Negotiating with terrorists?

[Vietcong]

we shold make them enamys in public, but in secreat join forces with them
with the constant threat of the terrorist, perhaps after thay blow a nuke in a major us city *we alow them to* we can use ther terrorist threat to consalidate our power in the nation, and globly.
we basicly keep them a threat, so we can gain more power.
and once the un, and the world is united with us, we betray and kill the terrorist.
the terrorust will be replaced by rebals all over the world, and thay will be used as a binder for our power.

 

[kingjoshi]

Mere rhetorics, the destruction of Israel was in the charter of Fatah as well, and they were able to deal with the Israelis. Negotiations should always be an option even if it is doomed to failure for now, the other side of negotiation is total destruction of the other side, very difficult to achieve given that most islamic terrorists have a very large base of support.

It is always better to negotiate from a position of strength(any legitimate government)the stronger your position the better the compromise. Its the 21th century World we are living in, compromise should be the key word to live by. Being absolute and uncompromising about any position is hard to maintain, and that rule applies to the terrorists aswell.

When Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, compromise can occur. Without that, what compromises do you want to make?

I merely pointed what I thought was a flaw in your reasoning. I'm not taking an absolute position on for/against negotiating. You're the one taking the absolute position for negotiation.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

When Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, compromise can occur. Without that, what compromises do you want to make?

I merely pointed what I thought was a flaw in your reasoning. I'm not taking an absolute position on for/against negotiating. You're the one taking the absolute position for negotiation.

Is that before or after the people of Palestine starve to death because everyne has revoked aid to the poor country. I bet you will say it is up to HAMAS to recognise Isreal. Well you can't deny a persons right to live simply because another person hasn't done something you want.

 

[Ramius75]

negotiate = 1 a : to deal with (some matter or affair that requires ability for its successful handling)

Everything has a "value". So whatever to negotiate or not will depends on whats at stake, how much are those lifes worth ? The value of each human is different. Will the USA president "negotiate" if his wife is held hostages ? His daughter ?? or his own life ? What about 100 people? 1,000? or 1,000,000? will people negotiate then??

What about who the terrorist are? Be it a terrorist state? White Univeristy Students? Islamic fundermentalist? Do they each have a value on their head or cause?

So, therefore, i dont believe the crap that some Blah blah countries never negotiate. Its just that the "value" and "cost" of negotiation might not realistic yet.

yes, ppl can be held hostages for everything with the "right value".

From Beirut Carlos participated in the planning for the attack on the headquarters of OPEC in Vienna. In December 1975 he led the six-person team that assaulted the meeting of OPEC leaders and took over sixty hostages. On December 22 the rebels and forty-two hostages were given an airliner and flown to Algiers, where thirty hostages were freed, the DC-9 was then flown on to Tripoli where more hostages were freed before flying back to Algiers where the remaining hostages were freed and the rebels were granted asylum. Ramírez Sánchez soon left Algeria for Libya and then Aden where he attended a meeting of senior PFLP officials to justify his failure to execute two senior OPEC hostages, oil minister of Iran Jamshid Amuzgar and the oil ministers of Saudi Arabia. He might have also embezzled some of the ransom money. PFLP leader Wadie Haddad expelled him.

This is 1 example

 

[amadeus]

Is that before or after the people of Palestine starve to death because everyne has revoked aid to the poor country. I bet you will say it is up to HAMAS to recognise Isreal. Well you can't deny a persons right to live simply because another person hasn't done something you want.

In other words, you want us to subsidize our enemies.

 

[kingjoshi]

Is that before or after the people of Palestine starve to death because everyne has revoked aid to the poor country. I bet you will say it is up to HAMAS to recognise Isreal. Well you can't deny a persons right to live simply because another person hasn't done something you want.

The Palestinian people more then welcome to try to make something of their lives by rebuilding their communities and creating peace instead of supporting continual war. They're are more then welcome to protest to Hamas to recognize Israel. How in the world is Canada, EU or the US denying a Palestinian their right to life?

 

[JollyRoger]

Appeasement never works.

Exactly. The world community has basically appeased to letting Bush test his pre-emptive war doctrine and it has basically turned into a permanent occupation of a formerly sovereign nation.

 

[ajaira456]

I think there are several 'degrees' to dealing with terrorists - surely you can't deal with people like al-Zarqawi, but yes you can deal with Muqtada al-Sadr and ilk.

In other words, you want us to subsidize our enemies.

'Your enemies'? I guess with this attitude you won't have any 'friends' left in the Middle East in the next 3 years!

Appeasement never works.

I must say I agree with this topic. The Americans must use either TOTAL WARFARE or COMPLETE PEACE if they want to have anything from the current War on Terror in Iraq. You can only afford to be nice if the other side is, in this case, the other side (ie al Qayeda) is not holding back at all! Americans must start to be proactive and work in the frontlines - and I know, yes, their might be American casualties - but if America doesn't do that this war will take decades to finish and will cause unbelievable, irrepairbale damage to America's status and credibility, along with more manpower losses in the long run.

 

[amadeus]

'Your enemies'? I guess with this attitude you won't have any 'friends' left in the Middle East in the next 3 years!

I would call Hamas and the PLO our enemies. They've hijacked our airplanes, ships, and have murdered our nationals. How does that not make them our enemies?

 

[JollyRoger]

I would call Hamas and the PLO our enemies. They've hijacked our airplanes, ships, and have murdered our nationals. How does that not make them our enemies?

But you would call the Saudis and UAE our friends.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

So since the Palestinians elected the 'wrong' government the people are now our enemy aswell. Nice

 

[Arcades057]

Negotiating with terrorists is like rewarding people for bad behavior. If your kid breaks something you don't take him out for ice cream, you punish him. If a terrorist makes demands and you follow through with them, you send a clear message to all future terrorists: Your enemies are weak.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Negotiating with terrorists is like rewarding people for bad behavior. If your kid breaks something you don't take him out for ice cream, you punish him. If a terrorist makes demands and you follow through with them, you send a clear message to all future terrorists: Your enemies are weak.

Please read the topic sentence. Negotiation is not equivilent to "giving in to demands". It is the realisation that both sides have something to be gained and a compromise may be worked out. Following the kid who breaks somehting example you don't take him out for ice cream you say "if you stop the breaking of things I will buy you an ice cream once in a while." There is a fundamental difference. Negotiation is not a sign of weakness but a sign of humanity for both points of view. Terrorists don't want to fly into builds just as much as you don't wont buildings flown into. The gun-ho attitude has not worked so how about we act like the civilised country we say we are and deal with it.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

In other words, you want us to subsidize our enemies.

Palestinian civilians are not an enemy to anyone. I did not say give HAMAS a few missile launchers and machine guns. I said you cannot punish a population by withholding food of all things simply because they elected a government you happen to dislike. It is democracy after all. Isn't that why we went to Iraq - for democracy?

 

[kingjoshi]

Quoted because it was ignored:

The Palestinian people are more then welcome to try to make something of their lives by rebuilding their communities and creating peace instead of supporting continual war. They're are more then welcome to protest to Hamas to recognize Israel. How in the world is Canada, EU or the US denying a Palestinian their right to life?

 

[Jayhawk_Colin]

Only way I'd negotiate with a terrorist would be to pull the trigger of a M - 16.

And for all of the Bush haters, for the last time, Bush is NOT a terrorist or a war criminal. And idiot yes, but not a terrorist

 

[JollyRoger]

And for all of the Bush haters, for the last time, Bush is NOT a terrorist or a war criminal. And idiot yes, but not a terrorist

Agreed. But by using Bush's expanded definition of terrorist (where even those attemting to repel an occupying military force are somehow "terroriosts"), I think he would safely qualify.

 

[amadeus]

double post

 

[amadeus]

But you would call the Saudis and UAE our friends.

Are you new here, or what? I've never said the Saudis were our friends. I've also said multiple times that in 2003, our tanks were pointed in the wrong direction and that Riyadh was the home base of terrorism in the Middle East, not Baghdad.

Palestinian civilians are not an enemy to anyone.

I'd say that they are if they vote for the PLO/Hamas.

I did not say give HAMAS a few missile launchers and machine guns. I said you cannot punish a population by withholding food of all things simply because they elected a government you happen to dislike.

Sure I can.

It is democracy after all. Isn't that why we went to Iraq - for democracy?

I didn't go to Iraq for democracy. I didn't go to Iraq at all. Given the options, I wouldn't have, either. I would've gone after the fanatics running Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Of course I voted disagree but I think "terrorist" is a highly relativistic term. For example the liberal media calls Palestinians "terrorists" for defending their own country; they certainly deserve a voice at the diplomatic level.