Negotiate with Terrorists

[CHARLES H]

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



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

kinda like monty python's "in search of the holy grail" we'll call it a draw.

 

[CHARLES H]

yea Japan.

um hum.

ole scotty really needs to brush up on some basic history.

 

[ScottishJohn]

ole scotty really needs to brush up on some basic history.

Um - Japan invaded when the Philipines already had commonwealth status - ie they were no longer governed from the US. They were granted commonwealth status in 1935. The date for their full independance had already been set as July 4 1946. This was the change in policy I referred to. The steps had already been taken.

 

[nvxplorer]

RIGHT . . . Lets see how many Indians you can drum up to support that position.

Are you actually supporting the treatment of Native Americans? Do you support the government not upholding the terms of its own treaties with American Indians?

 

[dignitized]

x

 

[ScottishJohn]

Go back to the Bible and see. It's covered in there

So Genocide is covered when you are acting on a specific command from God, because he is using your people as a vehicle to bless the world with a messiah. So how exactly do we repeat those circumstances? And how so you square your intentions with the command to bless those who curse you?

Terms were not negotiated with terrorist. Terms were negotiated with Emilio Aguinaldo.

Do you think any terms would have been negotiated if the Filipinos had meekly accepted US rule in the first place?

2 problesm here: 1 the terrorists in question wanted to install a muslim government 2 we did not ever leave. Ever heard of Subic Naval Base? or Clark Air Base? We're still there.

Not as an occupying force you are not. When the US granted self governance as a commonwealth, and then independance, the muslims were free to try and get a Muslim government elected. Under US rule they were not.

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 used the Philipines as an example of a country in which a terrorist threat had sucessully been put down by force. In reality the terrorists continues to operate in the Philipines until the US promised independance. They addressed the root cause of the terrorism - they negotiated with filipinos, if not with the actual terrorist leaders. It was not the force visited on the terrorists which fixed the problem - it was provided the freedom they were fighting for.

lol where?

Asked and answered.

Can you point to any examples of muslim terrorism after the pershing incident?

Can you point to any reputable historical source for the story you posted regarding the pershing incident? I've been looking, and there are a lot of historians out there who just don't think there is any evidence that it ever happened.

In any case Muslim Terrorism is alive and well the world over. Al Quaeda are supposedly active in the Philipines according to many sources - so the pershing incident did not provide a lasting solution either in the Philipines as you claim it did, or in the entire world - which is what others claim.

Do you think burying Muslims in pork would bring peace in Iraq? Or provoke even more Muslims to fight?

RIGHT . . . Lets see how many Indians you can drum up to support that position.

Why don't you tell me what problems you have with it?

The Jewish people are a rare exception. While they did give up ON that claim for a very long time - they have never and will never relinquish that claim.

So they don't fit your pattern either! Force did NOT provide a lasting solution in that situation either!

But history is full of examples. Look at the Goths - the Visigoths - the Ostrogoths - the Vandals - the Huns - the Aryans - American Indians . . .

I don't see how the Goths, Visigoths or Ostrogoths fit your example? The Goths who invaded the Roman empire in 267, and were subsequently defeated and driven over the Danube simply occupied the province of Dacia which had been abandoned by the Romans. This Group became the Visigoths. The Group which never took part in the invasion and remained in what is now the Ukraine became known as the Ostrogoths. They survived for centuries in various forms and guises had their own empires and eventually became part of the mix that is Europe as did all the other various tribes from that time. Besides - they were no different from any other group of people - the Romans included, their actions were no more or less akin to terrorism than those of the Romans. I don't see the Huns or Aryans as being significant in your argument either. 2500 decendants of the Huns recently petitioned to be recognised as such in Hungary - they failed, but they still exist as part of other cultures. I think it is a mistake to confuse the rise and fall of various cultures over the centuries with the efficacy of force. Force has never provided a lasting solution to anything. If it did we would ceased to have wars centuries ago.

It wasn't a link to an article or to a specific site - but to a specific media clip. Betty is one of my heros.

I got a blank page with various links down the side - not of which mentioned Betty, in fact most were adverts for various lame T shirts etc.

How many times do we have to rehash the same stupid and beat arguments? Sadam was a tool. Bought and paid for to keep the SOVIETS from having hegemony in the M.E. The blame for that rests SOLELY on the shoulders of Jimmy Carter who failed to back up a loyal Allie who was working hard to bring reforms to his country.

Jimmy Carter is just one man - he represented the US. When you use the heads of state of other countries as a tool you store up problems like the ones you are currently facing. When the US decided to use Hussein, they put US interests in the middle east ahead of the interests of the Iraqi people, the Iranian people - US interference in Iraq is not limited to one period in time. They sponsored the Abdul Salam Arif coup in '63 and the Ba'athist coup in '68 and they also supported the Iran Iraq war in the 80s. Carter was only president for the beginning of the Iran Iraq war. Kennedy, LBJ and Reagan were on watch during the coups, and the rest of the war.

Osama was NEVER directly tied to the US - Sorry. He was a friend to our friends in Afghanistan and that's about as close as you can come to connecting him to us.

Thats your story and I am sure you are sticking to it! Favourite US tactic - the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

Terrorists pick up their arms when they can't convince people through peaceful means. Not because they are being ignored - but because they just can't convince people. HENCE - ELF and their retardedness.

This is not historically accurate. Give examples if you wish to prove this? Which ELF do you mean? The Eritrean Liberation front? Which split and turned into the Peoples Liberation front, and ultimately got independance from Ethiopia?

And they are soooo good at what they teach.

They started as an organisation which ran social welfare programmes. They are now an armed terrorist organisation.

negotiations work when you put down arms. NOT before.

Again - this is just not the case. Putting down arms is usually the first objective of any negotiation - and in the case of the IRA negotiation with the US and UK started years before decommissioning last year. Here is an article from the New York times 12 years ago detailing Gerry Adams visiting the White House - this man is a terrorist leader. Negotiation works.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa.../Reference/Times Topics/People/A/Adams, Gerry


You may be confusing decommissioning with ceasefire - ceasefire does not constitute putting down arms.

It was the origins of his problem with America from his own mouth.

Source?

OML. Now that’s funny!! You buy that crap? You honestly believe that the American contingent in the UN peace keeping force sent to Leb. were MEDDLING?? I thought the UN were all knowing and perfect!

I thought we were talking about Osama Bin Laden. If we are to talk about his views, then surely we look at what he says.

You gave voice to the real problem with the WWI peace - germany was NOT soundly defeated. They won handily in the east and were not defeated on the western front. The only place the germans lost battles was on the seas. HARDLY equating to "soundly defeating" the germans - but then the UK and France put all the blame and the cost for the war on the germans DESPITE the germans not having started the war OR having lost any major battles.

If this is the case then why did the Germans surrender? Why did they accept the crushing terms of Versaille - if they had another option - ie force. They lost battles. They lost the second battle of the Somme for instance. The Germans failed to keep morale up on the Home front and ultimately did lose. As far as starting the war - Bismarks complicated system of alliances was responsible for that - his unification of Germany depended on the three wars he fought and won, and these alliances, and the war was caused by them.

At the end of WWI all of Europe was on its knees - we were all soundly defeated in a sense. However the allies dictated the terms of peace, and would have done well to listen to Woodrow Wilson who wanted a more lenient peace treaty. They chose a crippling and humiliating one to inflict on Germany.

Failure to negotiate an acceptable peace at the end of WWI ensured WWII.