NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, apparently some are sugeesting that we should negotiate with bloodthirsty, freedom-hating, Islamofascist terrorists. What could possibly make someone suggest such an idea? Yeah...I actually support this. We will never win the war on Terror. It's impossible. We should've figured out what was wrong instead of destroying the "enemy". Maybe they actually had legitimate grievances?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070913/ts_nm/alqaeda_dialogue_dc)

LONDON (Reuters) - Six years after the September 11 attacks, a few cautious voices are beginning to suggest the unthinkable -- maybe it is time to consider talking to al Qaeda.

The idea will revolt some people and raises obvious questions -- through what channels could such a dialogue take place and what would there be to negotiate?

But proponents say al Qaeda has established itself as a de facto power, whether the West likes it or not, and history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war.

"No insurgency or terrorism has been defeated by warfare or violence," former Anglican church envoy and hostage negotiator Terry Waite said in a debate on BBC World television.

"There are some rational players in al Qaeda but it also attracts the psychotic. We need to seek an entry point," said the Briton, himself a captive in Lebanon from 1987 to 1991.

Jan Egeland, a Norwegian who helped broker secret talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the 1990s and later, as a top U.N. official, dealt with warlords and guerrilla leaders from Colombia to Uganda, told Reuters: "I wouldn't rule out speaking to anybody, a priori."

He went on: "It depends on who you speak to, but also what you speak to them about. I'm willing to speak to the devil to help the victims in the depths of hell. If I could have a meeting with al Qaeda where one could impress upon them that they are the biggest anti-Islamic force around, why not?"

ENDLESS STRUGGLE

But Egeland and others point out there are huge obstacles to negotiating with al Qaeda, even if Western governments could overcome their revulsion towards it.

Unlike, say, Colombia's FARC rebels, the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland or the Afghan Taliban, to whom President Hamid Karzai renewed an offer of talks this week, al Qaeda is not so much an organization as an idea.

Its vision -- to create a global Muslim caliphate and convert even the United States to Islam, as its leader Osama bin Laden urged in a video last week -- is a dream that is not confined within national boundaries and leaves no room for compromise, or even realistic discussion.

"Al Qaeda is a universal movement and its demand is universal. It cannot be met by one single government. They're talking about the whole Islamic world from Chechnya to Yemen," said Mustafa Alani, security analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

Some experts use the terms 'tactical terrorism' and 'strategic terrorism' to differentiate between traditional militant groups, typically fighting for negotiable demands such as political representation or independence, and those like al Qaeda for which perpetual struggle appears an end in itself.

"It's an endless struggle. The principle of jihad will not accept half-solutions. Either you are in the black or in the white. There is no middle ground. You are either a kafir (infidel) or you are a jihadi," said Alani.

CALCULUS OF PAIN

Historically, analysts say, the issue of whether to talk to groups labeled terrorists is usually decisively influenced by the realization that there is no way to defeat them, as in the case of the United States with North Vietnam's Vietcong or South Africa with Nelson Mandela's African National Congress.

"When we can't win a war, we sit down and talk with terrorists and we stop calling them terrorists," said Mark Perry, Washington-based director of Conflicts Forum, which tries to build bridges between the West and political Islam.

So if the war on terrorism fails to beat al Qaeda, might we one day sit down with them?

"I suppose it's thinkable. You'd have to make a pain-pleasure calculus ... how many casualties are we going to be able to sustain?" said Perry, whose organization promotes dialogue with groups like Hamas which -- unlike al Qaeda -- take part in the democratic process.

For Egeland, who now heads the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, one peril of entering negotiations is to confer legitimacy on your opponent, sending a signal that anyone who commits mass murder will be treated as a serious actor.

But he believes there may come a time when cracks appear in al Qaeda and negotiations can help split it further.

"One likely scenario with al Qaeda is that they will indeed become increasingly unpopular in the Muslim world and they will split and there will be back channels (of negotiation) to various of their networks," he said.

"That will be done by religious groups, by Muslim groups working with smaller actors, smaller countries. Middle Eastern countries, perhaps radical countries will be involved, that's the new way of diplomacy. It's not going to be the European Union or the U.S. doing it."

NEGOTIATION!!! B-b-but...b-b-but...they're teh ebil AL-QAEDA!!!11

(I wholeheartedly support this idea)

Yes, apparently some are sugeesting that we should negotiate with bloodthirsty, freedom-hating, Islamofascist terrorists. What could possibly make someone suggest such an idea? Yeah...I actually support this. We will never win the war on Terror. It's impossible. We should've figured out what was wrong instead of destroying the "enemy". Maybe they actually had legitimate grievances?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070913/ts_nm/alqaeda_dialogue_dc)
If we could ironically blow our own negotiators up at the table, just to make Al-Qaeda sympathise with us, that would be great.

"haha, now you totally know how we feel!"
"man... you infidels totally know how to demoralise a guy... sorry... we'll calm down a bit in the future"

there is no sense in negotiating with al aqaeda.

al qaeda isnt the boss of islamic terrorism. its only a planning and marketing consortium. if you got bin laden to agree to a cease fire, his decision has no hold over anyone else wanting to strike a blow for allah.

besides, alqaeda has no reasonable demands.

Can't see how, given the whole 'establish the caliphate', bow to islam business.....

Go for it, if it will save American lives.

I can see this going well.

Bin Laden: "Give up being the Great Satan and convert to Islam, and we will in turn refrain from attacking you."

The Great Satan: "Can we just give you a large monetary bribe and a bunch of BBQ pork loin?"

Bin Laden: "Die Infidels!"

[sound of explosion]

yeah i dont see negotiations going anywhere when OUR first demand has to be that they hand over osama bin laden to face trial in the US.


we arent going to negotiate with a murderer.

we arent going to negotiate with a murderer.
If that's the deal, it goes both ways. They think the U.S. are murderers.

I can see this going well.

Bin Laden: "Give up being the Great Satan and convert to Islam, and we will in turn refrain from attacking you."

The Great Satan: "Can we just give you a large monetary bribe and a bunch of BBQ pork loin?"

Bin Laden: "Die Infidels!"

[sound of explosion]
This is why my plan is thus :

Bin Laden : "Give up being the Great Satan and convert to Islam, we won't attack your infidel nations"

The Great Satan: "HAVE AT YOU!" *blows up*

Bin Laden's 2IC : "Oh man, The Great Satan, that was a totally unreasonable loss of life, come on!"

there is no sense in negotiating with al aqaeda.

al qaeda isnt the boss of islamic terrorism. its only a planning and marketing consortium. if you got bin laden to agree to a cease fire, his decision has no hold over anyone else wanting to strike a blow for allah.

besides, alqaeda has no reasonable demands.

They actually have some, like oil at $100/barrel instead of what they feel is being held artificially low to the benefit of the very few over the needs of the very many, and ceasing supporting Arab dictatorships or what they feels is a one-sided support of Israel.

Not to say that they would negotiate in good faith or that any of their agreements would be upheld or even enforcible by them, which is the necessary element of negotiation.

They actually have some, like oil at $100/barrel instead of what they feel is being held artificially low to the benefit of the very few over the needs of the very many, and ceasing supporting Arab dictatorships or what they feels is a one-sided support of Israel.

Not to say that they would negotiate in good faith or that any of their agreements would be upheld or even enforcible by them, which is the necessary element of negotiation.

hmmmm

maybe what i meant was "reasonable to think that we might give in on"

If that's the deal, it goes both ways. They think the U.S. are murderers.

maybe they are willing to negotiate with murderers.

we arent.

maybe they are willing to negotiate with murderers.

we arent.
Erm no, the US isn't willing to negotiate with certain murderers. You're still talking to the EU member states, China, Japan, Australia and a whole bunch of other states which kill people, and indeed a whole bunch of groups which kill people, just not the ones you don't want to.

maybe they are willing to negotiate with murderers.

we arent.
We? You speak for all of the U.S., and it's government? Oh, I'm sorry Mrs. Ambassador, I had no idea! I had you confused for a twenty year old on NSG who likes politics. I'm so embarrassed!

maybe they are willing to negotiate with murderers.

we arent.

When they're our murderers, we totally are. And so is he. Like in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation...

They actually have some, like oil at $100/barrel instead of what they feel is being held artificially low to the benefit of the very few over the needs of the very many, and ceasing supporting Arab dictatorships or what they feels is a one-sided support of Israel.

Not to say that they would negotiate in good faith or that any of their agreements would be upheld or even enforcible by them, which is the necessary element of negotiation.

They also want resolutions in Chechnya and Kashmir and a withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia.

We? You speak for all of the U.S., and it's government? Oh, I'm sorry Mrs. Ambassador, I had no idea! I had you confused for a twenty year old on NSG who likes politics. I'm so embarrassed!

im 50

there isnt a chance in hell that anyone in the US would negotiate with alqaeda as long as osama bin laden is its head.

if he were dead, it might be different, in 25 or 50 years.

When they're our murderers, we totally are. And so is he. Like in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation...

yes but he is not our murderer now is he.

They also want resolutions in Chechnya and Kashmir and a withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia.

It was a short list because I didn't feel like looking anything up.

I would support it, but there cannot be any sort of negotiation unless Al Qaeda practically reject the fundamental principles on which their organization is based.

No, but it does take the nobility wind out of the 'we don't negotiate with murderers' sails a bit, doesn't it? We do, in fact often, negotiate with murderers.

*shrug*

if it makes you feel better.

it doesnt change my point.

yes but he is not our murderer now is he.

No, but it does take the nobility wind out of the 'we don't negotiate with murderers' sails a bit, doesn't it? We do, in fact often, negotiate with murderers.

there isnt a chance in hell that anyone in the US would negotiate with alqaeda as long as osama bin laden is its head.

I would, and I'm in the heartland of the U.S.

yes but he is not our murderer now is he.
He masterminded a plan that killed three thousand U.S. civilians.

I would support it, but there cannot be any sort of negotiation unless Al Qaeda practically reject the fundamental principles on which their organization is based.

Bingo. The whole 'fall of America' and 'global Caliphate' thing makes me doubt they'll be open to negotiations.

You can't negotiate with them. These guys are fanatics that want only one thing and they're not going to stop until they are either destroyed or achieve their goal. They're not Hamas or Fatah, which can be negotiated with because all of their goals are limited and fairly reasonable; a Palestinian state isn't anywhere near in the same league as a murderous, tyrannical global Caliphate...actually, it's got some good justification behind it, although the tactics used towards that aim certainly cross the line in to terrorism more often than not.

These guys are fanatics. They're no more likely to negotiate than Fred Phelps.

*shrug*

if it makes you feel better.

it doesnt change my point.

It has nothing to do with how it makes me feel.

And I think it does effect your point a great deal.

It has nothing to do with how it makes me feel.

And I think it does effect your point a great deal.

good for you.

we will not negotiate with alqaeda and there is no sense in doing so.

that is my point.

how in the world does our dirty laundry affect it?

Yes, apparently some are sugeesting that we should negotiate with bloodthirsty, freedom-hating, Islamofascist terrorists. What could possibly make someone suggest such an idea? Yeah...I actually support this. We will never win the war on Terror. It's impossible. We should've figured out what was wrong instead of destroying the "enemy". Maybe they actually had legitimate grievances?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070913/ts_nm/alqaeda_dialogue_dc)

But we don't negotiate with terrorists? Unless of course its convenient because policy is so flawed there's no way to win without actually wanting to win.

The point everyone seems to be missing is that both sides in the "War on Terror" cannot be defeated. The USA and the rest of the western world is just too big and too powerful, Al-Qaida and the rest of the muslim fundamentalists are just too resolute and determined. The only way the war can be ended in a victory by either side is for one to perpetrate a genocide on the other. If we don't want that to happen then BOTH sides need to negotiate.

good for you.
Not trying to make this personal.

we will not negotiate with alqaeda and there is no sense in doing so.

that is my point.

how in the world does our dirty laundry affect it?

It affects it because of your reasoning behind it, the 'why' not the conclusion. If the 'why' is corrupted, then so is the conclusion. If 'why' is 'we don't negotiate with murderers,' and that 'why' turns out to be false, then the conclusion drawn from it is flawed. I'm challenging the reason that leads to the conclusion, and since your point is derived from your reasoning, it does indeed affect it.

Not trying to make this personal.


It affects it because of your reasoning behind it, the 'why' not the conclusion. If the 'why' is corrupted, then so is the conclusion. If 'why' is 'we don't negotiate with murderers,' and that 'why' turns out to be false, then the conclusion drawn from it is flawed. I'm challenging the reason that leads to the conclusion, and since your point is derived from your reasoning, it does indeed affect it.

and do you think that my conclusion is WRONG?

do you think that there is a chance in hell that any politician in the united states would propose negotiating with bin laden and that it would gain enough popular support in this country to go forward?

no politician with enough power to get it done would ever do it.

there IS no politician with enough power to get it done.

and do you think that my conclusion is WRONG?

do you think that there is a chance in hell that any politician in the united states would propose negotiating with bin laden and that it would gain enough popular support in this country to go forward?

no politician with enough power to get it done would ever do it.

there IS no politician with enough power to get it done.

If you look at my posts you'll see that ultimately I have the same conclusion (not so much that negotiation wouldn't happen but rather that key elements for negotiation aren't in place), just for different reasoning-which again, was what I was arguing.

If you look at my posts you'll see that ultimately I have the same conclusion (not so much that negotiation wouldn't happen but rather that key elements for negotiation aren't in place), just for different reasoning-which again, was what I was arguing.

then i see no point in hijacking the thread by trying to deconstruct my logic.

if you really want to discuss "does the US negotiate with murderers" you can start a new topic.

if you really want to discuss "does the US negotiate with murderers" you can start a new topic.
Not hijacking the threat at all, when this thread is exactly about whether we should negotiate with terrorists (a different form of murderers.)

Not with Al-Qa'ida. They have no real influence, so negotiations would be fruitless.

Perhaps with other regional powers, to mediate a peace in their respective regions - which also might help to bring about an end to the negative perception of the west.

There are other Muslim groups out there that have less of a psychotic world view. Negotiations with these people would be more likely to succeed and likely to alienate the more radical views amongst the Muslim world.

then i see no point in hijacking the thread by trying to deconstruct my logic.

if you really want to discuss "does the US negotiate with murderers" you can start a new topic.

It's not hijacking. I'm not a subscriber to "It doesn't matter why you agree with me as long as you agree with me." In fact, I would argue that it is that attitude that has gotten us into this trouble in the first place. The reasoning behind your conclusions are as important (and as up for discussion) as your conclusions themselves because it is the reasoning that got you there that will inform execution.

In this instance, for argument's sake, if it is simply "we do not negotiate with murderers," no matter how false that statement, and my reasoning is that there is no good faith in which to negotiate, if al Queda were to establish a diplomatic position a la Hamas my conditioning would have changed and yours would not have. At that point we are no longer on the same 'side,' so the reasoning behind your conclusion is just as valid a subject of argument as the conclusion itself.

The above situation is only an example and not the totality.

It's not hijacking. I'm not a subscriber to "It doesn't matter why you agree with me as long as you agree with me." In fact, I would argue that it is that attitude that has gotten us into this trouble in the first place. The reasoning behind your conclusions are as important (and as up for discussion) as your conclusions themselves because it is the reasoning that got you there that will inform execution.

In this instance, for argument's sake, if it is simply "we do not negotiate with murderers," no matter how false that statement, and my reasoning is that there is no good faith in which to negotiate, if al Queda were to establish a diplomatic position a la Hamas my conditioning would have changed and yours would not have. At that point we are no longer on the same 'side,' so the reasoning behind your conclusion is just as valid a subject of argument as the conclusion itself.

The above situation is only an example and not the totality.

fine


why dont you start with what murderer of americans you had in mind that we have negotiated with in the past. national leaders dont count; they are not analagous to bin laden.

with what murderer of americans have we negotiated a change of national policy?

"history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war."

I stopped reading there; that's nothing but horse shit. Chamberlain's negotiations with Hitler only helped make aggression seem like a way for Hitler to get what he wanted, which moved him to further aggression.

Why not say you'll negotiate to get the Al Qaeda leaders together and then just kill them? It'd be like taking a gun to a knife fight.

yeah i dont see negotiations going anywhere when OUR first demand has to be that they hand over osama bin laden to face trial in the US.
If that's your core demand then you're not in a position to negotiate. Your mind is set on reparation; on vengeance. It is such a mindset that squandered the opportunity for a final and lasting peace that could have been forged from the ruins of the twin towers, and if anything, Al Qaeda has made nothing but gains as a result of it. Why should they accept peace when you continue to supply them with ideological weaponry?

Level the playing field by declaring amnesty. Declare that you are willing to let bygones be bygones. Ignore Bin Laden altogether, if you cannot stomach the prospect of giving mercy; make this about everyone else, as it should have been from the start. Perhaps, then, we may be able to emerge from the six years' of tension with a vision of the future rather than relying on our distorted perspectives of the past.

I think it should be pretty obvious to everyone that the military option by itself is not effective. Remember, when trying to lead the horse, the stick works better when there's a carrot tied to it.

If that's your core demand then you're not in a position to negotiate. Your mind is set on reparation; on vengeance. It is such a mindset that squandered the opportunity for a final and lasting peace that could have been forged from the ruins of the twin towers, and if anything, Al Qaeda has made nothing but gains as a result of it. Why should they accept peace when you continue to supply them with ideological weaponry?

Level the playing field by declaring amnesty. Declare that you are willing to let bygones be bygones. Ignore Bin Laden altogether, if you cannot stomach the prospect of giving mercy; make this about everyone else, as it should have been from the start. Perhaps, then, we may be able to emerge from the six years' of tension with a vision of the future rather than relying on our distorted perspectives of the past.

no

I think it should be pretty obvious to everyone that the military option by itself is not effective. Remember, when trying to lead the horse, the stick works better when there's a carrot tied to it.

Afghanistan is a problem because of the drugs, not entirely the ideals of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Drug Lords want to keep their money flowing in and the people growing the poppies want to keep their jobs.

Solution to that would be to get them real jobs, growing food or something reasonably profitable...even subsidizing these farmers to grow it to offset the profits they'd make otherwise...the problem would be to make sure they grow food crops instead of keeping on growing poppies and keeping the subsidies.

As for Iraq, people are the same in Baghdad as they are in Washington D.C., if you got a bunch of foreign occupiers in your city...you might get pissed off with them eventually.

These problems are not in any way helped by the foreign Muslims coming in to use their homes as their own little battleground.

I think the idea is to do the best you can for the locals...and waste the scumbag foreigners until the locals are capable of doing it themselves. And at that, we are failing.

Why not say you'll negotiate to get the Al Qaeda leaders together and then just kill them? It'd be like taking a gun to a knife fight.
...

Because they're not stupid, and would realise that it was a trap?

Oh also, for fuck's sakes, can you please quote the entirety of my feelings on fascism rather than "I like it". Kthx and all of that.

...

Because they're not stupid, and would realise that it was a trap?

Oh also, for fuck's sakes, can you please quote the entirety of my feelings on fascism rather than "I like it". Kthx and all of that.

Calm down plz, kthxbai.

fine


why dont you start with what murderer of americans you had in mind that we have negotiated with in the past. national leaders dont count; they are not analagous to bin laden.

with what murderer of americans have we negotiated a change of national policy?

Well, your caviat is more my point, really. As murderous groups have become political powers and therefore 'not analogues' to bin Laden they become a body where good faith can be reached, if only by degrees (such as has been mentioned, Hamas). Again, we're at the same intersection but from different roads. We negotiate with those who are 'not analogues' with bin Laden precisely because of the reason that they are.

Well, your caviat is more my point, really. As murderous groups have become political powers and therefore 'not analogues' to bin Laden they become a body where good faith can be reached, if only by degrees (such as has been mentioned, Hamas). Again, we're at the same intersection but from different roads. We negotiate with those who are 'not analogues' with bin Laden precisely because of the reason that they are.

you didnt have a specific someone in mind when you laughed at my "the us doesnt negotiate with murderers" statement?

I can see that people in this debate are getting passionate about this. Please refrain from emotional activity while coldly analyzing politics. That is all.

...

Because they're not stupid, and would realise that it was a trap?
What makes you think they'd not just kill the negotiators or make some unreasonable demands like everyone must convert to islam?

Oh also, for fuck's sakes, can you please quote the entirety of my feelings on fascism rather than "I like it". Kthx and all of that.
If you're regretting saying something stupid then maybe you shouldn't have said it in the first place. The quote does have an attached link so that people can see for themselves that you do in fact promote fascism, that you declared that you liek it. Are you going to try to take it back now because something controversial you said ended up in a sig? Grow some damn balls. I've got balls of steel. I'm super cereal.

we arent going to negotiate with a murderer.
Ha! The USA wouldn't negotiate with a murderer? You presume too much of your nation's standards.

no
Why not?

you didnt have a specific someone in mind when you laughed at my "the us doesnt negotiate with murderers" statement?

Other than bin Laden himself or the others that have already been listed in this thread?

Other than bin Laden himself or the others that have already been listed in this thread?

oh im sorry did bin laden kill americans then we negotiated something with him?

when?

Why not?

because bin laden needs to pay for the murders. there is an issue of justice that needs to be settled.

if alqaeda wants to dump bin laden (and anyone else remaining who had a hand in the wtc attack) AND can convince us that they have the wherewithall to enforce any agreement they make, maybe we can talk about it.

I think it should be pretty obvious to everyone that the military option by itself is not effective. Remember, when trying to lead the horse, the stick works better when there's a carrot tied to it.

Afghanistan is a problem because of the drugs, not entirely the ideals of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Drug Lords want to keep their money flowing in and the people growing the poppies want to keep their jobs.

Solution to that would be to get them real jobs, growing food or something reasonably profitable...even subsidizing these farmers to grow it to offset the profits they'd make otherwise...the problem would be to make sure they grow food crops instead of keeping on growing poppies and keeping the subsidies.

As for Iraq, people are the same in Baghdad as they are in Washington D.C., if you got a bunch of foreign occupiers in your city...you might get pissed off with them eventually.

These problems are not in any way helped by the foreign Muslims coming in to use their homes as their own little battleground.

I think the idea is to do the best you can for the locals...and waste the scumbag foreigners until the locals are capable of doing it themselves. And at that, we are failing.
The Taliban did a far more effective job of reducing the Poppy crops than the new government has, poppy production increased greatly once the Taliban was taken out.

Ha! The USA wouldn't negotiate with a murderer? You presume too much of your nation's standards.

do you have a specific instance in mind where the US has negotiated national policy with the murderer of americans?

oh im sorry did bin laden kill americans then we negotiated something with him?

when?
You created a secondary caveat, which I addressed and you ignored. Other than that, look at our containment policies in South America and the Middle East throughout the Cold War and the 'devils bargains' made during that time.

You created a secondary caveat, which I addressed and you ignored. Other than that, look at our containment policies in South America and the Middle East throughout the Cold War and the 'devils bargains' made during that time.

so you are saying that i am right in suggesting that we will not negotiate with murderers of americans?

or did you have a specific instance in mind in the places you mention where we did?

What makes you think they'd not just kill the negotiators or make some unreasonable demands like everyone must convert to islam?
Absolutely nothing, which is why the negotating party would be armed to the teeth and wouldn't accept any particularly ludicrous demands, which would be the exact same set-up as what al qaeda would also take?
If you're regretting saying something stupid then maybe you shouldn't have said it in the first place. The quote does have an attached link so that people can see for themselves that you do in fact promote fascism, that you declared that you liek it.
In some circumstances. Tada. There is the crux of the issue.
Are you going to try to take it back now because something controversial you said ended up in a sig? Grow some damn balls. I've got balls of steel. I'm super cereal.
Why would I take it back?

It's not what I said that offends me, it's how you've twisted those words ;)

If you're regretting saying something stupid then maybe you shouldn't have said it in the first place. The quote does have an attached link so that people can see for themselves that you do in fact promote fascism, that you declared that you liek it. Are you going to try to take it back now because something controversial you said ended up in a sig? Grow some damn balls. I've got balls of steel. I'm super cereal.
You have actually edited his statement in your sig to give it a different meaning, and parading it around in your sig out of context of the actual argument is kind of a sad 'shaming' tactic that has no real value. That your editing of three simple words to give more implied weight to what he said is dishonest at best. He has not edited or changed his original statement, he's not hiding from it. The argument should exist in the context of the larger discussion and not on your sandwich board in an attempt to 'humiliate' someone.[/hijack]

because bin laden needs to pay for the murders. there is an issue of justice that needs to be settled.
Justice, huh? You still think Justice is a plausible goal? You still think that, somehow, whipping the guy who was responsible for the attacks will make everything right with the world? That it will bring back the people killed in and since 9/11? That it will heal all rifts between people in the West and the Middle East and quell the rising tide of militant extremism?

There is at least one universal truth in this world. If Justice is what we want, we're all going to be disappointed whatever the outcome. There is no repayment that Bin Laden can make that will undo the damage he's caused, to the families of the lost or to anyone else, and it is either naive or delusional to think otherwise. Justice is nothing but an ideal, divorced from the idea of "perfection" only by the nature of that to which it is applied.

Absolutely nothing, which is why the negotating party would be armed to the teeth and wouldn't accept any particularly ludicrous demands, which would be the exact same set-up as what al qaeda would also take?
Heavily armed ambassadors wanting to meet with terrorist leaders doesn't sound like a trap to you?

In some circumstances. Tada. There is the crux of the issue.
Do you think genocide or slavery are okay in some circumstances too?

Why would I take it back?
Your objection made me think that you didn't want me to have your words, not mine, quoted in my signature.

It's not what I said that offends me, it's how you've twisted those words ;)
I'm not twisting your words. I quoted you and provided a link within the quote so that people can see that you did post that you approve of fascism. Give it up, you can't win this. The more you BWAAAA!!Shift+1, the more butthurt you get over this the more lulz I'll have. I'm telling you this so you don't become a lolcow.

because bin laden needs to pay for the murders. there is an issue of justice that needs to be settled.
Not sure that the death of another person over September 11th makes things better, but that's just my opinion.

do you have a specific instance in mind where the US has negotiated national policy with the murderer of americans?That is not what you said. You said a 'murderer' of which they are friends with countless.

we arent going to negotiate with a murderer.

Let's all follow that principle and not negotiate with Bush ever again.

Heavily armed ambassadors wanting to meet with terrorist leaders doesn't sound like a trap to you?
No, a negotiator with bodyguards is the general way of things even at the G8 summit, and since they'd obviously be doing the same (they're not exactly going to send anyone we're interested in shooting/capturing to the table), then it would be fine.
Do you think genocide or slavery are okay in some circumstances too?
No, never.
Your objection made me think that you didn't want me to have your words, not mine, quoted in my signature.


I'm not twisting your words. I quoted you and provided a link within the quote so that people can see that you did post that you approve of fascism. Give it up, you can't win this. The more you BWAAAA!!Shift+1, the more butthurt you get over this the more lulz I'll have. I'm telling you this so you don't become a lolcow.
...

Right. OK. Fine, whatever.

I mean, sure, give it a shot. By all means.

But I seriously doubt that there is much common ground or compromising to be found. Even if "they" have legitimate grievances, they aren't going to back away from the unified fundamentalist Ummah and the destruction of the immoral western society. And if the leadership is, all you'd do is split the violent Jihadist movement and still have the same problems.

Give it up, you can't win this. The more you BWAAAA!!Shift+1, the more butthurt you get over this the more lulz I'll have. I'm telling you this so you don't become a lolcow.

Ooooh, you're one of those...I get it now.

You know that hole in your wall where all the light seems to be coming through the blinds? That stuff on the other side isn't a picture, it's the outside-with air and trees and people and all sorts of other stuff that can't be described with 'pixels' and 'frame rate.' You might even meet other flesh and blood people (ones who don't speak in acronyms or acronym-derived words like 'lulz') who might even like you, in spite of yourself.

But don't give up too soon, it might take a while.

Justice, huh? You still think Justice is a plausible goal? You still think that, somehow, whipping the guy who was responsible for the attacks will make everything right with the world? That it will bring back the people killed in and since 9/11? That it will heal all rifts between people in the West and the Middle East and quell the rising tide of militant extremism?

There is at least one universal truth in this world. If Justice is what we want, we're all going to be disappointed whatever the outcome. There is no repayment that Bin Laden can make that will undo the damage he's caused, to the families of the lost or to anyone else, and it is either naive or delusional to think otherwise. Justice is nothing but an ideal, divorced from the idea of "perfection" only by the nature of that to which it is applied.

Not sure that the death of another person over September 11th makes things better, but that's just my opinion.

you might not believe in justice but its still necessary. there is no "let bygones be bygones" when it comes to murder.

and i dont recall calling for the death of bin laden. he should be captured and brought to the US for trial. that the outcome might be the death penalty is irrelevant.

you might not believe in justice but its still necessary. there is no "let bygones be bygones" when it comes to murder.

and i dont recall calling for the death of bin laden. he should be captured and brought to the US for trial. that the outcome might be the death penalty is irrelevant.
It's not 'bygoves be bygones', more "how could you possibly repay someone for 3000 deaths?"

I dunno, do you think you could have reasoned with the Crusaders during the Middle Ages? All they were doing was bent on killing people. Sure they were after Muslims, but... hey, everyone gets cut up the same.

The terrorists/A-rabs/Al-Qaeda today are the exact same thing. They both use a twisted form of their religion to justify their disgusting actions, and the only thing that separates them from the crusaders are the AK-47s and a different religion. (Which really isn't all that different from Christianity anyway)

When it's an all or nothing thing with al qaeda the only thing you can really offe.

Bin Laden: "Give up being the Great Satan and convert to Islam, and we will in turn refrain from attacking you."

Psychologist: "Perhaps there is some underlying reason for these delusions of grandur?"

Bin Laden:"DIE..."

Psychologist:"Did your father hate you?"

Bin Ladin: "Buh?"

Hours later...

Bin Ladin: "Wahhh..."

al-Qaeda shouldn't negotiate with the US, it's below their standards.

al-Qaeda shouldn't negotiate with the US, it's below their standards.
This begs but one question: why do you hate America?

This begs but one question: why do you hate America?

I don't hate America, I hate your freedoms.

I don't hate America, I hate your freedoms.

We're losing those at an astounding rate so what are you going to hate when we've lost them?

People of the Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book)
This is kind of neat. Throughout history, Sharia actually hasn't supported the conversion of members of Abrahamic religions through force. Quite a bit better than a lot of religions' pasts.

We're losing those at an astounding rate so what are you going to hate when we've lost them?

I will hate you.

They actually have some, like oil at $100/barrel instead of what they feel is being held artificially low to the benefit of the very few over the needs of the very many, and ceasing supporting Arab dictatorships or what they feels is a one-sided support of Israel.

Not to say that they would negotiate in good faith or that any of their agreements would be upheld or even enforcible by them, which is the necessary element of negotiation.

Are you seriously attempting to suggest that al-Qaeda can control the price of oil?...lol...

What we should do is fly a tanker over mecca and drop a few thousand gallons of pigs blood over the whole thing...that will make things interesting real quick...and while we're at it just hose down the Iranian president with the stuff hot dogs are made out of...it'll be a blast

you might not believe in justice but its still necessary.
And what are your grounds for this assertion? Could you tell me why attempting to achieve a Justice that will most certainly fail to be suitably repercussive or reparative is something that must be done?

I still suspect your motives are merely vindictiveness cloaked in a self-deceiving veil of righteousness, but I would be happy to recind that suspicion if you could provide a clear explanation of the authority of your Justice.

al-Qaeda? Negotiate with them?!?

I will hate you.
Quichertrollin, willya?

Yes, apparently some are sugeesting that we should negotiate with bloodthirsty, freedom-hating, Islamofascist terrorists. What could possibly make someone suggest such an idea? Yeah...I actually support this. We will never win the war on Terror. It's impossible. We should've figured out what was wrong instead of destroying the "enemy". Maybe they actually had legitimate grievances?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070913/ts_nm/alqaeda_dialogue_dc)

Oh, you are going to republican hell! How could they possibly have a point? Not only are they muslim, but the majority of them are coloured and they don't even speak English? How can we possibly even think about negotiating with them. They don't even swear allegiance to the Stars and Stripes!!!!!?????!!!!!
Did I mention they are foreign as well? Honestly hanging is too good for these people, what they need is a good kick up the backside!

AMK
xxx
;)

This begs but one question: why do you hate America?

Because it's shit and full of numpties who are so hell bent on their own lives and their own goddamn freedom that they cannot see the damage they are doing both to themselves, their countrymen and more importantly, the rest of the world who can do nothing about it.
But thats ok, because you have the 5th amendment.

Fall in love, fall in love with me, nail a crucifix onto your soul.

AMK
xxx

Are you seriously attempting to suggest that al-Qaeda can control the price of oil?...lol...
Not in the slightest. I think you read that incorrectly.

What we should do is fly a tanker over mecca and drop a few thousand gallons of pigs blood over the whole thing...that will make things interesting real quick...and while we're at it just hose down the Iranian president with the stuff hot dogs are made out of...it'll be a blast

Just because they don't eat pork doesn't mean that they are afraid of pigs.

there is no sense in negotiating with al aqaeda.

al qaeda isnt the boss of islamic terrorism. its only a planning and marketing consortium. if you got bin laden to agree to a cease fire, his decision has no hold over anyone else wanting to strike a blow for allah.

besides, alqaeda has no reasonable demands.

Good thing that everybody negotiates well with c-notes.
:(
Pakistan, anyone?

My instincts tell me that the closest we'll get to negotations under Bush is along the lines of "You hand over Osama and we won't nuke Mashhad!"

Negotiating is almost always a better option than fighting.
I doubt that a negotiate with Al-Qaeda is feasible, though, for some reasons.

1.Al-Qaeda isn't a fully gerarchically-based organisation, it is more like a knowledge/ideology network, spreading the idea of islamic fundamentalism through terrorism. So, it would be difficult to find someone with enough authority to conduct a parley on behalf of all Al-Qaeda.

2.I doubt that Al-Qaeda mainstream opinion will agree to a negotiation. Negotiating would betray the methods and ideology of Al-Qaeda itself. Even in the case of a successful negotiation with some Al-Qaedist, other Al-Qaedist leaders would label him as a traitor, and so the negotiation would have achieved exactly nothing.

Of course, negotiating with some parts of Al-Qaeda might sever the ties of such organisation with Al-Qaeda itself, thus weakening it.

Also, we shouldn't forget that a good lot of the anti-american insurgence in Iraq isn't Al-Qaedist. The Shia Iraqis, for example, but also many Sunnis who are fighting back against the invasion of their country on nationalistic reasons, not on fundamentalistic grounds. Negotiation with these people is a need, I think.

Yes, not every Muslim with a gun is a member of Al-Qaeda.

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen.

Tonight we have on our right Osama Bin Laden and a few other terrorists.
On our left you can see Big Dick Cheney and former president miss George Bush.

I’m your host and I’m Jerry Springer…

We can't win the war on 'terror', but I don't see why we can't win a war on al-Qaeda, or any other clearly defined terrorist organization, with a great deal of effort. We need to negotiate with ordinary moderate and secularist Muslims and Muslim governments instead of bombing them. After the above is done, with their assistance, we need to wipe al-Qaeda off the face of the earth. No negotiations with terrorists. As someone previously pointed out, I would agree with negotiations with al-Qaeda though if it was in the ends of splintering the group.

Yes, apparently some are sugeesting that we should negotiate with bloodthirsty, freedom-hating, Islamofascist terrorists. What could possibly make someone suggest such an idea? Yeah...I actually support this. We will never win the war on Terror. It's impossible. We should've figured out what was wrong instead of destroying the "enemy". Maybe they actually had legitimate grievances?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070913/ts_nm/alqaeda_dialogue_dc)

Currently I see no room for negotiation as I do not expect there to be a common ground... Al-Qaeda has very unobtainable goals, and should therefore currently be perceived as a simple security problem.

I do not think it would be harmful to negotiate nor would it remain impossible in the future. One may expect al-Qaeda to evolve in the future, which could also lead to successful negotiation.

If it at any time were possible to turn an armed struggle into a political struggle, why not?

Currently I see no room for negotiation as I do not expect there to be a common ground... Al-Qaeda has very unobtainable goals, and should therefore currently be perceived as a simple security problem.
The common ground is human well-being, the safety of our loved ones and the formation of a future free from unnecessary suffering, among other things. Remember, the fulfilment of their stated goals is not necessarily what is needed in order to cease their activity. All Terrorists fight because they have been driven to extremism; dealing with the forces that drive them would be sufficient to bring about a cessation of hostilities.

The common ground is human well-being, the safety of our loved ones and the formation of a future free from unnecessary suffering, among other things. Remember, the fulfilment of their stated goals is not necessarily what is needed in order to cease their activity. All Terrorists fight because they have been driven to extremism; dealing with the forces that drive them would be sufficient to bring about a cessation of hostilities.

With respect to the individual members you are right of course; however, as an organization it will probably be impossible to negotiate. You may address the grievances of its individual members and stop its recruitment, which will probably be the only effective way to really address this security problem. Negotiation will probably not work currently, but there is little against trying.

Personally, I think that we're best sticking to negotiating with Hamas/Fatah, Iraqi Insurgents and other Middle East countries before AQ. Even if it were possible to negotiate with AQ, which I don't think it is considering how it is organised, unless there is a solution to some of the biggest powder kegs in the Middle East, I don't think it could achieve much.

Yes, why wouldn't the U.S. government talk to it's paid representatives?

If we start negotiating with these terrorists, they think they have won, and will start killing lots of more people. At the moment, only the united states, united kingdom and russia, are the only countries fighting these threats. If they fail, and start negotiating, nothing will stop the terrorists to start blowing peoples buildings up in every place in the world, pushing us over the edge to anarchy, dissorder and chaos. The United States shall not give up on this war of terror, not in any circumstances. Im sure, that if the terrorists continue their war, more nations will step up to the frontline to stop this ridicilous threat. That frontline will secure our free lives, that front line will secure our freedom, that frontline will secure, that no one in this world has to be afraid of these enemies, terrorists. I give my total support to the United States of America on its fight for freedom!



(And if we negotiate with the terrorists, it should be done like this:
:eek: :mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper:

If we start negotiating with these terrorists, they think they have won, and will start killing lots of more people. At the moment, only the united states, united kingdom and russia, are the only countries fighting these threats. If they fail, and start negotiating, nothing will stop the terrorists to start blowing peoples buildings up in every place in the world, pushing us over the edge to anarchy, dissorder and chaos. The United States shall not give up on this war of terror, not in any circumstances. Im sure, that if the terrorists continue their war, more nations will step up to the frontline to stop this ridicilous threat. That frontline will secure our free lives, that front line will secure our freedom, that frontline will secure, that no one in this world has to be afraid of these enemies, terrorists. I give my total support to the United States of America on its fight for freedom!



(And if we negotiate with the terrorists, it should be done like this:
:eek: :mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper:

1- Under Bush, the US has proven it has NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how to win the war on terror.

2- Waging war on a noun is pretty much useless unless there are clear goals, which there aren't.

3- You claim you fight for freedom, but woe be unto whoever uses his freedom of speech to disagree with you.

4- Contrary to what you might think, gun smileys don't make you look clever. Quite the opposite.

we arent going to negotiate with a murderer.Bush never negotiates with Putin?

and just how do -US- negotiate pay raises with CIA staff?

Bush never negotiates with Putin?

and just how do -US- negotiate pay raises to CIA staff?

Niiiice!

Not in the slightest. I think you read that incorrectly.


Just because they don't eat pork doesn't mean that they are afraid of pigs.

No...but pigs blood or anything with pork in it for that matter should they consume it or come into contact with it makes them "unclean" and "unfit" to go see their great Allah in "heaven"...thus by dropping a ton of it on one of their most holy sites it would be like sending thousands of them to "hell"..and what drive would they have to blow themselves up if they're already condemned to "hell"..and banned from "paradise"...

...of course thats only if you're foolish enough to believe in such places...if it wasn't for the greatest threat to mankind's existence and our biggest blunder religion the world would be much more stable...

No...but pigs blood or anything with pork in it for that matter makes them "unclean" and "unfit" to go see their great Allah in "heaven"...thus by dropping a ton of it on one of their most holy sites it would be like sending thousands of them to "hell"

...of course thats only if you're foolish enough to believe in such places...if it wasn't for the greatest threat to mankind's existence and our biggest blunder religion the world would be much more stable...

Suuuuure, radical Muslims annoy you and therefore you'll want to make EVERY Muslim want to kill you.

If people were as smart as you...

...technology would have stopped evolving at, say, 600 AD.

No...but pigs blood or anything with pork in it for that matter makes them "unclean" and "unfit" to go see their great Allah in "heaven"...thus by dropping a ton of it on one of their most holy sites it would be like sending thousands of them to "hell"

...of course thats only if you're foolish enough to believe in such places...if it wasn't for the greatest threat to mankind's existence and our biggest blunder religion the world would be much more stable...

Stop getting your understanding of beliefs of others from Bill O'Rielly.

lol I dislike all radically religious types not just muslims...and I don't watch O reilly..he's a twat...the whole defiling their holy site was more or less a joke at the notion of ever negotiating with people like terrorists...never the less take away religion and a lot of problems would be solved...

And honestly if you're going to rib me at least make it something worthwile...but kudo's for trying better luck next time

Al-Qaeda will only negotiate for the total surrender of the United States. United States will surrender when hell freezes over. Negotiations are a stupid idea.

Al-Qaeda will be defeated when the Islamic fundamentalist movement supporting it is rejected by the majority of Muslims. Can someone get a big-time Sunni cleric to issue a fatwa for bin Laden's death?

Al-Qaeda will only negotiate for the total surrender of the United States.your mind reading powers are.. impressive. ;)

In my gut... I'd say negotiation with Al-Qauda directly, would be a bad idea.

A better PR campaign in Middle Eastern and Pan-Arab states? That would be a much better idea.

Al-Qaeda will only negotiate for the total surrender of the United States. United States will surrender when hell freezes over. Negotiations are a stupid idea.

Al-Qaeda will be defeated when the Islamic fundamentalist movement supporting it is rejected by the majority of Muslims. Can someone get a big-time Sunni cleric to issue a fatwa for bin Laden's death?


That will happen when hell freezes over...you have to go through centuries of people being raised under radicalism...and insane twisted versions of religious teachings

In my gut... I'd say negotiation with Al-Qauda directly, would be a bad idea.

A better PR campaign in Middle Eastern and Pan-Arab states? That would be a much better idea.

Hard to negotiate with them...considering a lot of them are our "allies" but are helping the people who want to kill us...plus they can always play the oil card to get their way...whereas we have a UN that does...well nothing really except wag its finger and say "you better stop that"...

Al-Qaeda will be defeated when the Islamic fundamentalist movement supporting it is rejected by the majority of Muslims. Can someone get a big-time Sunni cleric to issue a fatwa for bin Laden's death?

1- It IS already rejected by said majority.

2- Islam isn't like Christianity; it has no hierarchy. Which is why there is no Muslim "pope".

That will happen when hell freezes over...you have to go through centuries of people being raised under radicalism...and insane twisted versions of religious teachings

You're claiming something will never happen, only that has ALREADY HAPPENED!

http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/002868.html

What the FUCK do moderate Muslims have to do to make certain people drop the MORONIC claims that they endorse, support or "aren't against" terror? What do they have to do for you to stop making equally moronic claims that they are "raised under radicalism"? You only claim they "don't manifest themselves against terror" so you can justify to yourself killing, offending, maiming, raping, torturing and terrorizing the entire religion.

It doesn't have a pope but it has plenty of radical clerics with hundreds of thousands of followers...and radical governments...

Radicalism is denounced by the majority of muslims...and that issue about the fatwa having an issue against bin laden...yea that really persuaded a bunch of would be radicals to suddenly change their mind...

I highly doubt the Islamic Commission of Spain has much pull outside Spain itself.... UK US and other western nations and even Asian Islamic organizations have already issued the same kind of thing numerous times..

We can all see how effective those responses were :rolleyes:

..kudo's again for trying though

Things won't change until clerics/people in positions of power where radicalism is rampant start preaching and advocating a new tune...problem is at the moment they are the ones fueling the fire

Seems you are confused...I never said all muslims endorse terror etc etc and I have no problem with muslims or islam...only radicals same as I have a problem with radical christans...radical racist groups...radical jews so on and so forth..

and sadly a large portion of muslim youth in the middle east are raised under radical ideals..not saying the majority are...but more so than in other places

How about a massive demonstration in a middle eastern country against terrorism...or radicalism...or how about the governments of those countries start arresting persons found to be teaching radical beliefs...then again a lot of those governments have members who have been linked to supporting radical groups or in Hamas's case they were elected into power...actions speak louder than words..

I believe the group was Hamas that was elected into power in palestine...or was that hezbollah..I can't recall...someone correct me if it was another group

Snip.

That last part wasn't directed at you, but at the bigots that claim moderate Muslims don't "do enough" and crap like that. Sorry.

AH very well then...I gave my opinion on what they could do to change those bigots minds then...or at least shut them up ...cheers

Al Queda isn't the rational type to negotiate with.

U.S. Ambassador: "Now listen we saved your ass against the Ruskies, and you slapped us in the face."

Queda Ambassador: "Yes, but you are allies with a group of people who deserve complete annihilation, ergo, you and all your people should be killed. We will comply with you when your people are dead."

well first they want us all to convert to islam...but if we don't do that THEN our deaths are the only thing that would appease them..

I knew I forgot the whole: "Annihilation of Freedoms" thing. Maybe it's because the fact Bush said "they want to destroy our freedom." I actually didn't believe it no matter how true it is.

well first they want us all to convert to islam...but if we don't do that THEN our deaths are the only thing that would appease them..

well first they want us all to convert to islam...but if we don't do that THEN our deaths are the only thing that would appease them..

Small detail? True Islam doesn't proselytize.

Well all logical thinking educated people..would agree Bin Laden and his kind don't teach or follow true Islam..

The whole convert thing comes from actual messages/speeches/etc etc sent by bin laden or other radicals...not President Bush...

What we should do is fly a tanker over mecca and drop a few thousand gallons of pigs blood over the whole thing...that will make things interesting real quick...and while we're at it just hose down the Iranian president with the stuff hot dogs are made out of...it'll be a blast
Yes, because I'm sure having a whole bunch of pissed off extremists, whom Iran would be prepared to arm up properly, is going to make your life much easier in Iraq.

Lol..thats already been dealt with if you read that was a joke...Splintered Yootopia FTL....:(

Lol..thats already been dealt with if you read that was a joke...Splintered Yootopia FTL....:(
Aye, it seemed a bit odd from you. *sighs*

I have been fooled, sad times ahoy.

Tis alright cheers ;)

In my gut... I'd say negotiation with Al-Qauda directly, would be a bad idea.

A better PR campaign in Middle Eastern and Pan-Arab states? That would be a much better idea.

How would that PR campaign begin?
*deep gravelly voice*
"From the country that brought you poverty, death and pestilence, now this season's biggest blockbuster... USA, your friend within!!"
Then very quickly in hushed tones at the end, "Warning collaboration with the USA may lead to unwanted exploitation and poverty, please read the label before purchasing"

Can I ask also a quick question to everyone.
When people destroyed the World Trade Centre on the 11th of September. 3000 people who, in the eyes of the perpetrators (rightly or wrongly) were guilty of the crime they were being made to pay for, died. A terrible day for everyone.
Since then hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by our Armies, who our armies admit are innocent and have died in "the crossfire".
But thats ok, because its in vengeance and sadly some people are bound to get caught up in it.
Our countries are responsible for more murder since 11/9/01 than any and all terrorists put together.
How is that justifiable?

AMK
xxx

I know that Islam has no unified hierarchy, but I know that there are some clerics with a lot of influence. That decree is a start, but there is one slight problem:

It was published in Spanish.

Now, publish it in Arabic, and that could do something.

And while I accept that mainstream Islam has rejected radicalism, we need to do more to bring down the radicals. I'm not quite sure what that would be, but I know that the West cannot truly defeat radical Islam on its own.

My message to moderate Islam is this: We need you. Please help.

I know that Islam has no unified hierarchy, but I know that there are some clerics with a lot of influence. That decree is a start, but there is one slight problem:

It was published in Spanish.

Now, publish it in Arabic, and that could do something.

And while I accept that mainstream Islam has rejected radicalism, we need to do more to bring down the radicals. I'm not quite sure what that would be, but I know that the West cannot truly defeat radical Islam on its own.

My message to moderate Islam is this: We need you. Please help.

Have my eyes deceived me or have I finally agreed with someone on this forum...

We both essentially made the same points although I would add moderate Islam needs to take a stronger stand to save themselves as well not just help us end radicalism...

Killing of innocents is wrong..however to compare a terrorist attack to US soldiers attacking terrorists and killing civilians is like taking to totally opposite things and saying they are alike

Terrorists deliberately target non military personnel...the US military does a lot to ensure that civilians are not harmed during their operations while going after enemy combatants...where as terrorists goal is to kill mame or otherwise injure as many people as possible enemy or not...

Those who try and spin it around that the US or coalition troops are equal to the people they fight are both ignorant and naive...

The enemy combatants do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves..instead they mingle in amongst those who are innocent and have done nothing...then when attacked they cry foul..when in fact it is the fault of the spineless cowards who by using the innocent people as shields led to their deaths...even though it may have been our bombs that actually killed them

What are we to do let them attack us and not do anything because they hide behind their own people..?

The biggest example of how ignorant people can be on this matter was shown during the Israel war in Lebanon when the Hezbollah fighters were shooting rockets from the middle of apartment complexes and other wise then blaming Israeli's for the death of civilians...

Not to say one life is greater in value than another but coalition forces will never be at such a low level as to use the lives of innocents as a shield from their enemy the way terrorists do..

lol, letz just turn teh a-rab nations to glass. that soundz like a good idea right???

Negotiate? Sure. It's worked in some cases in the past. Two problems though:


There's nobody to negotiate with.
There's nothing to negotiate about at this time.

Because it's shit and full of numpties who are so hell bent on their own lives and their own goddamn freedom that they cannot see the damage they are doing both to themselves, their countrymen and more importantly, the rest of the world who can do nothing about it.
But thats ok, because you have the 5th amendment.

Fall in love, fall in love with me, nail a crucifix onto your soul.

AMK
xxx

Um, the fifth amendment is about due process and not being forced to testify against yourself. How does that do damage to ourselves, our countrymen, and the rest of the world?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How about the world understand the motives behind the movement besides screaming, 'they hate us because they hate out freedoms'.

Hate doesn't occur in a vacuum, people don't do things for no reason. How about some reading THEN you can understand and defeat the ideology which drives Al Qaeda.

lol, letz just turn teh a-rab nations to glass. that soundz like a good idea right???

We're all fucked when it comes to that point...although if things continue like they are I could seriously see a show down between all non muslims and all muslims which will not bode well for humanity...

Are you seriously attempting to suggest that al-Qaeda can control the price of oil?...lol...

What we should do is fly a tanker over mecca and drop a few thousand gallons of pigs blood over the whole thing...that will make things interesting real quick...and while we're at it just hose down the Iranian president with the stuff hot dogs are made out of...it'll be a blast

That idea sounds childish to me.

How many times are people going to keep bringing that up...read through the thread I've already cleared that up twice for fucks sake people come on now...

[QUOTE=Heikoku;13051751]1- It IS already rejected by said majority.

2- Islam isn't like Christianity; it has no hierarchy. Which is why there is no Muslim "pope".[/QUOTElook im amuslim and there was a muslim wersioon of teh pope but fighting over who should have the title led tyo war and every one preet much has ignored it i think its supposed toi king abdullah of jordan cus hes al al bayt

1- It IS already rejected by said majority.

2- Islam isn't like Christianity; it has no hierarchy. Which is why there is no Muslim "pope".[/QUOTElook im amuslim and there was a muslim wersioon of teh pope but fighting over who should have the title led tyo war and every one preet much has ignored it i think its supposed toi king abdullah of jordan cus hes al al bayt

you mean ahl al-bait? people of the house... (of the prophet)

I would rather say the sheikhs of al-Azhar comes closest to the pope, since it has religious authority within large parts of the sunni world.

[QUOTE=Mujtahed;13059805]

you mean ahl al-bait? people of the house... (of the prophet)

I would rather say the sheikhs of al-Azhar comes closest to the pope, since it has religious authority within large parts of the sunni world.

Also, some countries have 'Muftis'. If your also talking about Emirates, usually the monarch is also the 'Commander of the Faithful', akin to the English Queen being the head of the Church of England.

-snip-

Fuck that shit. Never negotiate with a terrorist. If I got them to the table I would use them as an excuse to blow the hell out the entire building. Then I would use their guts to grease the treads of our tanks.

Fuck that shit. Never negotiate with a terrorist.
How about using U.S. taxpayer money to bribe them to keep out of prominence?

the real demand of so called terrorists, that we stop killing their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, et c., would seems to me eminently reasonable.

all the're really trying to do is to get us to stop doing so, which we have been, the exploitive dominant nations, and i'm not talking exclusively about any one flavour of idiology here either, for decades, even centuries, by being willing themselves to die, to give us some small inkling of what for all that time, they've been themselves subjected to.

=^^=
.../\...

let me add, that terrorists have NOT robbed us of a future of peace and freedom. pseudo-consurvatives have USED so called terrorists, as an excuse to rob our present day of them.

=^^=
.../\...

the real demand of so called terrorists, that we stop killing their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, et c., would seems to me eminently reasonable.Sorry bud, but they're the ones killing 'em themselves, on a fairly regular basis.

I figure you didn't pay attention to the Saudi 'Legal System' or the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, did you? Or for that matter, the tendency of suicide bombings killing on average at least an order of magnitude more locals than westerners...

all the're really trying to do is to get us to stop doing so, which we have been, the exploitive dominant nations,We are not the ones denying the native populations the money they should rightfully make from their (oil and otherwise) riches. That'd be the local sheiks happily taking all for themselves and leaving their citizenry poor, uneducated, and tended to by religion and nothing else.

And who then have a local Imam tell their people that this is somehow the fault of the evil jews/ the west, so as to safe their own asses from impending revolutions.

Try again.

let me add, that terrorists have NOT robbed us of a future of peace and freedom. pseudo-consurvatives have USED so called terrorists, as an excuse to rob our present day of them.Am I smelling yet another conspiracy theorist...?

Owie.

just curious
when did Saudi Arabian and the Taliban killed US fathers, mothers, and children??

just curious
when did the Taliban killed US fathers, mothers, and children??

Are you shitting me?

just curious
when did Saudi Arabian and the Taliban killed US fathers, mothers, and children??You need to work on this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Comprehension)

well, correct me if I'm wrong
but the one who attacked the US is Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda is, by its nature, a multinational organization.
Despite what the US Government said, this are fact:

1. The Taliban merely refused to let US enters Afghanistan to capture Al-Qaeda organization.
2. Iraq is reported as training ground for Al-Qaeda operatives.

NONE of those nations has ever attacked US soil.

So???

It's like if Peace Corps members commits terror acts in Russia, it makes a good probable cause for Russia to invade the US.

Get the picture, bud?

al Qaeda is not so much an organization as an idea.

Its vision -- to create a global Muslim caliphate and convert even the United States to Islam, as its leader Osama bin Laden urged in a video last week -- is a dream that is not confined within national boundaries and leaves no room for compromise, or even realistic discussion.

"Al Qaeda is a universal movement and its demand is universal. It cannot be met by one single government. They're talking about the whole Islamic world from Chechnya to Yemen," said Mustafa Alani, security analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

Some experts use the terms 'tactical terrorism' and 'strategic terrorism' to differentiate between traditional militant groups, typically fighting for negotiable demands such as political representation or independence, and those like al Qaeda for which perpetual struggle appears an end in itself.

"It's an endless struggle. The principle of jihad will not accept half-solutions. Either you are in the black or in the white. There is no middle ground. You are either a kafir (infidel) or you are a jihadi," said Alani.

This is why negotiating with terrorists will not work. Islam is a "church-state" religion that does not tolerate any other religion, and the USA was founded on the principle of FREEDOM OF RELIGION, a principle 100% contrary to orthodox Islam. I do not wish to convert to Islam, and they don't (or if they do, they shouldn't) have the right to coerce me into it. Islam, in history, was spread by force, i.e. "convert to my religion or I'll kill you!" I do not support any religion that advocates proselytism by force, or by military or terroristic actions.

I think you confuse christianity with islam.
I can say 'Inquisition' right on top of my head.
The best I can recall for Islam is expulsion of non-muslims in Saudi arabia.

And US founded on freedom of religion?
Hmmm....Batallón de San Patricio....Wounded Knee Massacre.

Turkey has a Christian minister of state
does US ever has a muslim secretary?

The Most Serene government concludes that appealing to the supposed higher moral value of the USA, evidence shows that the opposite is the norm.

If I were doing the negotiations, they'd only be able to choose how they were all going to die.

A) Swing by their ankles and be skinned.

B) Set upon by rabid baboons. :upyours:

C) Cement breeches and the nearest ocean.

D) Two words: Glaser rounds. :mp5:

E) [pointing birch + dragon heartstring wand] Avada Kedavra!!! :gundge:

F) Wicker Man.

G) Dressed in orange jumpsuits, airlifted and dropped into a stadium filled with the survivors of all of their victims, with all exits but one blocked. If they can get out, they can go free. Never let it be said I didn't give them a chance in hell.

I think you confuse christianity with islam.
I can say 'Inquisition' right on top of my head.
The best I can recall for Islam is expulsion of non-muslims in Saudi arabia.

That was centuries ago. Contemporary examples, please.

And US founded on freedom of religion?
Hmmm....Batallón de San Patricio....Wounded Knee Massacre.

Secular warfare. Next.

Turkey has a Christian minister of state
does US ever has a muslim secretary?

No, because the govt. didn't choose one. Next.

The Most Serene government concludes that appealing to the supposed higher moral value of the USA, evidence shows that the opposite is the norm.

The Most Awesome government concludes that your argument is bunk.

If I got them to the table I would use them as an excuse to blow the hell out the entire building.LOL
I think they know.. so I guess we will never convince them to trust us.. for a negotiation.

That was centuries ago. Contemporary examples, please.

On the contrary, since it never properly adjudicated, it is never cleared. If you want to dismiss it, it's the same of saying that Nazism should be dismissed.

Secular warfare. Next.
Aaah, really. I seems to recall the first one raised because US government discrimination against so called 'Papist'? And wounded knee is clearly an obstruction of the freedom of religion and freedom of expression.


No, because the govt. didn't choose one. Next.

Didn't choose one because there are no suitable candidates or simply because it is not politically safe??

The Most Awesome government concludes that your argument is bunk.

The Most Serene Government considered Herself has debunked the arguments of Ferrous Oxide government.

Concerning the negotiations, how hard is it to find a guy with a failing kidney???

That was centuries ago. Contemporary examples, please.



Secular warfare. Next.



No, because the govt. didn't choose one. Next.



The Most Awesome government concludes that your argument is bunk.

1. Since it is not properly adjudicated, it is still on the books.
2. Read your history. San Patricio exist because religious discrimination. Wounded Knee is an example of the government not respecting freedom of religion AND expression.
3. I wonder why Nazi germany never has Jew ministers?

The Most Serene government awaits

This is why negotiating with terrorists will not work. Islam is a "church-state" religion that does not tolerate any other religion, and the USA was founded on the principle of FREEDOM OF RELIGION, a principle 100% contrary to orthodox Islam. I do not wish to convert to Islam, and they don't (or if they do, they shouldn't) have the right to coerce me into it. Islam, in history, was spread by force, i.e. "convert to my religion or I'll kill you!" I do not support any religion that advocates proselytism by force, or by military or terroristic actions.

And it's this popular perception of Islam as fanatical, backwards hivemind that plays into the hands of Jihadi radicals like Osama Bin Ladin, who wish to unite all the disparate and conflicting sects of Islam into a single force that is determined to create the so-called World Caliphate.

You know, if all Muslims acted and thought alike you'd think they'd have better things to do in Iraq than blow the shit out of each other because they couldn't decide if Muhammed wore a red hat or a blue hat.