Negotiating with terrorists?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

It is always better to negotiate from a position of strength(any legitimate government)the stronger your position the better the compromise.

Why has it been assumed throughout this thread that Governments are in a position of strength compared to terrorist groups? Nation States may be stronger militarily but given that no one knows who or where the terrorists are, that advantage is lost.

IMHO Governments have much more to lose since they are charged with protecting their citizens. The consequence of failing to do so is a political weakened governing body.

Do you have any idea how many recruits the IRA got in the year of Bloody Sunday, almost triple the normal numbers, also when the English decided to wipe out a few IRA members to try and stem the terrorist threat, recruitment dpubled or trippled, what your talking about is throwing oil at the fire.

And to those who advocate killing every 'terrorist', how do to intend to deal with terrorist such as those who carried out the July bombings in London. Who were British Citizens.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

@rmsharpe

You are seriously going to starve a country for voting in a government you didn't agree with? Are you serious? If we followed that philosophy there would be a bunch of dead Americans right now because lets face it they stuffed up.

Democracy is the right of a population to elect any government they choose. You Americans crap on about upjolding democracy but when someone else uses it they deserve starving??

 

[kingjoshi]

@HawkeyeGS
You are seriously advocating supporting a government that wants its neighbors wiped off the map? Are you serious? If we followed that philosophy, the Palestinians would have no reason to change their ways and there would be another genocide against the Jews, this time in Israel.

Not sponsoring terrorism is the moral responsibility of every individual and their government.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ HawkeyeGS -

The US, or any government for that matter, is not obligated to give any money to anyone they don't want to, especially those governments that they see as hostile or as an enemy.

Look at foreign aid money like this. Lets say you donate to a charity. That charity has a democratic election and decides to change its political direction and now promotes beliefs you no longer agree with. Are you still obligated to donate to that organization?

Of course not, and the US is not obligated to donate foreign aid to those it disagrees with either. We are not 'starving' them as you claim, we are simply discontinuing our gifts of charity, as is our right.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Of course not, and the US is not obligated to donate foreign aid to those it disagrees with either. We are not 'starving' them as you claim, we are simply discontinuing our gifts of charity, as is our right.

Agreed. The US can pick and choose those who it donates to, but perhaps it shouldn't criticise those who believe that forcing a people deeper into poverty is no way to combat terrorism.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

@HawkeyeGS
You are seriously advocating supporting a government that wants its neighbors wiped off the map? Are you serious? If we followed that philosophy, the Palestinians would have no reason to change their ways and there would be another genocide against the Jews, this time in Israel.

Not sponsoring terrorism is the moral responsibility of every individual and their government.

Read me before posting that rubbish. I did not say I supported the government (PLO or HAMAS). I said I supported the starving population - civilians. Try not to get these contrating groups confused.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I would think that if the US has an 'obligation to fight terrorism" (Bush) then I would expect that since morale obligation to prevent starvation os more important the US would be for that. It is not simply that they can pick and choose who to give aid to which is their right but to cut it away instantaniously because of the outcome of a democratic election in the name of "combating terror" is absurd. Leaving the people to starve will not help the cause against terrorism but will only increase terrorism activity agaist Isreal and anti-US sentiment.

The government in power over the people should hold no sway over the amount of international aid the people (civilians) deserve, need and actually get.

 

[kingjoshi]

Read me before posting that rubbish. I did not say I supported the government (PLO or HAMAS). I said I supported the starving population - civilians. Try not to get these contrating groups confused.

Swoosh. The point I was trying to make just flew over your head. If you read the posts again, you might be able to catch it.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

So you are saying if we feed some starving Palestinians that will cause a genocide in Isreal? Sorry but I simply ignored it before because of how absurd it sounded. I didn't think you were 100% serious. Could you please the logic you used to come at such a fanticful conclusion?

 

[amadeus]

You are seriously going to starve a country for voting in a government you didn't agree with?

Your whole premise is based on that we have a responsibility to feed the Palestinians. When did this happen? If we're supplying them with goods and services, why shouldn't we have the right to give them demands?

 

[Arcades057]

Hawkeye you're a little misguided, I think. You stated that the terrorists don't want to fly planes into buildings... Yet that is precisely what they want. These people are brought up in a culture where that is to be applauded, where the killers of women and the murderers of children are held up as martyrs and saints.

To negotiate with them by any means is ridiculous. There are Muslims out there who are not out to kill us. Teach them that we are not to be hated by spreading our culture (much like in the Civ games) rather than adapting to the settings around us. Open MORE schools in Iraq and Afghanistan, hell, open schools all over the Muslim world to teach children in a western fashion (I'm thinking private school, not public). Give them a curriculum that does not include "the Jew is a devil" or "how to kill people 101."

This is all part of the "rewarding bad behavior" thing which you obviously missed. Teach them good behavior. Punish the bad. If punishing includes dropping a Tomahawk cruise missile on a hut to kill someone planning to kill others, so be it.

And as for the "gung-ho" attitude, we never tried that. What we did try was the weak-wristed, girly-man approach to a war. We are NOT supposed to be fighting this conflict to look good. We are supposed to be fighting it to win. Unfortunately too many Civs in this country (USA) have adopted the Cowardly civic, so we can't actually fight the war.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's true that the difference between a secessionist army and a terrorist group can be rather thin.

The FLN during the war of Algeria could be decribed both as a liberation army and as a terrorist group. The same is true for the Vietcong in South Vietnam or even PLO in Palestine. The FARC in Colombia are also in a "civil war" against the Colombian government, however in many aspects there are mere terrorists. It's really not so easy to make the difference between both.

 

[Inqvisitor]

To negotiate with them by any means is ridiculous. There are Muslims out there who are not out to kill us. Teach them that we are not to be hated by spreading our culture (much like in the Civ games) rather than adapting to the settings around us. Open MORE schools in Iraq and Afghanistan, hell, open schools all over the Muslim world to teach children in a western fashion (I'm thinking private school, not public). Give them a curriculum that does not include "the Jew is a devil" or "how to kill people 101."

I think Western interference has been the motivating force behind the Moslems' wish to fly planes into buildings or take part in other "terrorist" attacks. Setting up propaganda ministries in their countries just isn't going to work.

 

[Arcades057]

Very true, Marla. I define terrorist as the following:

1) A person who intentionally and willfully engages in activities or attacks that target the civilian populace.

2) A person who engages in activities to support those from #1.

That's a terrorist. If someone is, in their minds, defending their country then they are not a terrorist. If Canada invaded the US to bring socialism to us I'd be killing those Canuck bastards, so I can almost understand where the average Iraqi "insurgent" is coming from.

 

[Arcades057]

Inqvistor, define "Western interference" and "propaganda ministry."

Actually, you'd probably better not, I already know where this one is going. Forget I asked. Nothing to see here.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Inqvistor, define "Western interference" and "propaganda ministry."

Actually, you'd probably better not, I already know where this one is going. Forget I asked. Nothing to see here.

Of course you know where this is going because you already defined them, I just named them:
"each them that we are not to be hated by spreading our culture (much like in the Civ games) rather than adapting to the settings around us. Open MORE schools in Iraq and Afghanistan, hell, open schools all over the Muslim world to teach children in a western fashion (I'm thinking private school, not public). Give them a curriculum that does not include "the Jew is a devil" or "how to kill people 101.""

Why in hell would any Western nation be opening schools in any Middle Eastern nation?
Why don't we let the Arabs open up some schools over here with a curriculum that does not include "the Jew is an angel" or "how to kill the unborn 101?"

 

[Marla_Singer]

Very true, Marla. I define terrorist as the following:

1) A person who intentionally and willfully engages in activities or attacks that target the civilian populace.

2) A person who engages in activities to support those from #1.

Then in this case various army are terrorist groups. Including the United States during World War 2.

That's a terrorist. If someone is, in their minds, defending their country then they are not a terrorist. If Canada invaded the US to bring socialism to us I'd be killing those Canuck bastards, so I can almost understand where the average Iraqi "insurgent" is coming from.

In such a case, Al Qaeda isn't a terrorist organization as they see their action as a way to defend the Nation of Islam.


Seriously that's a very tricky issue. My point is certainly not to discard terrorism as an empty concept though. However, I tend to believe that terrorism is before everything a strategy which has as purpose intimidation.

In the 19th century, terrorists were mainly anarchists or independentists murdering politicians or aristocrats. They weren't killing indiscriminately civilians though. However, they could be genuinely considered as terrorists as they were using violence and intimidation in order to be heard. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand of Austria is before everything a terrorist action. The more mass media have grown in importance and the more public opinion counted in politics. It's only because of this that randomly murdering civilians could become a valuable strategy in order to intimidate those having a power of decision. The target has changed, but the strategy remains the same.

Once this said, there's no simple answer to the question as it varies a lot according to the situation. As a standard rule, I would say that the less influential is a group using terrorist strategies, the easiest it is to not negociate with him. However, once there's a whole army behind, negociations become a lot harder to avoid. Usually, negociations are rarely a deontological choice. It's only in case you can afford to not negociate that you won't. That's what the USSR and the US have fulfilled in taking Berlin. Nazis were powerless so had no mean anymore to negociate anyway, hence they were forced to surrender unconditionally.

As common citizens, it's natural for us to see this according to ideological concepts. However, in the field, it's all a matter of strength being confronted. No matter how horrendous can be the tactic used by your ennemy, if he has really enough power to become a serious threat and using strength against him leads to a deadlock situation, then negociating becomes a valid option to consider. That's what happened for instance in Algeria with the FLN or in Vietnam with the Vietcong.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Hawkeye you're a little misguided, I think. You stated that the terrorists don't want to fly planes into buildings... Yet that is precisely what they want. These people are brought up in a culture where that is to be applauded, where the killers of women and the murderers of children are held up as martyrs and saints.

To negotiate with them by any means is ridiculous. There are Muslims out there who are not out to kill us. Teach them that we are not to be hated by spreading our culture (much like in the Civ games) rather than adapting to the settings around us. Open MORE schools in Iraq and Afghanistan, hell, open schools all over the Muslim world to teach children in a western fashion (I'm thinking private school, not public). Give them a curriculum that does not include "the Jew is a devil" or "how to kill people 101."

This is all part of the "rewarding bad behavior" thing which you obviously missed. Teach them good behavior. Punish the bad. If punishing includes dropping a Tomahawk cruise missile on a hut to kill someone planning to kill others, so be it.

And as for the "gung-ho" attitude, we never tried that. What we did try was the weak-wristed, girly-man approach to a war. We are NOT supposed to be fighting this conflict to look good. We are supposed to be fighting it to win. Unfortunately too many Civs in this country (USA) have adopted the Cowardly civic, so we can't actually fight the war.

Where to begin?

No one wants to fly a plane into a building. They do that to get their message across. I am sure while they may expect some reward in the after-life they do not enjoy the dying part.

Murders are not condoned. Sure they do have some violent punishments for crime. But hey I don't agree with the US and capital punishment (like the 9-11 planner) but do I bomb the US? No.

Spread Culture? You must be joking. This is blatent imperialism. Do you know the number 1 reason people around the world hate the US? Imperialism.

Western Schools? they will have to be underground bunkers of schools to last a day in certain areas over there (because of people acting on ideas as stupid as this).

Schools do not tech people to hate jews or kill people. They are called terrorist training camps.

Not a gun-ho approach? What do you call invading serveral countries?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Terrorists should be allowed to negotiate only with the business end of an M-16.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Terrorists should be allowed to negotiate only with the business end of an M-16.

They do, with C4. Not a very productive negotiation but it's (or percieved to be) the only path available to them.