Negotiate with Terrorists

[JustOneWay]

when did I mention ANGRY??

You did not say it directly, but you most certainly implied it.

Quote Originally Posted by: Br. Max
kindness on our part in this conflict is not seen as such but as WEAKNESS. They do not have the same thought processes that we do.

Since kindness is a sign of weakness, and as witnessed by events like the USS Cole bombing, doing nothing (indifference) is also a sign of weakness.

Strength can only be accomplished through a cold and calculated resolve with prejudice. Anger is needed to sustain a war.

You may not have said it directly, but your post reeks of anger, and prejudice.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I've gotta say that allot of the responses I've seen are great. I apologize for not differentiating between terrorists and the Iraqi resistance. We do need to resolve Iraq as soon as possible, and peace is achievable. I have learned quite a bit from all responses and I wanted to say thank you and God bless.

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[CHARLES H]

you are putting your emotions off onto me. We do not need anger or hatred to do what needs to be done - we need resolve - a willingness to sacrifice and see things through until the end knowing that the end result will out weigh the suffering experienced along the way.

the american people do not have that resolve at least alot of people on this forum. perhaps we should just totally pull out and bring everybody home. then let's just dismantle our military stick our head in the ground and hope for the best maybe learn arabic in our spare time. oh yeah i heard that the islamic religion is pretty tolerent as well.

 

[nvxplorer]

a willingness to sacrifice

I agree. When do you suppose the American people will be asked to sacrifice? (Outside of those who are dying and being wounded.) 400 billion borrowed dollars doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice (Not yet, anyway. Our grandchildren may feel differently.)

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[ScottishJohn]

Historically negotiating with terrorists is one of three solutions to terrorist threats. The other two are: 1. Not negotiating, but fixing the root causes of the threat (ie fixing the problem you made which brought the terrorists into existence and brought them support). 2. Being beaten by the terrorists.

Negotiating is the best solution, and has been returning far better results in Northern Ireland than ignoring the terrorists and hoping they go away, or fighting them and by doing so rallying more people to their cause.

 

[tulc]

Cut federal domestic spending by 50% or more.

Well except for your emphasis I'd agree. It should be

Cut NON domestic spending by 50% or more. (changed a word, added emph.)

And I'm all for it!
tulc(guess it all depends on your agenda!)

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[ScottishJohn]

Actually - no. There are plenty of examples of terrorists being absolutely crushed when the people being terrorized stood up and stood firm. A prime example would be the terrorism by muslims in the philippines roughly 100 years ago being crushed by Gen. Pershing or the terrorism inflicted upon American settlers by indian tribes being crushed through many skirmishes and wars - or even the utter defeat of Jewish terrorists by the romans at masada. Just because the UK has only been able to deal with terrorists through deals and capitulation - does not mean that those are the only ways to deal with terrorism. It's all a matter of having the resolve to break the terrorists and thus end their ability at terrorism. BUT - that being said - you also glossed on a very important issue in breaking terrorism - fixing root causes - and that's been the focus of the effort all along. Repressive regimes and the poverty and dispondency they cause can only be overcome with democratic reforms and greater economic and social freedom.

lol you think genocide is a solution?!

Ok so there are 4 ways to deal with terrorism - the three I mentioned and trying to slaughter everyone and becoming far greater criminals than any terrorists.

This is from your link you posted - just so as everyone else can see the kind of tactics you are advocating:

His forces captured some of the militants, executed them with bullets dipped in pig fat, and wrapped their bodies in pigskin before burial — a devastating contamination according to Muslim law. “You’ll never see Paradise,” one U.S. officer reportedly told the terrorists, dashing their hopes of martyrdom. Pershing’s approach is probably no longer in the army’s counterterrorism repertoire, but the result was that guerrilla violence ended.

In fact of the three examples you mentioned none are examples of lasting solutions to terrorism - the Americans no longer occupy the Phillipines, mainly because of the change in policy which Woodrow Wilson initiated which led to full independance for the Phillipines - the muslims continued to resist US occupation until this change of policy happened. The US settlers ultimately negotiated with native Americans alongside their policy of massacre directed towards those from whome they had taken their land, and the idea that the Roman massacre of the Zealots ended Jewish nationalism or terrorist action within that region is laughable.

The issue of root causes which did not get glossed over in my post, but was mentioned as one of the three possible outcomes. There has been some effort towards addressing root causes, but much of the good done by these moves has been negated by counter productive policy such as the invasion of Iraq, and the post invasion neglect of Afghanistan. In many cases the terrorism is not caused by the problems you mention, but by unwanted American interference, usually interference which has only the interests of the US and her closest allies at heart.

The UK and the US have both been very much involved in negotiating with the IRA to bring about the current level of peace in Ireland - bottom line is that negotiating works - violence just perpetuates itself.

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[tulc]

or it depends on whether you follow the constitution since national defense is the sole jurisdiction of the federal government while social domestic spending is supposed to be left to the states . . . .

Well...I AM one of those fuzzyheaded liberals! So thinking of the constitution as a living and expanding document isn't scarey to me. If I thought it came from God's own throne, delivered via some Moses like prophet I would leave it alone. (well maybe. ) But, there it is!
tulc(never leaves well enough alone!)

 

[ScottishJohn]

It worked with Jericho didn't it?

...

far greater criminal? NOT necessarily.

Oh. Mass murder is ok under what circumstances?

After killing just a FEW people the attacks were negligable.

The unrest in the Phillipines continued in one form or another untill they were granted the independance they were fighting for. The Terrorists killed 'a few people', the US killed 'a few people' the killing of 'a few people' continues untill someone realises that you either have to kill ALL 'the people' or you have to negotiate terms.

but we did not leave because of terrorism. In fact - we didn't leave at all.

You did leave because of the war - the war finished because the US agreed to grant independance - ie did what the terrorists wanted.

Yup - but not at the behest of the terrorists.

No of course - the war had NOTHING to do with it! You decided all by yourselves!

Root causes are addressed!

The muslims are still making trouble in there just like they do just about every where else in the world. It's apparently part of their religion.

??!! But I thought you said the US actions brought a complete end to these Muslim terrorists? I thought that was the whole point of you using it as an example??! So now we see that force doesn't work in this or any other example?!

There was a LOT more to it than that . . . .

Yep I'm sure there is a lot more detail to go into - but basically peace was reached without slaughtering the entire population, and that was done in the manner of all peace treaties - through a process of negotiation.

Can you point to any substantial level of Jewish terrorist action from the fall of Masada through to the 20th century . . . .?

If violence against a group of people was an effective way of getting them to relinquish their claims on power or a piece of land, then the constant violence visited on the Jewish people from well before Masada to the present day would have surely fixed the problem and they would have given up claims to Israel? The length of gap between Masada and the current unrest proves nothing. Violence failed to provide a solution to this problem. The Jews wanted their independance at Masada, and they now have it.

Which country can you point to in the Middle East where they have not rioted over those silly comics? How about . . . Iraq? I have not seen nor can I find a single story about riots over comics in Iraq. I think Betty Dawisha summed things in Iraq up pretty well.

lol if you can find an embassy which is not already fortified then I'm sure you could have a similar protest about the comics, the chances of it being noticed over the exploding mosques which have brought the country even closer to the verge of civil war, the constant suicide attacks and car bombs, are slim to say the least! Bigger fish to fry!

There is no article on your link - however the site it links to looks like it may have a problem with partisanship.

And? Should we consider the intrests of tinpot petty dictators or maybe repressive communist regimes?

This is often what gets you into trouble in the first place - some of your allies in the middle east are tinpot petty dictators - Saddam was pretty useful to the US once apon a time, as was Osama Bin Laden. I think if the real interests of the majority of people of the middle east, not just the ones you have decided you can do business with, figured higher up the US priority list you might have more friends in the region.

The IRA laid down their arms when the lost their taste for bloodshed and realized they could get more from talk than they could from blood.

Terrorists pick up their arms when they realise that they are being ignored through peaceful means. Hamas started off running schools and social programmes. It is much easier to prevent them picking up their weapons in the first place than to persuade them to put them down - and in the case of the IRA - it took a long time, and some real concessions to the political wing Sinn Fein - which existed and was in politics and negotiations for a long time before the IRA decommissioned (frequent guests at the White House before 911!) - to persuade the majority that they could in fact make their voices heard through dialogue. Negotiation works.

But lets put all other terrorists aside and focus in on why it is that Osama has made us a target for terrorism. He's stated publically why - it's not because of any meddeling but for one simple act - Our stationing troops in Suadi Arabia during the Gulf War. Infidels tainting the "holyland" of Islam.

That is not what he has stated at all - far from being the only reason, that is one of many reasons that he is against the US.

Lebanon for instance:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

Meddling!

Peace comes from negotiation - even after defeating your enemy, negotiation will still make or break the peace - there is no avoiding it. After WWI the negotiation was poor, so we ended up with WWII despite having soundly defeated Germany once - we had to go back and try again, because we did not negotiate peace. In the end it is inevitable - it just depends how many lives and how much time you want to waste before you take those steps.

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[Yusuf Evans]

You may like surrendering your powers to the state - but I do not.

That's funny. I could almost think I've heard the liberals say that about conservatives and President Bush.

 

[dignitized]

Z

 

[dignitized]

X

 

[Fallschirmjägergewehr]

OY VEY! There were many reasons to STAY in the Philippines not the least of which was their strategic location. If we had just left - another country would have just come in and taken over. There was no practical way for the Philippines to be independent prior to WWII. YES terrible things were done there by American interests - but don't judge by todays standards - judge the events of yesterday by the standards of yesterday. We treated our "colonies" far better than most other nations did. We left because the time was right and because the world had changed. BUT we did not leave because of terrorists. That is . . . unless you consider a popular movement which did not use terrorist tactics terrorist. . . .

You mean something along the lines of what actually happened? IIRC, another country did come in and take over for a few years.

negotiations work when you put down arms. NOT before.

Well, actually, it's a dandy stalling tactic to "negotiate" with the United States, when you've been soundly defeated.

 

[dignitized]

X