Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
to negotiate, or to not negotiate, that is the question
"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?
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
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 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.
__________________
Post in the Indiana Jones forum.
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
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
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.
__________________
Deferrals get you nowhere - Just Do It.........Or Ineptitude will consume your life like a Cancer
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".
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
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
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.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
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...
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
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
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 27th, 2005 01:58 PM
