.N. General Assembly originally scheduled to take place in late September.

The White House maintained throughout the day that a Palestinian state has always been the possible end product of Middle East peace negotiations, but emphasized that a reduction in violence within the region was first on the administration's agenda.

-- Do you think there should be a Palestinian state? Why or why not?