NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people think we should begin negotitations with the leaders of Al-Qaeda and Hamas and all the other major terrorist networks/groups.

Do you think we should negotiate with them? Is it POSSIBLE to negotiate with these people? Should we appease them and give into their demands?

How do we deal with terrorism without violence?

I don't see why it isn't possible.

It impossible to negotiate....they hate us for many reasons some pretty reasonable actually and even if we negotiate with the leaders which wont happen the individual members will rise up against the leader seeing them as a traitor then kill him and the attacks will continue.

It impossible to negotiate....they hate us for many reasons some pretty reasonable actually and even if we negotiate with the leaders which wont happen the individual members will rise up against the leader seeing them as a traitor then kill him and the attacks will continue.

Agreed. That's why education is what's important, not slashing away the leaders *hint to Sharon*

Al-Q doesn't want to negotiate so it is a waste of time.

Some of their claims are valid. The troops in Saudi for example. The current king wants them. However, the crown prince does not. So Al-Q's biggest argument will be lost when we leave.

Hamas would probably love to negotiate if we could "convince" the Israelis to remove the settlements and setup Palistine.

Besides, we talked to them in the past so why not now?

It's hard to negotiate when they have a Fatwa against us declaring a Jihad against us.

In my opinion, it is impossible to negotiate with someone who sincerely believes there are 72 virgins waiting for him in heaven if he straps a bomb to his body and blows up my family.

That suckuh's gonna get dropped.

Education? Do you, by that, mean try to train them not to do this? I think mostly this would be very hard, at least when the Israelis, for an example, kill the leaders of terrorist groups it sends out a message to those who may want to attack them. Reference to 15 year old who surrendered at a checkpoint with a bomb.
I don't believe you could ever negotiate with people whose whole desire is to kill us. There was a quote which Blair read out, that had been said by such terrorists. "You love life we love death" I think by that very quote you can see who they are.

In my opinion, it is impossible to negotiate with someone who sincerely believes there are 72 virgins waiting for him in heaven if he straps a bomb to his body and blows up my family.

That suckuh's gonna get dropped.

I read somewhere that, that may be an error and may supposed to be raisons. I kid you not.

I don't see why it isn't possible.It's impossible because we cannot meet their demands. They have been fighting us for so long they are not even sure of exactly what they want, or how it would be put into practice. This is what happens to resistance and terror organisations, they reach a point whereby all they know how to do is resist.

You cannot negotiate your way out of a holy war. The mind set is total innihilation of the enemy.

Education? Do you, by that, mean try to train them not to do this? I think mostly this would be very hard, at least when the Israelis, for an example, kill the leaders of terrorist groups it sends out a message to those who may want to attack them. Reference to 15 year old who surrendered at a checkpoint with a bomb.
I don't believe you could ever negotiate with people whose whole desire is to kill us. There was a quote which Blair read out, that had been said by such terrorists. "You love life we love death" I think by that very quote you can see who they are.

I don't mean train them not to do this. But teach them that crazy force isn't going to get what they want. It's basically a long-term investment. And it needs a lot of cooperation by both sides. It's not feasible today, but it is a long term solution. Today you probably need to force them to sit at a table and talk to each other.

They have been fighting us for so long they are not even sure of exactly what they want, or how it would be put into practice. This is what happens to resistance and terror organisations, they reach a point whereby all they know how to do is resist.

what, since the early to mid 90s?

or are you refering to the palestinian groups?

Education? Do you, by that, mean try to train them not to do this? I think mostly this would be very hard, at least when the Israelis, for an example, kill the leaders of terrorist groups it sends out a message to those who may want to attack them. Reference to 15 year old who surrendered at a checkpoint with a bomb.
I don't believe you could ever negotiate with people whose whole desire is to kill us. There was a quote which Blair read out, that had been said by such terrorists. "You love life we love death" I think by that very quote you can see who they are.

I don't mean train them not to do this. But teach them that crazy force isn't going to get what they want. It's basically a long-term investment. And it needs a lot of cooperation by both sides. It's not feasible today, but it is a long term solution. Today you probably need to force them to sit at a table and talk to each other.

It may still be difficult to get two radically different cultures to agree, from their very formation there has been arguments. I agree though that if you want them to talk you may have to physically drag them to the table. *slight exaggeration*

The negotiations, very cutely idealistic, wouldn't work. You really think that the leaders of TERRORIST organizations are going to want to sit down and have a lunchen with our nations leaders? You think that's safe? The point is that they want us, including our leaders, DEAD. And they're willing to use things like bombing innocent people inside a giant skyscraper to do it.

These are people who are willing to give up their lives to see us pay. You really think it's wise to sit down and have tea with them, while disucssing what exactly they'd like us to do? I'm not sure about you guys, but "die, you American infidel" isn't on my schedule for anytime soon.

Maybe, just maybe, we could have some of our people talk to some of their people, but even so, I somehow doubt they'd be willing to compromise. The structure of their organization is such that everyone is scrambling to be on top, and if anyone makes any major change that displeases anyone else, there are going to be enough people to start a renegade group that doesn't go against the original decision. After that, the renegade group makes an attack and we naturally blame it on the original, mother group. If they were involved or not, we would naturally assume that they are, and negotiations are done, in either case.

It'd be nice if we could, but realistically, I'd have to bet against it.

It may still be difficult to get two radically different cultures to agree, from their very formation there has been arguments. I agree though that if you want them to talk you may have to physically drag them to the table. *slight exaggeration*

In the past, that was the case. When two cultures meet, one tries to prevail over the other, leading to conflict. Today, we can see a lot of successful cases of merging cultures. Take Hong Kong, for example, a very very good blend between Chinese and general Western culture.

Negotiation would be quite impossible. Al-Qaeda doesn't want peace. They want the death of all Americans everywhere and the establishment of hard-line Islamic governments around the world. Hamas doesn't want peace. They want the death of all Jews everywhere.

Is it POSSIBLE to negotiate with these people?
We did it all the time in the 80's, didn't we? Or perhaps you think the CIA created al-Qa'ida without talking to them...

How do we deal with terrorism without violence? Become isolationist and dismantle the CIA... no CIA = no terrorism

The negotiations, very cutely idealistic, wouldn't work. You really think that the leaders of TERRORIST organizations are going to want to sit down and have a lunchen with our nations leaders? You think that's safe? The point is that they want us, including our leaders, DEAD. And they're willing to use things like bombing innocent people inside a giant skyscraper to do it.
.

There are nice devices called telecommunications nowadays. These objects should not provocate war, but peace.

It may still be difficult to get two radically different cultures to agree, from their very formation there has been arguments. I agree though that if you want them to talk you may have to physically drag them to the table. *slight exaggeration*

In the past, that was the case. When two cultures meet, one tries to prevail over the other, leading to conflict. Today, we can see a lot of successful cases of merging cultures. Take Hong Kong, for example, a very very good blend between Chinese and general Western culture.

China though is becoming less communist and so it is less of a clash. There are examples I'm sure of cultures living side by side. There are also example, even today i.e. Sunni and Shia, of cultures similar, but different, that hate, and are quite happy to kill each other.

It may still be difficult to get two radically different cultures to agree, from their very formation there has been arguments. I agree though that if you want them to talk you may have to physically drag them to the table. *slight exaggeration*

In the past, that was the case. When two cultures meet, one tries to prevail over the other, leading to conflict. Today, we can see a lot of successful cases of merging cultures. Take Hong Kong, for example, a very very good blend between Chinese and general Western culture.

China though is becoming less communist and so it is less of a clash. There are examples I'm sure of cultures living side by side. There are also example, even today i.e. Sunni and Shia, of cultures similar, but different, that hate, and are quite happy to kill each other.

Alas, their Koran was written 400 years, and perhaps some things must be updated to reach today's standards, for example, equal status for men and women. A high, free status.

They have been fighting us for so long they are not even sure of exactly what they want, or how it would be put into practice. This is what happens to resistance and terror organisations, they reach a point whereby all they know how to do is resist.

what, since the early to mid 90s?

or are you refering to the palestinian groups?I was being very broad and generalising.

In 1960, we could negotiate with terrorists, and talk them out of the cockpit of an airliner or respond to their blowing up something like a army depot.

In 1970, it got harder, but people tried (munich), and sometimes it even worked. It worked beacuse they were still trying to make a political statement. Terrorists were more about drawing attention to a cause (AIM, other violent minority groups in the USA). It's more bloody, yes, but it's still a form of political speech.

In the 1980's, it changes. No more negotiations, just a bomb by a roadside in lebanon or a gunman in an airport. Terrorists kill people and then tell the world why- they strike a blow and then issue their demands as a threat. The demands become less and less concrete and more and more abstract and ideal-driven- fewer demands for the release of certain prisoners and withdraw from these areas, and more "drive the jews into the sea" type stuff.

By the 1990's, terrorists are done with any sort of political statements beyond the act itself. Wether it's McVeigh or Hizballah, they just want to kill people, not talk- not even to shout demands. Demands can no longer be met, as they are becoming more and more removed from reality.

Honestly, on the crisp, unreal morning of Sept.11th, 2001, the thing that troubled me most was that there was no list of demands, no claim of responsibility. There was no attempt to engage in dialog anymore, not even dialog that consists of a hostage-taker shouting their slogans. All they wanted to do was kill people. There was no message, no possible way to bargain with an ideology like that. The only way we can make them happy is to die.

I've never been one to join on on the senseless, overly macho, and just stubborn refusal to deal with terrorists, but I don't think Al-Qaeda would care to listen if we tried to appease them.

The one bright light is that as terrorist groups like Hizballah become actually politically powerful, they set up mini-govenments. FARC or Hisballah have ruled territory for long enough so that they are practically a state- they have something to lose, and a vested interest in "playing it safe". That's why Hizballah hasn't attacked full-force into northern israel, and that's why FARC is mostly content to rule its safe zone.

Hamas? Al-Qaeda? They've got nothing. They've got anger, and that's it. They don't run 'school' systems like Hizballah, they don't collect taxes like FARC, they have no headquarters or facilities. They don't even have coherent demands beyond a hatred of anything and anybody that is not like them.

It's sort of depressing, but, hey- that's the world.

The negotiations, very cutely idealistic, wouldn't work. You really think that the leaders of TERRORIST organizations are going to want to sit down and have a lunchen with our nations leaders? You think that's safe? The point is that they want us, including our leaders, DEAD. And they're willing to use things like bombing innocent people inside a giant skyscraper to do it.
.

There are nice devices called telecommunications nowadays. These objects should not provocate war, but peace.telecommunications are not the answer either. There is no such thing as an untracable call. The length of time it would take to do this through telecommunications would allow plenty of time to locate where each other are. The one thing a leader of terrorism fears most is for his enemy to know his location.

Some people think we should begin negotitations with the leaders of Al-Qaeda and Hamas and all the other major terrorist networks/groups.

Do you think we should negotiate with them? Is it POSSIBLE to negotiate with these people? Should we appease them and give into their demands?

How do we deal with terrorism without violence?

It makes about as much sense as believing that we're going to kill all "terrorists" and conducting a crusade to do so. There is no easy solution, and I don't think anyone advocates bellying up. This is not synonymous with "negotiations." Then again, you don't cite a source, so how am I to know what's actually being proposed and what is your interpretation?

In 1960, we could negotiate with terrorists, and talk them out of the cockpit of an airliner or respond to their blowing up something like a army depot.

In 1970, it got harder, but people tried (munich), and sometimes it even worked. It worked beacuse they were still trying to make a political statement. Terrorists were more about drawing attention to a cause (AIM, other violent minority groups in the USA). It's more bloody, yes, but it's still a form of political speech.

In the 1980's, it changes. No more negotiations, just a bomb by a roadside in lebanon or a gunman in an airport. Terrorists kill people and then tell the world why- they strike a blow and then issue their demands as a threat. The demands become less and less concrete and more and more abstract and ideal-driven- fewer demands for the release of certain prisoners and withdraw from these areas, and more "drive the jews into the sea" type stuff.

By the 1990's, terrorists are done with any sort of political statements beyond the act itself. Wether it's McVeigh or Hizballah, they just want to kill people, not talk- not even to shout demands. Demands can no longer be met, as they are becoming more and more removed from reality.

Honestly, on the crisp, unreal morning of Sept.11th, 2001, the thing that troubled me most was that there was no list of demands, no claim of responsibility. There was no attempt to engage in dialog anymore, not even dialog that consists of a hostage-taker shouting their slogans. All they wanted to do was kill people. There was no message, no possible way to bargain with an ideology like that. The only way we can make them happy is to die.

I've never been one to join on on the senseless, overly macho, and just stubborn refusal to deal with terrorists, but I don't think Al-Qaeda would care to listen if we tried to appease them.

The one bright light is that as terrorist groups like Hizballah become actually politically powerful, they set up mini-govenments. FARC or Hisballah have ruled territory for long enough so that they are practically a state- they have something to lose, and a vested interest in "playing it safe". That's why Hizballah hasn't attacked full-force into northern israel, and that's why FARC is mostly content to rule its safe zone.

Hamas? Al-Qaeda? They've got nothing. They've got anger, and that's it. They don't run 'school' systems like Hizballah, they don't collect taxes like FARC, they have no headquarters or facilities. They don't even have coherent demands beyond a hatred of anything and anybody that is not like them.

It's sort of depressing, but, hey- that's the world.

Very true. It all comes from, in my opinion, something that seems to happen the world over, the loss of respect for human life, people no longer care. In the past, I'm sure, a bank robber would not have murdered a cashier. But now...

It may still be difficult to get two radically different cultures to agree, from their very formation there has been arguments. I agree though that if you want them to talk you may have to physically drag them to the table. *slight exaggeration*

In the past, that was the case. When two cultures meet, one tries to prevail over the other, leading to conflict. Today, we can see a lot of successful cases of merging cultures. Take Hong Kong, for example, a very very good blend between Chinese and general Western culture.

You do realize that to get HK to where it is, it wasn't a negotiation, but a subversion. England stormed China by force and then stomped down any resistance. The Chinese has no choice but to "blend" or die altogether. The negotiations consisted of "Give us HK to do with as we please, or we'll continue shooting you until you're all dead". The HKese didn't really have much of a choice either. It was basically leave HK, lose your oppertunity to make money for yourself and a safe haven from much of the political turmoil in China, OR accept the fact that there are British people here that think they're better than you and see you as cheap labor.

HK went from 100% Chinese to 50% Chinese, that's not a negotiation and living side-by-side. Thats the British coming in with an Iron Fist in one hand and a hand-cannon in the other.

The negotiations, very cutely idealistic, wouldn't work. You really think that the leaders of TERRORIST organizations are going to want to sit down and have a lunchen with our nations leaders? You think that's safe? The point is that they want us, including our leaders, DEAD. And they're willing to use things like bombing innocent people inside a giant skyscraper to do it.
.

There are nice devices called telecommunications nowadays. These objects should not provocate war, but peace.telecommunications are not the answer either. There is no such thing as an untracable call. The length of time it would take to do this through telecommunications would allow plenty of time to locate where each other are. The one thing a leader of terrorism fears most is for his enemy to know his location.

I know. I was assuming that both leaders were honest and willing to make peace. Not a large chance THAT'll happen. :roll:

We sure do have a lot of Al-Qaeda and psychology experts on this little forum of ours.

The "you don't have the right to an opinion" argument again?

You don't have to be an expert to argue. The point of aruging is that we're NOT experts, and therefore we can all learn from each other about different approaches to a problem. Of course, I think I'm right, but I'm open for anyone to prove me wrong.

And Dragons Bay, I noted that the idea was idealistic. That Al-Q's leaders would WANT to sit down and have lunch, or just a phone call, with any of our leaders, is idealistic in and of itself. I think they'd rather that we were eating cyanide.

And Dragons Bay, I noted that the idea was idealistic. That Al-Q's leaders would WANT to sit down and have lunch, or just a phone call, with any of our leaders, is idealistic in and of itself. I think they'd rather that we were eating cyanide.

But how do you know that the leaders don't wanna talk? Maybe it's just because they don't have the chance.

But how do you know that the leaders don't wanna talk? Maybe it's just because they don't have the chance.Umm...

If they wanted to talk, they'd make a demand other than "Convert to Islam or die."

If they wanted to talk, they'd send over ambassadors that didn't have bombs strapped to their chests.

If they wanted to talk, they'd hop on a plane and come over here without crashing it into a building.

If they wanted to talk, they'd call our leaders on the phone, not call the cell phones that trigger bombs on civillian trains.

If they wanted to talk, they'd send us formal letters to our government offices without coating them in anthrax.

If they wanted to talk, they'd send us a video tape that didn't have anything to do with their next targets.

If they wanted to talk, they'd walk up to our military bases waving white flags, while not holding the trigger to a bomb.

If they wanted to talk, they'd cooperate with our UN resolutions, without hiding their WMDs.

If they wanted to talk, they'd call a cease fire once in a while, and give the Gaza strip some time to recover :)

Need I go on? I think I've stated my point...

Flippant but true :D

There are some people you cannot talk with.

But how do you know that the leaders don't wanna talk? Maybe it's just because they don't have the chance.Umm...

If they wanted to talk, they'd make a demand other than "Convert to Islam or die."

If they wanted to talk, they'd send over ambassadors that didn't have bombs strapped to their chests.

If they wanted to talk, they'd hop on a plane and come over here without crashing it into a building.

If they wanted to talk, they'd call our leaders on the phone, not call the cell phones that trigger bombs on civillian trains.

If they wanted to talk, they'd send us formal letters to our government offices without coating them in anthrax.

If they wanted to talk, they'd send us a video tape that didn't have anything to do with their next targets.

If they wanted to talk, they'd walk up to our military bases waving white flags, while not holding the trigger to a bomb.

If they wanted to talk, they'd cooperate with our UN resolutions, without hiding their WMDs.

If they wanted to talk, they'd call a cease fire once in a while, and give the Gaza strip some time to recover :)

Need I go on? I think I've stated my point...

Spot the one that does not belong.

(There is no such person as Saddam bin Laden.)

We sure do have a lot of Al-Qaeda and psychology experts on this little forum of ours.

Well, actually, middle eastern politics is my main area of study. I'm not quite an expert...yet. But I'm getting there. I'll sell my soul with student loans, but I'll get there...

Spot the one that does not belong.

(There is no such person as Saddam bin Laden.)What are you getting at? That makes no sense.

No one ever accused Saddam of being Bin Laden. But tying him to terrorism is not a hard thing to do. Saddam was a terrorist leader, paying off and supporting people like Al Qaeda.

Can you negotiate with fanatics is the basic question here.

(I would just like to point out that you cannot equate negotiation with appeasement)

Fanatacism has no room for negotiation unless from a position of complete powerlessness and even then it is no the conclusion. That will only happen when those from who the fanatics arise give short shrift to the fanatic.

In regards to Islamic fanatcism it is not up to the west to stamp it out as it would like trying to douse an oil fire with water...you just spread the flames.

If they wanted to talk, they'd make a demand other than "Convert to Islam or die."

Actually, they don't make this demand. They simply want the United States out of the Middle East economically, politically and physically. The Palstinians would also like some land that actually is capable of growing crops and access to a seaport, sort of like they had for the last 2000 years before the UN and Great Britain stepped in during the 1940s and arbitrarly sliced up the Palestinian homeland in order to create Israel.


If they wanted to talk, they'd send over ambassadors that didn't have bombs strapped to their chests.

So, what you're saying is, as long as we drop the bombs from a distance, that means we're better than them?


If they wanted to talk, they'd hop on a plane and come over here without crashing it into a building.

Same argument as above. Since we don't do it personally, that means we must be better people, right?


If they wanted to talk, they'd call our leaders on the phone, not call the cell phones that trigger bombs on civillian trains.

You know, this is a bit pedantic. How many Iraqi civilians are dead because of the direct actions of the United States. Oh, that's right, we don't keep count because we're "helping" them and I'm sure they're all very happy to have died to us than to Saddam.


If they wanted to talk, they'd send us formal letters to our government offices without coating them in anthrax.

Er, last I knew, the government was still claiming this wasn't a foreign terrorist action, but a national one, like the OKC bombing. Do you have new evidence?


If they wanted to talk, they'd send us a video tape that didn't have anything to do with their next targets.

Who knows what they've sent us?


If they wanted to talk, they'd walk up to our military bases waving white flags, while not holding the trigger to a bomb.

They tried that. They're all in Gitmo now. I'm sure they're talking.


If they wanted to talk, they'd cooperate with our UN resolutions, without hiding their WMDs.

Interesting phraseology there. "Our UN Resolutions." I wasn't aware that the US was the sole owner of the UN. In any case, they DID cooperate with UN resolutions, we still invaded them. Low and behold, a year later, not a single weapon of mass destruction has turned up. We have managed to accomplish the impossible, however. We did manage to give the Shiites and the Sunnis a big enough common target that they are now working in cooperation against us. I guess that's progress, of a sort...


If they wanted to talk, they'd call a cease fire once in a while, and give the Gaza strip some time to recover :)

Everytime they do, Israel launches preemptive strikes against targets or advances settlements into disputed territories or puts crushing restrictions on Palestinians moving honestly back and forth between countries or builds huge fences. Good faith is a two way street.


Need I go on? I think I've stated my point...

Nope, but you're welcome to keep trying.

In my opinion, it is impossible to negotiate with someone who sincerely believes there are 72 virgins waiting for him in heaven if he straps a bomb to his body and blows up my family.

That suckuh's gonna get dropped.

I read somewhere that, that may be an error and may supposed to be raisons. I kid you not.

Hahaha... I think I saw that on http://imao.us

It's a damn funny site.

Negotiating with terrorists groups is not acceptable for any US administration, now matter how dire the consequences. The US has always had the mindset of "Glorious Victory or Westminster Abbey". Okay, that was actually Vice Admiral Lord Nelson, but it does fit the US. Do you think Roosevelt would have negotiated with the Nazis because of the Battle of the Bulge?

Just like the Battle of the Bulge, this new uprising in Iraq will serve a useful purpose - it will drain the enemy of resources needed to maintain effective offensive operations. The stand at the Oder and Berlin was very admirable, to say the least, but they were all but done for.

Now it would be nice if we could just negotiate our way out of these problems because I, personally, feel it is better to talk my way out of a situation than fight it out. But sometimes I am not afforded the option of talking, so it comes down to who lands the best hit.

It is a nice dream, but the dream of fools.

Yes you can easily talk with Hamas and the Palestinian authority.. they have a cause that is not unreasonable.

On the other hand.. no, I don't believe you can talk with Al Qaeda.. their cause is to kill people who don't believe what they believe period! It's not even just the west.. it's even other Muslims they think don't follow their skewed version of the Qu'ran..

I don't think we can paint all groups with the same brush.. there are some groups that soft power will work on and there are others that it won't.. obviously the Israeli/Palestine issue is an old one and I believe both sides can one day come to terms with each other and live in peace. One day. Both sides right now aren't willing to be reasonable.. but it came close under Clinton.. and I'm sure it will happen given enough time and if the right person at the right time moderates it.

Al Qaeda.. nadda.. just blow them up.

Al-Q doesn't want to negotiate so it is a waste of time.

Some of their claims are valid. The troops in Saudi for example. The current king wants them. However, the crown prince does not. So Al-Q's biggest argument will be lost when we leave.

Hamas would probably love to negotiate if we could "convince" the Israelis to remove the settlements and setup Palistine.

Besides, we talked to them in the past so why not now?

There are no longer troops in Saudi Arabia. Those bases have been closed and the troops removed. Al-Qaeda simply found a new pet peeve.

Is it POSSIBLE to negotiate with these people?
We did it all the time in the 80's, didn't we? Or perhaps you think the CIA created al-Qa'ida without talking to them...

How do we deal with terrorism without violence? Become isolationist and dismantle the CIA... no CIA = no terrorism

Wasn't Al-Qaeda a merger between an Islamic group from Egypt and Laden's Mujaheddin?

I like the idea of isolationism. Now if everyone could stop wanting American aid/capital/political clout it would make it possible.

As for the CIA, if you sincerely believe that the CIA is able to fund, operate and train terrorists then you are living in some weird world. The CIA is filled with incompetent bureaucrats, lazy case agents and overall PC bimbos who wouldn't be able to figure the info provided if it crawled up their leg and bit 'em in the arse.

Islamic Terrorism=Export of Middle East societies with too many internal problems---way to deal with it---blame someone else. :roll:

Some people think we should begin negotitations with the leaders of Al-Qaeda and Hamas and all the other major terrorist networks/groups.

Do you think we should negotiate with them? Is it POSSIBLE to negotiate with these people? Should we appease them and give into their demands?

How do we deal with terrorism without violence?

Well... Your government negotiated with the Taliban a few months ago... So why not?

Some people think we should begin negotitations with the leaders of Al-Qaeda and Hamas and all the other major terrorist networks/groups.

Do you think we should negotiate with them? Is it POSSIBLE to negotiate with these people? Should we appease them and give into their demands?

How do we deal with terrorism without violence?

Well... Your government negotiated with the Taliban a few months ago... So why not?

Well before the invasion of Afganistan there was not a Fatwa issued against the US declaring a Jihad against the infidels.

The US has been dealing with terrorism since the mid-80s. Lockerbie Scotland, and the former Marine Barracks in Beiruit Lebanon. The CIA never provided aid to Bin Laden solely. The CIA supplied aid to the Afganis during the Soviet-Afgan war of the 80s. Much like what the Soviets did in Vietnam and Korea, we were just giving them a taste of their own medicine. When the war in Afganistan was over Al Queda still didnt exist. Other groups however did, the Taliban wasnt formed until the mid-90s when a bunch of students went out and rebelled against a local warlord with popular support of the people in the area they rebelled in. To say that the CIA=support terrorists, is utter BS, and rather blindsided to the facts of why the CIA was created in the first place, not to mention the time in which the CIA did most of its so called "terrorist support" missions, our former enemies in the Soviet Union were doing the same with the KGB. This may not make it morally right to any of you, but who is to say what would happen if the CIA hadnt been as active as it was during the Cold War?

Anyway negotiation with terrorists is not possible. Negotiation with Hamas is not possible. Their recently deceased founder outlined the goals of Hamas once. And the primary goal was not negotiation, it was the destruction of Israel. You cant negotiate with someone who wants to destroy you. Sometimes you just have to be as violent as possible until the otherside gives up. Chamberlain didnt get anywhere with Hitler, except a few more months to prepare the British military for the inevitable. The US wont get anywhere with Hamas, Al-Queda, or any other group without the use of some kind of force.

don't be hatin' on the CIA. I don't think you can judge a covert agency by the people it digs up to testify before congress.

I think most people judge the CIA on its shadier dealings in the past half century.

With a defence budget in the hundreds of billions, do you think the US would hire bumbling fools to run their covert operations? They literally have the best people money can buy.

In other words, the conflict will never end until the world does. :roll:

In other words, the conflict will never end until the world does. :roll:

We've been fighting each other since the beginning of time. Humanity will be fighting till the end of time. I'm sorry the past century is a clear example of how humanity will always be.

We should kill them all is what we should do.