Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

"No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters April 4, 2002"

"After weeks of delicate negotiation . . . a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies. The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings . . . further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq. The Sunday Times of London US 'in talks with Iraq rebels' June 26, 2005"

So what is it? All or nothing? Any thoughts?

thoughts:

1-bush is a frikin hypocrite on so many levels it boggles the mind

2-(question) what is the difference between the 'terrorists' we fight in iraq and the 'enemies' we fought in the past?

3-thank god we have a hint of diplomacy. perhaps this war wont go on for another 10 years

I think the purpose of the thread PVS, is for us to discuss whether we agree that the goverment shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
IMO, it totally depends on the circumstances, if like terrorist are holding many people hostage and it's clear a S.W.A.T. team or something won't be able to enter, then I'd negotiate.

The government has to decide if its reasonable to negotiate or not......thats all.....

Always start negotiatens you can always drop in later on if you have too. But excluding an option because you don't want to do it is foolish.

Nope I'm with PVS.. the main thing that strikes me here is that Bush contradicted himself.. AGAIN ..

Negotiations? What are they negotiating? These people are our enimies, why negotiate now? Oh, right...so we can help prop up another Saddam.

The bottom line is that terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such. And anyone who sympathises with terrorists should be taken out the back and given a good kicking.

Originally posted by amity75
The bottom line is that terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such. And anyone who sympathises with terrorists should be taken out the back and given a good kicking.

Well, many of our policies make us terrorists in the eyes of other nations and groups. So, this is just par for the course. But, what this does represent, in my opinion, is that both sides realize just how full of shit they are. And where do the high standards of the muslim extremist meet the goals of the US Christian theocracy? At the negotiating table...when both sides finally get to talk about the real bottom line: M-O-N-E-Y

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
..when both sides finally get to talk about the real bottom line: M-O-N-E-Y

That first Bush quote is misinterpreted:

Zarqawi's group, which has been blamed for many suicide bombings and beheadings has not taken part.

The Insurgents, convinced by tribal leaders to attend the meetings, are not terrorists: They are rebels. There objective is not to hamper the benefit of Iraq.

They have reasons to want US out:
They are fed up of having troops banging on their doors in the middle of the night.
They are fed up of being arrested by foreigners in their own country
They are fed up of troops ordering them what to do in their own country.
+ many other things


What would you do if they invaded your land to overthrow the evil leader, and have your country still occupied way after that leader was overthrown ?

REBELLION.


Yet Zarqawi, is not Iraqi ; he has taken the opportunity to launch his terrorism in Iraq. He supports Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden and craves to kill US and UK troops and anyone who may help them.

Originally posted by PVS
thoughts:

1-bush is a frikin hypocrite on so many levels it boggles the mind



by that reckoning every american is a frikin hypocrite given that it was the country who supported and financed the IRA for 30 years

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v48/ai_18177777

Originally posted by jaden101
by that reckoning every american is a frikin hypocrite given that it was the country who supported and financed the IRA for 30 years

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v48/ai_18177777


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, many of our policies make us terrorists in the eyes of other nations and groups. So, this is just par for the course. But, what this does represent, in my opinion, is that both sides realize just how full of shit they are. And where do the high standards of the muslim extremist meet the goals of the US Christian theocracy? At the negotiating table...when both sides finally get to talk about the real bottom line: M-O-N-E-Y

True. And I do believe there is some difference between the archetypal "terrorist" and an "insurgent". But then it seems a common thing that one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. But I say if diplomacy if a viable option that would stop further death, pain and so on, then it should be used, regardless of the title the threat takes. After all even the police will usually try to talk a person down rather then say "They are a criminal, so shoot to kill".

which kind of misses the point about the motives behind both the IRA and the islamic terrorists by a long way

any tiny bit of research would show that islam extremists believe that the "infidels" need to be forced out of "the holy land of 2 mosques" which is saudi arabia

the also believe that anyone engaging in politics at any level be it as a voter in a democracy or a ruthless dictator...they are taking away power that belongs only to allah and so are a legitimate target....this is exactly how they legitimised their attack on the WTC...by saying that the people were guilty because they voted for their government

Originally posted by jaden101
which kind of misses the point about the motives behind both the IRA and the islamic terrorists by a long way



Not by that far. I'm willing to bet that if you threw money at the IRA, their resolve would disappear. Money is the great equalizer. It has more power and influence than any god. Be that god catholic, protestant or muslim. It's too bad that the IRA isn't treated with the same disgust and disrespect that any non christian sect would be treated. But, I guess that shows the opinion of christians vs. other christians in relation to non-christian sects.

Will - or can - someone DEFINE terrorist for me? As opposed to insurgent, or rebel, or freedom-fighter!

I mean back during WWII som people in Nazi-occupied countries woul commit acts of terrorism as part of a freedom-fight. But if Palestaines take up arms against those who have occupied their territories, they are terrorists?
I don't get it...

Originally posted by The Omega
Will - or can - someone DEFINE terrorist for me?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Stop_hand.png

Loaded Question : check out Wikipedia's definition of Terrorism


Originally posted by The Omega
But if Palestaines take up arms against those who have occupied their territories, they are terrorists?
I don't get it...

Ask yourself : Are the Jews indigenous to the Middle East ?

Originally posted by bilb
Nope I'm with PVS.. the main thing that strikes me here is that Bush contradicted himself.. AGAIN ..

No, that's wrong. It's Obi-Wanspeak all over again. Once the "terrorists" enter into a dialogue with the US, they aren't our enemies anymore. And if they're willing to talk, they aren't terrorists anymore. What Bush said both times is true.. from a certain point of view. LOL

Originally posted by The Omega
Will - or can - someone DEFINE terrorist for me? As opposed to insurgent, or rebel, or freedom-fighter!

I mean back during WWII som people in Nazi-occupied countries woul commit acts of terrorism as part of a freedom-fight. But if Palestaines take up arms against those who have occupied their territories, they are terrorists?
I don't get it...

The people that committed terrorist acts in WWII are not terrorists, because they were on the winning side. SIGH It's just as deplorable as what Hamas does to the Israelis. Come to think of it, by the definiton, if Al Queda had only attacked the Pentagon and the White House, those could not be considered acts of terrorism.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not by that far. I'm willing to bet that if you threw money at the IRA, their resolve would disappear. Money is the great equalizer. It has more power and influence than any god. Be that god catholic, protestant or muslim. It's too bad that the IRA isn't treated with the same disgust and disrespect that any non christian sect would be treated. But, I guess that shows the opinion of christians vs. other christians in relation to non-christian sects.

i disagree...the IRA as an organisation were not just terrorists...they also ran very lucrative protection rackets and controlled most of the drug trade in both northern ireland and the republic of ireland.

they also recieved a lot of funding from irish american sources

as for islamic terrorists....take osama bin laden...he was a multi millionaire before he was a terrorist....it kind of does damage to the argument that poverty is the driving force behind terrorism

i also think the level of disgust at the actions of the IRA when compared to al qaeda is that the IRA conducted their attacks very differently than al qaeda...going as far as giving their infamous "coded warnings" before attacks...al qaeda also killed more people in a single attack on 9/11 than the IRA did throughout their entire campaign