Mainstreaming Terrorists

Rambuchan · Jun 28, 2005

Arab Democracy is a hot topic in Washington, Baghdad, Jerusalem etc. Now people are talking about engaging terrorist organisations in talks and of course the elections :eek:

. In fact Hamas and Hizbollah have been doing rather well in recent elections :eek:

.

But what will democracy in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine actually bring? Having seen the Iranian elections in action this is quite an interesting twist on the White Houses campaign to democratise the Arab World. And how will the terrorists be treated by the electorates in those countries? (I shrunk this. If the text isn't clear I can replace these with bigger pages)

Page 1 of Economist Article Here

Page 2

There are now also reports that the US has met twice now with insurgency leaders in Iraq to broker some kind of peace.

"US meets Iraqi rebels - Rumsfeld. (June 27, 2005)

Washington - US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed US officials had met with Iraq rebels on several occasions and warned the insurgency could last a dozen years." Source

US 'in talks with Iraq with Iraq rebels'
Hala Jaber
Insurgents reveal secret face-to-face meetings

"AT a summer villa near Balad in the hills 40 miles north of Baghdad, a group of Iraqis and their American visitors recently sat down to tea. It looked like a pleasant social encounter far removed from the stresses of war, but the heavy US military presence around the isolated property signalled that an unusual meeting was taking place.

After weeks of delicate negotiation involving a former Iraqi minister and senior tribal leaders, 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. Details provided to The Sunday Times by two Iraqi sources whose groups were involved indicate that further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq". Source

These stories are also covered in all the usual press outlets, I just went for some different ones today.

So will Hamas and the likes go legit? Will they receive much more support in the elections and future elections? Is this what Bush had in mind for Arab Democracy? Is it right to start 'talking with terrorists'? Has the Coalition gone soft?

BasketCase · Jun 28, 2005

Happened in Ireland.

Rambuchan · Jun 28, 2005

BasketCase said:
Happened in Ireland.

It certainly did. It's difficult but it's a darn bit easier than putting up with suicide bombs and guerilla insurgency.

Rambuchan · Jun 28, 2005

I'd be interested to hear the views of the military folk here who served against 'the terrorists'. Should the coalition be breaking its moto negotiating with them?

Ayatollah So · Jun 28, 2005

Hamas may well go legit, but don't expect anything similar from Al-Quaeda. In the Iraq war, it would help a lot if the next government would clearly declare that the welcome extended to American troops is severely limited. That would let them co-opt a large chunk of the insurgents - not the foreign fighters, but the Iraqis who deeply distrust the American occupiers.

Rambuchan · Jun 29, 2005

I find it very interesting how the "How should we deal with the shortage of military recruits?" thread rages on and meanwhile this one, which has really solid answers to that same question, gets completely neglected. Call me judgemental but are Americans simply obsessed with their military to the detriment of all other avenues? (I ask this based on current affairs not just reactions to threads in CFC :lol:

)

allhailIndia · Jun 29, 2005

I gues it also takes a change of leadership...meaning dead Osama..and a whole lot of others also

MeteorPunch · Jun 29, 2005

This is what they should've done in the first place.

anarres · Jun 29, 2005

And indeed, as history tells us over and over and over, you have to sleep with the enemy to make peace sometimes.

Really, the only shocking thing is that people don't just *know* this kind of stuff. But then they are the people that would deny Sinn Fien political recognition....

blackheart · Jun 29, 2005

Rambuchan said:
I find it very interesting how the "How should we deal with the shortage of military recruits?" thread rages on and meanwhile this one, which has really solid answers to that same question, gets completely neglected. Call me judgemental but are Americans simply obsessed with their military to the detriment of all other avenues? (I ask this based on current affairs not just reactions to threads in CFC )

It's true. This plan actually requires planning and work, and it really can't be debated (or is controversial) so its gonna be ignored.

Rambuchan · Jul 7, 2005

Here are the clues about dealing with the terrorists who bombed London today.

Aphex_Twin · Jul 7, 2005

Ram, I think these guys are not native to the UK. For all intents and purposes, they might have come there for the sole purpose of conducting the attacks.

What I'm worried about is a radicalization of UK politics. It would be just as worse if the BNP gained political might as it would be if the UK surrendered to terrorism.

El Justo · Jul 7, 2005

negotiating w/ terrorists isn't really an option b/c, well, it legitimizes them in the eyes of many.

otoh, democracy in the arab world is a dicey propostion. it seems that, once again, the battle for the hearts and minds regarding the benefits of democracy vs autocratic/authortarian/oligarchic methods will just have to win out w/ the populace. of course, this is a big if...

amadeus · Jul 7, 2005

We didn't mainstream the Nazis, the facists, or Tojo's military dictatorship. If we ever attempt to negotiate with al Qaeda, I will renounce my U.S. citizenship, because there won't be anything here left worth fighting for.

Rambuchan · Jul 7, 2005

rmsharpe said:
We didn't mainstream the Nazis, the facists, or Tojo's military dictatorship. If we ever attempt to negotiate with al Qaeda, I will renounce my U.S. citizenship, because there won't be anything here left worth fighting for.

You've let the propaganda convince you that Hitler was a terrorist, which he clearly wasn't. He is nothing like the terrorist organisations at all.

El Justo · Jul 7, 2005

i think it's the principle of negotiating with them. it should be (and thankfully is i think) completely and wholly unconditional. anything else would or could possibly legitimize these individuals and that's the last thing we want to do...

Double Barrel · Jul 7, 2005

Sharpe never said the Nazis were terrorists. I believe his point is that negotiating with those whose aim is to destroy modern society is a losing proposition. You don't tame a rabid dog by petting it. You have to destroy it.

Rambuchan · Jul 7, 2005

Here's the story of one terrorist that got 'mainstreamed'. And if you don't like that source try this one or this one.

Unfortunately today we have distorted the meaning of the word terrorist and we also get clouded by this glib phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists". Well firstly the Bush administration is and has always 'negotiated with terrorists'. Whether they are terrorists at the time or later get branded so, they still negotiate with them. Besides Saddam was a terrorist right? What was all that negotiating about?

And we are taking too much of an stand-offish approach in terms of negotiation or 'peaceful cohersion throughout political processes', which has been proven not to work in the past. You will find that the strategies advocated in the Economist article have been proven to work throughout history. Let's not get macho about terrorists, let's get clever.

CurtSibling · Jul 7, 2005

Terrorism has to be killed at the root.

Ideology has to be used, not bullets...At least in some cases.

Sometimes, bullets are the only lexicon the fundies can digest...Fine by me.

.

Bigfoot · Jul 7, 2005

I agree that we should not negotiate with terrorists. But does it follow that Hamas and Hezbollah should not become more democratic (or 'mainstream'), as the article seems to suggest? It is harder to run a terrorist organization when there is less secrecy. Democracy by its very nature needs to be more accessable and less secretive than a fascist or totalitarian regime. It also tends to be less corrupt. I think that more democracy in the Arab world would be a good thing in the long run. It doesn't mean we have to negotiate with them right now.

Mainstreaming Terrorists

The Funky President

Username sez it all

The Funky President

The Funky President

the spoof'll set you free

The Funky President

Deity

#WINNING

anarchist revolutionary

unenlightened

The Funky President

Evergreen

Deity

it’s too hot here to think

The Funky President

Deity

Deity

The Funky President

ENEMY ACE™

Emperor

Similar threads