posted
Apparently on the news they found another tape by Usama Bin Ladin and that this time he says that he'll launch a terror attack and kill thousands of Americans unless they agree to some kind of truce.
Should America uphold the principle of "No negotiating with terrorists" but risk endangering thousands of lives or should we negotiate and maybe get peace or maybe end up making them hate us more by looking weak and letting war criminals go free.
posted
I don't think we can negotiate with Bin Laden or Al Qaeda because there's no way to hold them to their commitment, even if some erstwhile representative thereof claims to agree to peace. They have no formal representative or permanent location.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with Sterling here. I have no problem with honest negotiations, but I don't believe that it is possible.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if they could be trusted, we shouldn't negotiate. It only lends legitimacy to their tactics.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What exactly is it that Bin Laden wants to negotiate? Last I heard, he wanted to destroy America. Clearly, we wouldn't negotiate on that.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure we could. "Tell you what...you can destroy all the blue states, as long as you leave the red states the heck alone."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ray- No, Saladin was considered to me the most noble man alive in his time, by Christians and Muslims alike.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Sure we could. "Tell you what...you can destroy all the blue states, as long as you leave the red states the heck alone."
Wow. And they call him a terrorist.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that he want's to destroy America, offering up the blue states as a sacrificial lamb might not work. Just sayin'.
Anyway. Generally people don't try to negotiate when they have the upper hand. Of course, I'm speaking of rational, non-suicidal folk, here, but it's a good point to keep in mind/
So I'm wondering if we spooked him enough, or if he's just playing games (again). Sounds nice, but I don't see this working out at all.
--j_k
[edit: and now I've gone and said something needlessly snarky. gorramit. :-/ ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ultimately, negotiating is the only thing that will bring peace.
Bin Laden understands his people quite well. His statement shortly after 911 that if we kill him we will only create 100 more Bin Ladins is right on the mark. We are creating more terrorists, by proving to be an arrogant enemy, instead of being willing to listen.
The whole problem with not negotiating with terrorists is that it perpetuates their standing as being an illegitimate agency. The better solution would be to demand that they organize politically, so that political solutions can be applied. Then co-opt their politics.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Generally people don't try to negotiate when they have the upper hand."
U.S. Grant, for example. Saladin for another. The best leaders are those who WILL negotiate when they have the upper hand.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In that case, then my response was of course a joke as well.
Perhaps we should team up for a Comedy Central guffaw-fest...or perhaps make funny videos using Halo and Halo 2. We could call it "Red vs Blue."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yar... I was beginning to wonder if you were joking about 30seconds after I posted that. Sorry for the snark, erosomniac. [and you know there's a discovery channel show called RedvsBlue, or something like that. They transplant people to different places. Kinda funny. /offtopic]
posted
Worry not - I suppose my political views are odd enough that you wouldn't automatically I assume that I vote democrat in almost every instance and have lived in nothing but blue states my entire life.
(And there's a show called Red vs Blue, which is made using footage from Halo & Halo 2, and is hilarious.)
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, how do you negotiate with someone who considers you a tool of Satan? More to the point, how do you negotiate with someone who isn't rational (as Kirk says) and who you can't hold to the agreement (as Sterling says).
quote:We are creating more terrorists, by proving to be an arrogant enemy, instead of being willing to listen.
Negotiation takes two, Glenn. You know that. Furthermore, I would argue that we create even more terrorists if we openly negotiated with them while they are terrorizing.
Such an act would only point out to them that, "Hey! These tactics work!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Didn't Saladin (great islamic hero) surrender (or call a truce) just before attacking?
Just the opposite. The Crusaders attacked him while pretending to be negotiating for a truce.
My completely uniformed take is that he's an old, ailing man who knows he's going to die soon and who is having the top level members of his organization hunted and killed. He's just trying to stir up dissention because he's got nothing on the horizon before he can be expected to kick the bucket.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we should negotiate with terrorists. Like people have already said, it would just promote more terrorism while antagonizing our allies who believe in not negotiating with terrorists.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On general principle I do not think we should negotiate with terrorists. It signal others that by killing enough innocent Americans, they can get what they want.
To be specific, we can not and should not negotiate with Bin Laden and Al Queda.
There are two possible reasons they mention negotiations. 1) Bin Laden is tired of hiding in the Mts, and that rocket came to close to him or 2) They are pulling an Arafat, looking all sad and innocent saying "We are the peace makers, but they are the bad war mongers. As such, THEY ALL MUST DIE!!!!!!
However, I am a bit confused. The president has declared this "A War on Terrorism".
Such a war can never be won since terrorism is a tactic that can be used by anyone.
Presidential defenders point out that this is really a war on Al Queda and its clones.
Yet Al Queda has no capital to be taken, no country to be occupied. It is cellular in nature so decapitating its head will not destroy it. Now, the administration refuses to consider the possibility of peace talks with it.
How can this war ever end?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The president has declared this "A War on Terrorism".
I think the administration finally realized how stupid this term is, so they picked a stupider one. It's now officially called the "Global Struggle Against Extremism."
Does this mean that the socialists and Catholics alike are in danger? Stay tuned!
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What'd be the point of negotiating with them?
Bin Laden can't speak for every terrorist on the planet, he probably can't even speak for his organization. Dealing with him is a moot point if he can't truly stop the violence, and he can't.
It's like the situation in Israel. A ceasefire is useless if you can't control every single person, because one person can screw everything up. One terrorist attack would demand a US response, and that would eliminate the truce.
What I really wonder is what Bin Laden is thinking. We aren't stupid, and we aren't going to fall for that. Either he's lost it entirely, or there's something else going on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Furthermore, I would argue that we create even more terrorists if we openly negotiated with them while they are terrorizing.
Such an act would only point out to them that, "Hey! These tactics work!"
This is the traditional argument. It sounds good in theory, but you have to consider the fact that we have been using the "no negotiation" strategy for a long time now, and yet terrorism seems to be an increasingly popular tactic anyway. Refusing to negotiate does not seem to be convincing anyone that terrorism doesn't work.
Of course, if refusing to negotiate increases terrorism, and negotiating also increases terrorism, what can we do that doesn't increase terrorism? I'm inclined to think there are conditions that create such hatred and anger that it incites terrorism, and that we must eliminate those conditions if we are to get rid of terrorism. This could include giving the terrorists some or all of what they want, but it should not be negotiating. There should be no agreement expected in return - we can assume they or some other group will break any promise to refrain from terror once we give them what they want, as long as committing terror is to their benefit. So, forget promises. The goal should be to alter the conditions so that committing terrorism is no longer in their interests. You can only really trust a promise, in this situation, if it is no longer in anyone's interest to break that promise.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The goal should be to alter the conditions so that committing terrorism is no longer in their interests.
How do you get that then? You'd think we'd be there when the people stop supporting the terrorists and actively oppose them, which hasn't happened yet, no matter how much they claim to not like them. The insurgents in Iraq have killed thousands of Iraqis and the people themselves still haven't taken active steps to oppose them.
With a population like that, how do you ever create an environment where the terrorists will believe it ISNT in their best interests to keep attacking?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to take an extremely long view. There is a positive correlation between terrorism and economic and political repression. Therefore, you spread democratic government, rule of law, freedom, rights, etc.
Hey, isn't this what Bush has been saying we should be doing?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The goal should be to alter the conditions so that committing terrorism is no longer in their interests.
How do you get that then? You'd think we'd be there when the people stop supporting the terrorists and actively oppose them, which hasn't happened yet, no matter how much they claim to not like them. The insurgents in Iraq have killed thousands of Iraqis and the people themselves still haven't taken active steps to oppose them.
With a population like that, how do you ever create an environment where the terrorists will believe it ISNT in their best interests to keep attacking?
Well, in many Muslim countries, Jordan for example, public opinion turned radically against terrorists when terrorists struck within their country. And Jordan isn't the only country that's happened in, although I can't think of any other examples right now. But it's not going to happen in a day. Especially not in Iraq when there are so many other forces at work and so many other things the Iraqi people need to be expending their energy on. Not to mention that there's a good possibility the Iraqi's see the attacks as justified since they're aimed at Americans. In Jordan the outrage was because normal, religious Muslims were the only target. It wasn't an attack against a foreign invader, but against the people the terrorists claim to be protecting.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: You have to take an extremely long view. There is a positive correlation between terrorism and economic and political repression. Therefore, you spread democratic government, rule of law, freedom, rights, etc.
Hey, isn't this what Bush has been saying we should be doing?
Actions speak far louder than words. I think the idea's noble, if idealistic. I think a great way to start would be to make America an example of freedom for the world. You don't do that by curtailing the rights of the citizens of your country.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jordan has long been an exception to the rule in the Middle East. They are far more progressive than your average country in that region.
Besides, the bulk of the population in that region is in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Getting smaller nations on our side is nice, and certainly helpful towards the goal, but we haven't seen any sign of change in any of the three most populous nations. At least, not POSITIVE change. Especially in Saudi Arabia where the people actively support terrorist actions.
Iran is perhaps ironically the most hopeful in the area as far as change for the better. Their populace shows the most bent towards a Pro-Western future popular opinion. Despite the hostile government currently in power.
quote: But it's not going to happen in a day.
It's been years, I still await progress.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:With a population like that, how do you ever create an environment where the terrorists will believe it ISNT in their best interests to keep attacking?
I think that population supports terrorism because, even though they know it is immoral, they also know it is the only way to get their interests heard by us. The truth is that although we don't negotiate with terrorists, at least we allow terrorists to influence us and get on our news. In contrast, we basically totally ignore the nonviolent population, and make decisions about their region for them. It is not surprising that they'd resort to extreme violence when extreme violence is the only thing that gets us to listen to them and their actual concerns.
And I think if we hope to discourage terrorism, we need to give them nonviolent means of accomplishing what terrorism does - nonviolent means of getting themselves heard by the more powerful western world, and nonviolent means of pursuing their own interests. We need to give them not only a voice, but a voice that we will listen to without being forced to listen to it through violence. If we can do this, there will be a more ethical alternative to terrorism, and I think it will no longer be in their interests to support terrorism.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you're basically saying is that they're willing to target and kill lots of innocent civilians to get themselves more power for themselves.
Y'know, that's really not the type of person I want to be giving more power to, through any means, violent or nonviolent.
But I don't grant your starting premise anyway. Your premise basically assumes they are so stupid and childish that any attention is better than no attention, even really bad attention. That's the way children think: the grown ups aren't paying attention to me, I'll break something! Because the "attention" they've been getting as a result of terrorism is very bad attention.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure you could call it bad attention. The attention they've gained since 9/11 has moved them much closer to their goals - by manuevering America into the role of a bad guy and isoloating us, inciting us to essentially hand Iraq to them, making themselves known throughout the world, pushing the Middle East towards a pan-Islamic ideal, spreading their own ideology, encouraging anti-Western anger within the Muslim world, etc. Our War on Terror may have brought destruction to a number of countries, and even damaged terrorist infrastructure, but it has very much helped the terrorists move towards achieving their goals.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were already in the role of "bad guy", Tresopax. What we've done since 9-11 didn't move us to a place we already were.
Pretty much everything else you've said depends entirely on an unpredictible future, but as usual you have no trouble predicting the very worst.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and incidentally when I was talking about "they", I was referring to the same "they" you were: Arabic and Muslim people worldwide. Not just terrorists.
quote:I think that population supports terrorism because, even though they know it is immoral, they also know it is the only way to get their interests heard by us.
You're saying they support terrorism because it's the only way they get heard. That is exactly the same kind of reasoning a child uses. "Mommy and Daddy aren't paying attention to me, so I'll break something! Then they'll pay attention to me!"
You may not recognize just how patronizing and racist your opening paragraph in that post are, but the fact is you're essentially calling Arabs childish. While it would be nice if such a simple motivation were true-because then it'd be so much easier to address-I think the truth, whatever it is, is much more complicated.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and incidentally when I was talking about "they", I was referring to the same "they" you were: Arabic and Muslim people worldwide. Not just terrorists.
quote:I think that population supports terrorism because, even though they know it is immoral, they also know it is the only way to get their interests heard by us.
You're saying they support terrorism because it's the only way they get heard. That is exactly the same kind of reasoning a child uses. "Mommy and Daddy aren't paying attention to me, so I'll break something! Then they'll pay attention to me!"
You may not recognize just how patronizing and racist your opening paragraph in that post are, but the fact is you're essentially calling Arabs childish. While it would be nice if such a simple motivation were true-because then it'd be so much easier to address-I think the truth, whatever it is, is much more complicated.
So those Arab and/or Muslim people who make the exact same observation are racist against themselves? This is the second time that I seem to recall that someone is a 'racist' because they disagree with you. I'm starting to think that being called a racist by you is actually a point of pride and a certain indication that one is actually free of the taint of racism.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, if I understand right, people resort to terrorism precisely because it's the only way to advance their goals. I'm just tossing stuff out here, so bear with me. You can occomplish your goals by political, economic, or military means, but if those aren't options (or at least successful options), then terrorism is one of the ways to further your goals. It does amount to the same reasoning a child uses. I certainly don't apply this philosophy to an entire people, and Arabs / Muslims are by no means the only group from whom terrorists have sprouted. But it does break down to "you won't listen to my ideas / goals / complaints? I'll MAKE you listen." Heck, that philosphy is used by tons of people (my boss comes to mind). Terrorism is just on a different scale.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pretty much everything else you've said depends entirely on an unpredictible future, but as usual you have no trouble predicting the very worst.
I'm not predicting the worst. I'm predicting what I think seems likely. The worst, in contrast, would be something like nuclear war over Iraq - which would probably result in us winning, the Middle East being devastated, and a good deal of destruction on all sides. I don't think this is likely. I also don't think it is likely that bin Laden will achieve the sort of Islamic empire he seems to be picturing, but I do think the likelihood is far greater now that it was before we began to react to his campaign of terrorism, if only because so many more people now view it as a force that could challenge the status quo in the Middle East.
quote:You may not recognize just how patronizing and racist your opening paragraph in that post are, but the fact is you're essentially calling Arabs childish. While it would be nice if such a simple motivation were true-because then it'd be so much easier to address-I think the truth, whatever it is, is much more complicated.
You were the one that said this sort of thinking is childish, not me. And although children can use this reasoning, I don't think that means it is bad reasoning to use.
And there's nothing about Arabs that makes this unique to them. Peoples all over the world have done similarly immoral things when confronted with a passion for change but an inability to do anything about it. Don't forget all the violent and destructive things the Americans did leading up to the American Revolution, in hopes of making their cause known to the British.
posted
A different analogy from the childish reasoning would be publicity, there's no such thing as bad press. Tresopax was right about one thing, the peaceful Muslims are ignored. Look at Africa and Central America. Poverty and corruption run amok there, but they keep quiet about it, and we don't bother with them. The Middle East goes up in flames and tries to take us with it, and we have no choice but to stick out noses in.
It wasn't childish thinking when they first started doing it. They had no avenues of communication with a Western world that was entirely devoted to the threat of communism, so they made themselves heard the only ways they knew how. When the Cold War ended, and the West still didn't pay attention to their pleas, they used what they had. Diplomatically they had nothing, as their economies, other than oil, have zero bearing on ours. They can't threaten us with anything other than oil.
And when the oil embargoes piss off the rest of the world, they don't even have that. The problem is that they've been doing it for so long, they think it's the only way to get through to us.
It's not the thinking of a normal child, it's the thinking of an abused and ignored child in a sweatshop.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you were paying attention, I did not call Tresopax a racist, I specifically said, "You are saying Arabs are childish," and that the idea you're advancing is a racist one.
When I want to call someone a racist, be assured I'll be very open with it. And as I recall, you were too dim-witted to realize that I was using offensive language to prove a point, not because I actually believed in the language I was using. See? There's an example. I wanted to call you dim-witted, and I did so-I didn't go hinting around about it.
But take pride in it all you like-seeing as how you decided to post in this thread exclusively to insult and pick a fight with me, beyond what I've already said I don't much care what you think, or to interact with you.
Edit: Wait a minute, I remember now. You called the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants to America an invasion, and suggested that we respond to it as though it were a military invasion.
On further reconsideration, I still consider that idea stupid and racist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You may not recognize just how patronizing and racist your opening paragraph in that post are, but the fact is you're essentially calling Arabs childish
One of the ways that this is wrong is that it makes the assuption that terrorists are all Arabs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there's nothing about Arabs that makes this unique to them. Peoples all over the world have done similarly immoral things when confronted with a passion for change but an inability to do anything about it. Don't forget all the violent and destructive things the Americans did leading up to the American Revolution, in hopes of making their cause known to the British.
I think you're ignoring the part of the equation that includes terrorists brutally and indiscrimately murdering anyone-especially their own people-who disagree with them.
I think I'd be a little nervous, and a little careful about what I said in such a situation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You're right, of course. There are basically terrorists in every skin color, gender, religion, and nationality. It's my understanding here, though, that we're talking about Arabic and Islamic terrorists.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The attention they've gained since 9/11 has moved them much closer to their goals - by manuevering America into the role of a bad guy and isoloating us, inciting us to essentially hand Iraq to them, making themselves known throughout the world, pushing the Middle East towards a pan-Islamic ideal, spreading their own ideology, encouraging anti-Western anger within the Muslim world, etc.
I think this is exactly the opposite. The terrorists did not know that the United States would go after Iraq. If anything, the terrorist attacks gave us more supporters. No one questions going into Afghanistan. It was only after Bush went further and started his war on Iraq that there was opposition.
I think also the idea of terrorists being childish is not altogether true, but I understand your sentiment. It is more the mark of desperate people that feel they have to resort to such measures to get themselves noticed.
quote: Look at Africa and Central America. Poverty and corruption run amok there, but they keep quiet about it, and we don't bother with them
We don't bother with them, which is exactly the problem. If people can't get our attention except through attacks on the United States, then something is wrong.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Terrorist attacks should be prevented, and governments who harbor them should be dealt with. Threats should meet the US non-negotiation policy, until such a policy is rendered inffective by numerous successful attacks. Threats of terrorism is blackmail - once you give in one time, the demands tend to keep rising. Honor among those to would kill innocents to make a statement is not to be trusted.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're ignoring the part of the equation that includes terrorists brutally and indiscrimately murdering anyone-especially their own people-who disagree with them
How so? American terrorists incited the Boston Massacre and then gleefully played that against the British in getting more Americans incited to violence against the British.
quote: We don't bother with them, which is exactly the problem. If people can't get our attention except through attacks on the United States, then something is wrong.
Precisely. Something IS wrong when that is the case. Sadly, given the current administration, actually saying that something is wrong gets you attacked because that something that is wrong, is wrong with us, not them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone on here jumped on me for being part of the "blame America first" crowd, whatever crowd that is. But pretending we bear no burden of blame in the trail of how we got to our current situation is stupid and dangerous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Glenn, how do you negotiate with someone who considers you a tool of Satan? More to the point, how do you negotiate with someone who isn't rational (as Kirk says) and who you can't hold to the agreement (as Sterling says).
Oh, you can't negotiate with George Bush, I never said you could.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course there's a very effective way to end terrorism: Complete censorship of the news media.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
