Negotiate with Terrorists

[loriersea]

It depends on which groups and individuals are being considered terrorists.

 

[JustOneWay]

I'd like to think we've developed beyond the 'blow up everyone we don't like' stage.

I am convinced that regardless of the level of civility a nation has, that same civility cannot change the savage heart of men.

 

[Fallschirmjägergewehr]

I am convinced that regardless of the level of civility a nation has, that same civility cannot change the savage heart of men.

Nations are made up of men though.

I'd like to think we've developed beyond the 'blow up everyone we don't like' stage.

Well, actually I'm partial to machine guns myself.

 

[Alarum]

We cannot negotiate with the terrorists. Those who would attack civilians indiscriminatnly in order to terrorize the population against us are too dangerous.

We can, however, negotiate with the local resistance. The principle of negotiating with resistance movements is well established. As conditions, I'd suggest the following:

For the US:
Remove any vestiges of control over the local government
Cease making decisions in Iraq that should be left to the government
Begin withdrawel of troops
Amnesty for those who lay down their arms and join the government

For the Resistance:
Cease any and all attacks
Turn over the names and locations of foreign terrorists on Iraqi soil

 

[ACougar]

make sure you send this to the Pres...it is the US policy from ages not to negotiate with terrorists...He isn't the only one that has a policy of not negotiating with terrorist...

While we don't often submit to the demands of criminals, we do negotiate with them. Nor should we be making such a big fuss about terrorist criminals, especially while we harbor terrorists ourselves.

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01242006.html

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/6403/2006-02-03.html?sid=52a54a21ded7d733554557fc298a4a92

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47765

 

[PastorMikeJ]

While we don't often submit to the demands of criminals, we do negotiate with them. Nor should we be making such a big fuss about terrorist criminals, especially while we harbor terrorists ourselves.

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01242006.html

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/6403/2006-02-03.html?sid=52a54a21ded7d733554557fc298a4a92

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47765

there it is!! while we harbor terrorists ourselves...how come we are not or have not declared war on our home grown terrorist...like the group that attacked OK City...
and the KKK, the White Brotherhood, without a doubt these groups are just as bad as any other terrorist group in the world..

 

[Illuminatus]

We cannot negotiate with the terrorists. Those who would attack civilians indiscriminatnly in order to terrorize the population against us are too dangerous.

We can, however, negotiate with the local resistance. The principle of negotiating with resistance movements is well established.

An excellent point. When Bush and his minions finally realize that they've screwed up and start negotiations, it'll suddenly be "we're negotiating with resistance cells", as opposed to "we're negotiating with terrorists".

 

[ACougar]

Because the State is more comfortable with terrorism than they pretend to be... We are sometimes the terrorists and the only one in the dark about that is the American public.

there it is!! while we harbor terrorists ourselves...how come we are not or have not declared war on our home grown terrorist...like the group that attacked OK City...
and the KKK, the White Brotherhood, without a doubt these groups are just as bad as any other terrorist group in the world..

 

[warispeace]

Assuming the question is regarding the Iraqi insurgency...

In theory, it's not a bad idea. In practice, it would never work. Bad guys would take advantage of any truce and would almost certainly stab us in the back. Plus, the precedent it would set could do a lot more harm in the future.

 

[Alarum]

Assuming the question is regarding the Iraqi insurgency...

In theory, it's not a bad idea. In practice, it would never work. Bad guys would take advantage of any truce and would almost certainly stab us in the back. Plus, the precedent it would set could do a lot more harm in the future.

Hence why the deal would include turning over the locations of the foreign terrorists currently in Iraq. That would remove a very militant and violent cell of the resistance, and probably cost those who negotiated their support among the hardliners. It would effectively stop them from just using the truce to their advantage.

 

[nvxplorer]

Any talk of negotiating with Iraq terrorists is premature. We must first see if the the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites are willing to negotiate with each other.

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[Fallschirmjägergewehr]

They would only see it as weakness.

"Achmed, if we ask for a truce from the infidels, it gives us time to train more splodey dopes and get more weapons."

"Ali, that is a great idea! Let us ask the infidels for a truce!"

*Ali and Achmed are made of from my imagination and do not represent to views of any terrorists and in no way are intended to point out any methods by which terrorists can gain advantage.

 

[Alarum]

"Achmed, if we ask for a truce from the infidels, it gives us time to train more splodey dopes and get more weapons."

"Ali, that is a great idea! Let us ask the infidels for a truce!"

*Ali and Achmed are made of from my imagination and do not represent to views of any terrorists and in no way are intended to point out any methods by which terrorists can gain advantage.

Hence why there are conditions - like turning over weapons, and revealing the location of real terrorist cells for groups like the Al Qaeda. There is a difference between pointless truce and real negotiations, which you seem to be actively ignoring.

 

[Fallschirmjägergewehr]

Hence why there are conditions - like turning over weapons, and revealing the location of real terrorist cells for groups like the Al Qaeda. There is a difference between pointless truce and real negotiations, which you seem to be actively ignoring.

If it guarantees peace in our time, I suppose it could work for me.

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[Fallschirmjägergewehr]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fallschirmjägergewehr again.


People make the fatal mistake of believing that they think like we do . . .Well they don't. Not any more than do the communist chinese.

Jihadis don't think like civilised people? Who've thunk it?

 

[nvxplorer]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fallschirmjägergewehr again.


People make the fatal mistake of believing that they think like we do . . .Well they don't. Not any more than do the communist chinese.

The general populace doesn’t think like we do, either. This little fact is ignored by those who support the war.

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[CCGirl]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying . . . are you agreeing with Jefferson I believe and saying that the "people" by and large are ignorant masses who cannot be trusted with governance - hence the need for a republic? Or are you saying that those who support the war are out of touch?

No, he is saying that since they are different culturally (think different), then the USA imposing its form of government on them is wrong.