Negotiations with Terrorists?

[Stigmata]

I was reading the paper yesterday, an article about Hezbollah being considered a "terrorist organization" by the Canadian government, which is thus unwilling to conduct open talks with said organization. And this article got me thinking... Should we start negotiating with terrorists? Should we simply talk to them, but bar ourselves from actually levelling with them? Or should we continue to bar ourselves from communication?

 

[Black_Wolf]

tea time?

 

[kirovman]

Communication is ultimately the only way.

See Northern Ireland.

However, Terrorism is an excuse for ulterior motives. The communication won't start for about 3 or 4 more presidencies.

With Vietnam, the VietCong used to have Suicide bombers too. The US pulled out. Now, the USA and the Communist Vietnamese are best of friends.

 

[Solaris]

Terrorists are not some speices. Its entirely subjective. Some 'terrorists' are good, some are bad.

 

[kirovman]

Actually what's happening in Iraq is an Insurgency (as would happen in any country with a recently overthrown government), it's nothing to do with this "global Al-Qaeda world domination" conspiracy. "Terrorists" has been a convieniant label for the insurgency, to get support from home.

Woosh!

 

[Llama]

Any negotiations are preferable to fighting.
Like Solaris said, 'Terrorist' is just a phrase used to describe people with a certain point of view that show it in a different way. Whether you think it is evil or not is entirely up to you.

 

[kirovman]

As deplorable as the violence is, the causes of it aren't being addressed or even recognised.
It's just being fought with more violence.
Like pouring petrol on a fire.

Although, that doesn't really matter when it comes down to the real agenda.


Also, it has been said: without a strong Iraq and strong Afghanistan next to Iran, its biggest rivals have now been eliminated, leaving Iran in a much more powerful position than before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5277362.stm

Nice one, Bush.

 

[Solaris]

Anyway, Hezbullah arn't terrorists.

 

[Llama]

They are, but only from a certain viewpoint.
Likewise, from a certain viewpoint Isreal is a terrorist state.

 

[Solaris]

They are, but only from a certain viewpoint.
Likewise, from a certain viewpoint Isreal is a terrorist state.

Exactly.

Thus why this discussion is pointless.
I wouldn't negociate with Hezbullah as I agree with their aims.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I don't think we should negociate with terrorists cause then they win they use terror to get our attention and more will do the same.

 

[Kangy]

Exactly.

Thus why this discussion is pointless.
I wouldn't negociate with Hezbullah as I agree with their aims.

To kill all Israelis? Nice.

 

[Solaris]

To kill all Israelis? Nice.

That isn't one of their aims.

 

[Kangy]

That isn't one of their aims.

Bullshit.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm

A state is the representation of its citizens. It wants to destroy Israel, and therefore Israelis, to a point where they can no longer claim Israel as a state.

 

[bvasgm]

Like Solaris said, 'Terrorist' is just a phrase used to describe people with a certain point of view that show it in a different way. Whether you think it is evil or not is entirely up to you.

hang on, hang on...

...

nope, not gonna be able to stop





Terrorism is the use of violence and/or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Basically, it's the use of violence to get what you want, it's not just a group of people expressing their views in a "different way".

Negotioating with terrorists is bad. It's bad, because if we do, even once, it sets a precedent. Other terrorist groups will look at the decision and say "Hmm, these guys did *insert act of terrorism here* and got what they wanted, maybe if we *insert act of terrorism here* we'll get what we're after too!!"

 

[Solaris]

"

Negotioating with terrorists is bad. It's bad, because if we do, even once, it sets a precedent. Other terrorist groups will look at the decision and say "Hmm, these guys did *insert act of terrorism here* and got what they wanted, maybe if we *insert act of terrorism here* we'll get what we're after too!!"

The American revolutionaries were 'terrorists'. As were the men who took part in the 1916 easter rising in dublin, or the people fighting british imperialism pre ww2. All these people were described as terrorists at the time, yet they were justified.

 

[Absinthe]

Ah, the classic "Terrorist or Freedom Fighter" debate.

I foresee this going nowhere.

 

[Solaris]

Ah, the classic "Terrorist or Freedom Fighter" debate.

I foresee this going nowhere.

Lol you are right.
Thats why creating anythread about 'the terrorists' is pretty pointless.

 

[bvasgm]

The American revolutionaries were 'terrorists'. As were the men who took part in the 1916 easter rising in dublin, or the people fighting british imperialism pre ww2. All these people were described as terrorists at the time, yet they were justified.

Revolutionaries -noun: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolutionaries&x=0&y=0
1. Of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.
2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.
3. A militant in the struggle for revolution.

Terrorist –noun: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist&x=0&y=0
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Terrorism -noun: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism&x=0&y=0
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

See the difference?

Comparing any of your examples of "terrorists" to groups of real terrorists, like hezbollah or al-qaeda, is just insulting.

 

[Solaris]

They all had political motives.

 

[bvasgm]

Yeah, but none of the groups you used as examples did things like...oh...I don't know, running suicide bombers into crowded public areas with the intention of killing as many people as possible to create fear. Then, feeding off of the fear they've created to try and attain whatever their political objective was.

Now do you see the difference?

 

[Solaris]

Semantics are fuitless to debate.

 

[bvasgm]

Semantics? If you can't see the difference between a revolutionary, someone who's fighting against oppression, and a terrorist, someone who uses...oh, what's the word I'm looking for...terror, to get what they want, then I'm just wasting my time talking to you.

 

[Solaris]

Semantics? If you can't see the difference between a revolutionary, someone who's fighting against oppression, and a terrorist, someone who uses...oh, what's the word I'm looking for...terror, to get what they want, then I'm just wasting my time talking to you.

Terror to whom? Using violence for political change can be pefectly defendable.

 

[bvasgm]

Terror to whom? Using violence for political change can be pefectly defendable.

Outwitted by Solaris, gg brain

D:

I still say negotiating with terrorists, in any capacity, is something no nation should ever do. It shows a weakness that other terrorist groups would be all too happy to exploit.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Talking isn't the solution, but it is by far the best option.

Negotiation serves no real purpose when the dangerous folk in question are religious fundamentalists.
(See, for example, any given thread about abortion, gay marriage, etc. for examples of how reason is often fruitless.)

At the same time though, overt antagonistic rah-rah hatred or even just indifference is the opposite of helpful.
Stuff like the Iraq war won't get you any friends, and you'll just end up weaker with more enemies.

The solution, then, is to act as reasonable as humanly possible, without bowing to unreasonable opponents or becoming unreasonable yourself.

If you're neither a pushover nor an ogre, the majority of the world will support you.

It might not solve the problem (because it's doubtful anything will), but it will weaken the terrorists - and strengthen yourself - more than anything else.

 

[Reaktor4]

Wtf is up with your sig?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yes, exactly!

 

[sinkoman]

errorism -noun: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism&x=0&y=0
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

WTF do you think the Boston Tea party was?

EDIT: NVM, argument is over

Anyway, I don't see any problem with negotiating with terrorists. You don't have to bargain when you negotiate.

I agree, there is no reason to completely comply with terrorists in general, but when there are say, 3,000 lives in the balance, why the **** would you risk those lives for a stupid ****ing "policy"?

 

[15357]

You don't negotiate with terrorists, you neutralize them.

 

[bvasgm]

WTF do you think the Boston Tea party was?

On Thursday, December 16, 1773, the evening before the tea was supposed to be landed, the Sons of Liberty, three groups of 50 Boston residents each organized by Samuel Adams, burst from the Old South Meeting House and headed toward Griffin's Wharf, dressed as Mohawks. Three ships — the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver — were loaded with hundreds of crates of tea. The men boarded the ships and began destroying the cargo. By 9 p.m., they had opened 342 crates of tea in all three ships and had thrown them into Boston Harbor. They took off their shoes, swept the decks, and made each ship's first mate agree to say that the Sons of Liberty had destroyed only the tea. The whole event was remarkably quiet and peaceful. The next day, they sent someone around to fix the one padlock they had broken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party

You've got a strange definition of terrorism...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The entire american revolution, which began with the tea party, was an act of terrorism against the british.

 

[15357]

Yeah.

Actually, the revolution itself was an act of terror.

 

[Stigmata]

You don't negotiate with terrorists, you neutralize them.

NO!

You don't neutralize the terrorists. You talk to them and figure out why they're doing what they're doing, and see what you can do to prevent terrorist cells and movements from cropping up again!

Violence begets violence.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah.

Actually, the revolution itself was an act of terror.

not possible ..at least not with the methods countries like the US or Israel uses ..I mean with every bomb they drop they create dozens of new recruits. The invasion of Iraq will fuel terrorism against the US for decades to come

 

[sinkoman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party

You've got a strange definition of terrorism...

Nobody has to die for something to be considered terrorism...

What if some terror group was to board a cargo ship in the middle of the nite, break into the dock cranes, and drop all the crates into the water?

 

[bvasgm]

Nobody has to die for something to be considered terrorism...

What if some terror group was to board a cargo ship in the middle of the nite, break into the dock cranes, and drop all the crates into the water?

ter‧ror‧ism  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

What you just described is destruction of property, not terrorism.

 

[sinkoman]

What you just described is destruction of property, not terrorism.

Take from your own example...

ter‧ror‧ism  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

[bvasgm]

Well, by dumping cargo overboard you're not really threatening, intimidating or coercing them, you're just destroying their shit.

 

[sinkoman]

Well, by dumping cargo overboard you're not really threatening, intimidating or coercing them, you're just destroying their shit.

Meah, I could pull some argument out of my ass now, but I won't because I know that you've pretty much got me cornered (in a purely technical aspect), and because I know that this isn't getting anywhere.