The United States has had a long standing policy that it will not negotiate with terrorists. There also seems to be a huge use of the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" line in almost every movie you see that involves some element of terrorists.

So quite simply, for debate:

Do you believe we should negotiate with terrorists?

Why or why not.

No. To do so legitimizes and encourages their methods. In reality there may always be “back room” concessions as when Israel releases prisoners in return for captured soldiers but the general policy is a good one.

To reply to my own questions:

1. No way, no how!

2. Like Ted said, it would encourage their tactics and would cause even more to come to light. I don't even agree with 'back room' concessions for the same reasons. It will only embolden them.

Do you believe we should negotiate with terrorists?

Why or why not.
I do believe we should negotiate with our enemies to get a better understanding of their thinking. These are people that are attempting to kill United States citizens with no discretion between civilians and military. Just as a simple troubleshooting method, in problem solving processes that are tried and tested, finding the source of the problem is one of the many steps that you take in order to make things right. We are ignorant not to negotiate. To suggest that engaging them gives validity to them is short-sighted and arrogant. How many people will die before we lend validity to al-Qaeda? The Trade Center attacks killed around 3,000 civilians, were their deaths not valid? Were the deaths in the subway bombings in Madrid and London not valid? Osama bin Laden has made two requests, get our troops out of Saudi Arabia and stop lending support to Israel. I argue, that just getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia would lessen their anger toward us so significantly that we would no longer have to worry about them. If we were to negotiate with them, we could at least discuss and rationalize our support of Israel. Think about this, al-Qaeda brought forth their first attack on the Trade Center in 1993, two years after the Gulf War invasion which means that our troops there are the start of this conflict. Pulling them out would have only a positive effect for our security.

Do you believe we should negotiate with terrorists?

Yes.

Why or why not.

Simply put to get to the core that will fight until it dies so we can kill it. Most people follow the idea of decapitation of some group generally takes out the body, I don’t really follow this idea but killing those people anyways would with no doubt make America safer, though we could lost the moral high ground in such activities which I guess is still existing somehow

So let me get this right we should have let Saddam invade Kuwiat with no consequence? That was pretty much the reason for the first Gulf War.

Tell me how you negotiate with somebody who says "Convert to Islam or you will die".

I think of terrorists like children.. If a child throws a fit and the parent gives them a toy to shut up, what do you think the child will learn from this... Hmmmm if I throw a fit then mom/dad gives me a toy.. I will do this again so I can get more toys.. But if the child throws a fit and they get a spanking or some sort of other punishment they noticed they don't get a reward for being bad and in the future think twice about doing it.

Do you believe we should negotiate with terrorists?

I think this simple question requires a definition of terrorism. If Khatami is a terrorist than I answer yes. If it is with someone who is trying to acquire something from the United States while using terrorism I say no.

Too often a terrorist is in the eye of the beholder. It is easy to say that under no circumstances will our nation negotiate with terrorists but the real world gets murky. Acknowledging this does not make me "soft on terror," it shows that I understand the complexities of the world.

I understand why many Palestinians argue that Sharon was a terrorist. I also think that some of the best progress was accomplished in pursuing peace in the Middle East was done when a person with a clear terrorist past, Yasir Arafat, was moved into a position of accepting a two-state solution for Palestine as the leader of the Palestinian people.

Obvious the slam dunk answer here is supposed to be yes, and then we have to live up to this standard later when the government deems someone a terrorist but is not required to disclose the classified information that deems someone a terrorist.

When we work out a clear definition of what exactly a terrorist is both here at and in the definition used by our government, then I will likely say we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

I'll be the week-kneed liberal and point out what our governments have always done, there are times when our government negotiates with terrorists. Ask Oliver North.

Instead of defining terrorism while we are at war with it, the present administration has left it intentionally vague to be pulled out and used to scare America whenever it gets in a pickle.

So in the absence of clearly defining what terrorism is, all negotiations should be decided on a case by case basis without referring to the term terrorist.

What I will concede is that the United States should not respond to terror attacks or threats of terror by granting concessions. But if Osama bin Laden himself wants to turn himself in, I say we negotiate the terms of surrender instead of pointing out a silly policy of not "negotiating" with "terrorists.



Why or why not.

OK let me define terrorists for the purpose of this thread.

The kind that hijack planes and threaten to blow up buildings and kill thousands of people if their demands are not met. Clear enough?

I don't think that we should negotiate with someone who is hijacking or threatening to hijack a plane and kill thousands of people if their demands are not met.

But I might want to negotiate with one of them if he/she is going to betray the others. It might even stop the attack. I hope our policy wouldn't keep me from doing that.

I wonder if anyone is going to come in to this thread and advocate conceding things to airplane hijacking murderers.

Maybe since that is what we allowed him to think... why not. however, Real Politik knows no limits...



Here's how... first you start listening to what they are actually saying rather than saying what they are saying!! Try it, it works... Yes they think we are infidels... yes they think we are going to hell... guess what... we think they are going to hell... but it is only willful ignorance and prideful arrogance that makes Americans think they are committing suicide just cause we aren't muslims....

Sleeper, why hasn't Canada been struck by all kinds of terrorist attacks... they aren't muslims... and they're a softer target!!



That's right... they're little kids and we're mom and dad giving appropriate spankings for their misbehavior. I actually agree with this analogy, because the more we slaughter them the more I can see us smiling and saying "Whose your daddy, now!?!?!?"


Do you believe we should negotiate with terrorists?

Yes, no... negotiating is pointless... they are too fanatical to buy off... and buying off people is what we do when we negotiate. However, if we were to follow the golden rule..."do unto others..." we likely could curb the terrorist problem

Ironically, if you "really listen to what they are saying" you will in fact find that their message is basically "convert to Islam or die," Droop.

Bin Laden, for instance, has never claimed that he acts on behalf of the poor and illiterate, or that his goal is to redress the disparities between rich and poor countries. They might just be everything they claim to be….why assume their actual goals are noble, or that they only act out in desperation, when they themselves don’t even make such claims? Their goals, ACCORDING TO THEM, rest around avenging Muslim pride, and re-establishing the caliphate.

Most recent message from the new Al Qaeda leader: "I call on every holy fighter in Iraq to strive during this holy month (Ramadan)... to capture some dogs of the Christians so that we can liberate our imprisoned sheikh” (referring to sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, in jail in the US since 1995 for the attack two years earlier on World Trade Centre).

I cannot offer a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question to be debated. The answer is "it depends". We do negotiate with terrorists when they are willing to come to terms that we find acceptable. We negotiate with despotic dictatorships as well when they are willing to come to terms we find acceptable.

I expressed my sentiments on an old thread regarding this issue, and stand by what I said then.

Well, the invasion of Kuwait was a product of our doing as droop224 pointed out. To further back that claim, Saddam Hussein was given weapons by the United States, exhibit A would be the infamous picture of then Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the maniacal Saddam Hussein. History will also explain how we turned a blind eye toward Hussein's use of chemical and biological weapons on the Iranians because the Iranians were now being lead by a leader not of our choosing, the Ayatollah, as opposed to the jetsetting and oppressive Shah, who was ousted by a POPULAR REVOLUTION. Unfortunately for the United States, Hussein turned out to be a pathetic military general, kind of like our President Bush is now. As such, the war with Iran and Iraq carried on for many years and was an eventual stalemate with both sides losing. Hussein became in debt to the Kuwaitis and decided the best way to get out of debt was to just take them over. The United States gave him no indication that we rejected such a move and then shanked him when he did. So I am unable to answer your question; "we should have let Saddam invade Kuwait with no consequence?" You are asking the wrong question.
Q: Why did Saddam invade Kuwait?
A: Because he was in debt to them.

Q: Why was he in debt to them?
A: Because of the decade long war with Iran.

Q: Why was he in a decade long war with Iran?
A: Because we gave him weapons and urged him to attack Iran.

Q: Why did we give him weapons and urge him to attack Iran?
A: Because the leader of our choice was ousted.

Q: Why was the leader of our choice ousted?
A: Because the Iranian people did not want him there.

Q: Why didn't we just ask the Iranian people who they wanted?
A: Because we don't talk with terrorists.

Q: But isn't getting a majority of people to agree on their leadership like a democracy?
A: Not if the United States doesn't like the outcome, then it's a dictatorship.

You also ask how do we negotiate with people that say, "Convert or die?" I reject the parameters which you suggest they demand from us, "Convert or Die." al-Qaeda is not attacking the United States because of our religious affiliation, they are attacking us because we support Israel, which kills Muslims routinely with our weaponry, and because we have a military base in Saudi Arabia. It is not because we are not Muslims. Of course, you could never possibly know why they hate us because you don't negotiate with them.

You suggest we treat terrorists like children. I'm not really going to debate you on this point. All I am going to do is ask if you would like to be treated like a child?

Well?
Would you?

Your information is old. The US pulled its troops out of tent city in Saudi Arabia a couple of years ago.



I hope you don't advocate killing children?

The information is accurate as to why Osama bin Laden hates us. The US troop withdrawal was not finalized until September 2003, six months after the invasion of Iraq and two years after the 9/11 attacks. Now we are based in Qatar, only 300 miles to the East.
http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast.htm

We were stationed there to enforce the No-Fly Zone. With Iraq completely in ruins and Saddam Hussein out of power the enforcement of the No-Fly Zone became obsolete. Yet our presence in the Middle East has grown from the 4,500 troops in Saudi Arabia to over 100,000 all over the region. For some reason I don't think that is going to mitigate his or al-Qaeda's hatred toward us. The situation is at a point now where the only thing that will suffice is complete withdrawal from the region. Which I have no problem with.

I am not sure how you get this interpretation from my question. I can only assume that you are trying to be cute or you want to start an argument.

Really, well that would be very reasonable of them if it were anywhere near true. If that's the case, then why do Islamic terrorists kill British citizens, and when they do attack Muslim countries [Indonesia], why do they attack tourist areas where Americans and other non-Muslims stay? So why did they kill Spanish civilians when they blew up a Spanish train? Sorry, I don't buy it. The fact is Al-Qaeda, among other things is the most aggressively racist oranization on the planet, they're anti-semetic, anti-christian, and anti-west...If you're not an Islamic they see you as just as bad as the infidels [Read: Jews, Christians and Westerners].

Now to the question:
No, we should not negotiate with terrorists because quite frankly, if you are fine with going into a Starbucks with a bomb strapped to your chest and blowing up yourself along with the people inside, I don't care what you're grievances are. Now, if terrorist groups were more activist than militant you could make the argument that we should negotiate, but as long as they kill innocent people then I really couldn't possibly care any less about there lives or the problems that they deal with.

CP

Do you believe we should negotiate with terrorists?

Why or why not.

Absolutely not. This is, to me, a question of what is the greater good. In individual circumstances, there are always ways to see how negotiating might be beneficial. However, this then lends credence to that act as a means of reaching a goal, creating yet more similar situations, creating more terrorism. This is not to anyone's benefit, even if in the process of confirming that stance an individual situation ends badly. We should keep the door open for negotiations, but never in situations where we are being forced into it.

This is best exemplified by the situation during the Iranian hostage crisis. At the same time our embassy was taken over in Iran, a similar attack occurred in South America. In this same building there were also Russian diplomats. Russia has a firm policy of not only not negotiating, but further of 'remedying' the situation immediately via force. The attackers knew this, and immediately forcibly expelled the Russian diplomats, as keeping them there would hurt their cause, not help it. Such a policy, in the end, benefits us all by creating a disincentive for taking such a path in the first place.

It was neither.

Sleeper gave an example as to why he thought we should not negotiate with terrorists. It was intended to be illustrative, not literal. Something like, "If you give a mouse a cookie..." In point of fact, our policy is currently to kill terrorists if and when we can, not "treat them like children"....unless you believe that we should kill children. If I were a terrorist (or any other sort of criminal), being treated like a child would actually be the best thing I could hope for. And he is also right about the overall point. Terrorism exists because, like violence in general, it can work, and negotiation might serve as incentive to promote further attacks.

Do you believe we should negotiate with terrorists?

As a general principle, we should "talk" and "discuss" all difference with all.

Why or why not.

However, "negotiation", as in deal cutting, engaging in discussion with the presumption that "we must" come to a resolution stronger than agreement to disagree, is not to be engaged in.

And, we should be well aware of Korea and Vietnam style "stall for advantage" talks that can happen under the guise of "negotiation". This type of "negotiation" is not to be allowed. In short, do it, but don't do it dumb and let it be turned against us and our principles

Otherwise, open door policies are good!

Why do Islamic terrorists kill British citizens?
Because they are our #1 ally in the war in Iraq.

Why do Islamic terrorists attack American tourists?
Because Osama bin Laden stated that he does not differentiate between civilians and military. These attacks are in response to our then occupation of Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel.

Why did the Islamic terrorists kill Spanish civilians on 3/11?
Because at the time, Spain was our #2 ally in the war against Iraq and their support was wavering. None of the reasons given have anything to do with religion.


Stop right there, this is not a fact, it is an opinion and a poorly constructed one at that. To suggest that al-Qaeda is the most racist organization disregards the numerous groups that have anti-Semetic objectives. First that comes to mind is Hezbollah, then the Klan, the Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis, and Lebanese all belong in the anti-Semetic group, not to mention Mel Gibson Productions. So to describe them as factually the most racists lacks any validity. Secondly, you cannot be racist against Christians because Christians are not a race of people. Christianity is a religious ideology. And finally, you cannot be racist against the West because the West is a culture.


Their request from us is simple, get out of our land and stop giving weapons to the Israelis, who keep killing us. To further simplify, we don't want to fight and why don't you just leave us alone? Perfectly reasonable requests.
Here is a timeline created by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3618762.stm
Notice the only attacks on Spain and Great Britain came after the invasion of Iraq. And here is the caption that states, "Osama bin Laden offers truce."

Does it say, Convert or Die? No, it is get out and leave us alone. Stop believing the soundbites, "They hate us for our Freedom" or "Convert or Die." That is just not true.

I searched Convert or Die and was only able to find references to the American al-Qaeda member Adam Gadahn:
Keep your poison to yourself? Does that say, we are going to kill you? No, it is the same message that Christians have; Repent or die and go to hell. His message was a call to join Islam, they do not want democracy because democracy is not real freedom, and finally stop supporting Bush and start supporting Islam. Convert or Die? Not even O'Reilly can spin that out of his message.
Gadahn's message
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BeEAGqxmSk...wahiri%20Ogrish
These link are more appropriate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxjES3C2dk&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e5rf13P9Fg...ted&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX1J8QJ6D6w...ted&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHSjxr5O68g...ted&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPyMXWy3TkY...ted&search=

The only other instance that I can find regarding conversion and death was the Afghanistan case where Abdul Rahman converted to Christianity. Under Afghan Islamic Law, more specifically Shariah Law, Rahman was guilty of apostasy and therefore subject to death. The Shariah as you know, are one half of the Muslim nation, the other being the Sunnis who follow the Qur'an and not the Shariah Law. But in Christianity, there are examples of this sort of draconian behavior as well. We just do not act on it, just like the Sunni Muslims.

No they're not, the British government and their military are our #1 ally in the war in Iraq. British citizens [much like American citizens] are largely against the war.


Oh, well that's fine then. I guess if it's a stated policy not differentiating between someone looking to harm you and someone who isn't is perfectly legit.


I don't believe I said that Al-Qaeda is the only anti-Semitic group in the world at any point. I said it was the most racist because it essentially hates everyone not belonging to a small sect of Islam. I should have qualified it so as not to use racist, but the point remains.

What I said was: I sad that they are among other things the most racist organization on the planet, then I went onto say that they are also anti-christian, west, etc. I do know that Westerner is, in fact, not a race.


Really? Well there are two things wrong with that. One, their "requests" come in the form of suicide bombings in civilian areas, which is not "perfectly reasonable". Two, I reject the notion that all they want us to do is get off of their land. When I hear someone say "Death to the Infidels" or "Allah Ahkbar [spelling?]" while beheading a civilian I'm not hearing, "Excuse us, if it's not too much trouble we'd like you to get off of our land and be quiet on the way out, the baby is sleeping." But in any case what you said does not address my point, no matter how legitimate your grievances are, you lose any moral superiority when you target innocent people. So as I said, if you car-bomb a 7-11, you could have the most worthy cause on the planet and it would no longer matter.


Well, if that's what Osama said it's good enough for me. He seems like the kind of guy, you know, who you can trust. He also has been known to say these gems:


Sounds reasonable to me. Oh and by the way I never said that they're killing us because they hate us for our freedom, ever.

So essentially, I'm supposed to believe that if we packed up our things, left the middle east and never entered a Muslim country again that we'd never be attacked by Islamists because that's what Osama Bin Laden said? Sorry for being cynical.

On Edit: Just as a little food for thought, the US might have a reason for having bases in Muslim countries other than just wanting to tick off extremists.

CP

We have already gone over this, bin Laden does not differentiate between civilians and military.


Killing innocent civilians is wrong, whether it be a group of women and children in Haditha or a Bali night club full of Americans, innocents dying is wrong. But given al-Qaeda's limited military capability, he has few options when it comes to changing the foreign policy of a nation like the United States.


The suicide bombings happen because they have limited military capabilities. Al-Qaeda would launch pinpoint air raids on U.S. installations killing only U.S. military personnel, if they had the technology to do so. That is why they use IED and suicide bombers, it is all they have. ConservePat, if you have a battle plan to defeat the U.S. military, by all means, the world would love to hear it. Because, by the looks of it, you would be the only such person that pertained such insight and knowledge. How do you combat the most sophisticated Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine units with logistical support to the tune of over $400 billion dollars with some rocks, sticks, and ingenuity?

On your second point, I think you are forgetting that we are in their country. I do not believe the U.S. military presence rates an "Excuse me" from the local inhabitants. They do not need to be subtle in their desires to get us out of THEIR COUNTRY.

Let's take these point by point.

Acquiring weapons for defense is a religious duty. So what? He wants to defend himself. I do not see a problem with that. Do you?
If he acquired those weapons he would thank God. Whatever. Basically, an irrelevant sentence.
If he seeks to acquire them, he is carrying out a duty. We have already been over this.
A sin for Muslims not to try to possess weapons that would prevent infidels(U.S. & Israel) from harming Muslims. This again, is a defensive statement. I do not see a problem with defending yourself.

Fighting is a part of their faction of religion. The Sunni's would differ with him on this. He is radical on his views, no doubt about that, but that does not mean we cannot take up dialogue with some Shia clerics that could potentially mitigate his rage through respectful dialogue. You said so yourself, they shout "Death to the Infidels" well, why do they want us dead? It's not because we are Christians, it is because we are killing their people.

Not an inaccurate statement though. Certainly, radical Muslims will die for their cause. And the U.S. citizens are not at all interested in dying.


He ran the Soviets out of Afghanistan with our assistance. He is not attacking them anymore. So evidence is on his side in this one. Unless you have evidence to prove that he has in fact attacked Russia since the Soviet withdrawal.


I know this, the No-Fly Zone in Iraq and for increased speed in response to instability in the region. We are not there to anger Muslims, but our presence there is angering Muslims. Bin Laden has stated time and again, this is the reason for the fatwa against the United States, not religious difference. Please find me a convert or die statement that contradicts my premise.

I know that. That's exactly why we do not want to negotiate with him, he is a MURDERER. For the third time I will say that no matter how just your cause is, if you decide to kill civilians you lose your moral high-ground, period. You may disagree with that line of thinking but at least acknowledge it.


I don't care. If you want to justify killing civilians on purpose go ahead, but I don't care if he doesn't have an alternative. In addition, it isn't necessarily the fault of the United States that he doesn't have one [I'm not saying that you belive this].

How can you possibly believe that. You've told me several times, including once in your last post that "Bin Laden does not differentiate between civilians and military" and I reject the notion that he would if he had MORE technology.

This would be a very effective use of sarcasm and irony if it had anything to do with what I was saying. I never claimed to know how to defeat the American military, so spare me the condescension. What I did say is [here I'll make it a fourth time] no matter how just your cause is, you lose all moral high-ground when you kill civilians intentionally. Killing civilians intentionally, as you said, is wrong, period. There is no justification for it.


I'd like to think that they can find a way to make their grievances public that is slightly more subtle than blowing up the local schwarma joint.


There was a mistake with posting that quote, the question Bin Laden was asked before making that statement was "do you plan on acquiring weapons of mass destruction", that was his answer, so that having been said, do you think it's reasonable for a terrorist organization to possess nuclear weapons for "defense"?

We? I don't belive you or I have killed any of their people, yet both of us would make a pretty good hostage/beheading victim on Al-Jazeera. I know, I know, they don't distinguish between soldiers and civilians, my question is, what the hell kind of defense is that? Think about that, you're defending these people by saying that they don't distinguish between civilians and soldiers...How messed up is that? That should be my argument for not negotiating with them, not a justification to negotiate with them.


Why do you think that the Soviet Union is the only country that OSB hasn't utilized terrorist attacks against when there was a conflict against them? There are two reasons why he didn't, one, he obviously wasn't the figurehead/important figure he is now, and most importantly it's the SOVIET UNION! It's a brutal totalitarian state that controls EVERY aspect of human life within its boarders. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a terrorist organization to function within the country, just as it was impossible for a democratic/reform organization to function within the country. This example is meaningless, it isn't that OBL chose not to attack Russia, it's that he couldn't.


You seem to trust the words of these terrorist leaders more than the US government, Barnaby. So if I find a quote that says convert or die, that'd be enough for you? They're terrorists, they're smart people, they aren't stupid enough to say something like that. No, they go on TV and spew this "we're just impoverished revolutionaries fighting against the imperialist West" garbage so they gain support...It's their version of PR for God's sake. They say what they want people to hear because they know that some people will sympathize with them.

CP

rocks, sticks, and ingenuity? Clearly you are not familiar with the types of weaponry that is available to the insurgents, or the types of weaponry and explosives which have killed and maimed soldiers and civilians with equal impunity, much of which has come from their eastern border....... unless you were making some over dramatic point.
Unfortunately I can point out many weaknesses in the force protection plan of US forces in Iraq, weaknesses that I am surprised have not been exploited by the insurgents. I will of course refrain from commenting on the specifics of those weaknesses, as I have no desire to sign my own death warrant. Possibly if Al-Qeada spent more time planning a comprehensive strategy against allied forces and less time striving to sow discord among the civilian population, they would have achieved success in ousting us from Iraq and Afghanistan. The insurgents have proven to be remarkably innovative in finding ways to overcome our technological advantages, to a degree.
This is one of the reasons that negotiating with these characters is out of the question. They could not be trusted to uphold any agreement. A group or disparate groups that espouse a goal, yet work harder on inflicting casualties on their own people rather than pursuing that goal, are not people that are likely to even come to the table, much less abide by negotiations.
A group of people that have no remorse over blowing up children while receiving candy from soldiers, blowing up a teaching hospital in Mosul, and both using mosques for military purposes and attacking rival mosques........those who make absolutely no distinction between killing civilians and military.....are not worth the time to negotiate with. I care less what their grievances are at that point.

The advantage the opposition in Iraq has is the fact it can blend in and use the local culture. This is made worse by not having enough troops to go around, or as john McCain might put it leaving the U.S playing a game of whack a mole. I only hope this situation is not allowed to culture in Afghanistan, I think its vitally important to be decisive and fast in reaction to events in that conflict.

I head the democrats want to boost troop levels in Iraq dramatically, though i think its just a minor buzz at this point.

I think the U.S should just leave Iraq and put those guys in Afghanistan, crush fully bin landen and his cronies in that part of the world. We could even use the money from Iraq to aid Pakistan, I tried to get on a mission for Afghanistan not to long ago, to bad the list was already full.

I think negotiating with terrorists is not as bad as some make it out to be. We already spend billions of dollars and lives on them, why not talk to them, you don’t ever have to agree to anything they say to you, I would not be surprised that American soldiers talk with terrorists in Iraq on a regular basis and not even know it.

I think Barnaby is partially incorrect... and ConservPat... you're dead wrong in these arguments. Let me tell you why.

First... Jews aren't a race. They are Jews because they follow the religion of Judaism. That's why you have Ethiopian Jews, American Jews, Polish Jews, White Jews, Black Jews, Arab Jews...etc. There is not a group that are "true" Jews who stand apart from other Jews. Of course it benefits Jews to be thought of as a race thus the propaganda of calling themselves semitic or semites. But here is the issue... Even if you wish to call European Jews semitic, which may be debatable.... it doesn't stop the fact that they are not the only semites... in fact they are likely the smallest group of semitic people.



So ConservPat, please explain to me how Al queada... a group who wants to fight for Arabs can be against Arabs, since Arabs are semitic people??? Simply put... they can't. Will you concede to this point, now faced with true Facts?? Are do you still view Al Queada as anti-semitic and racist? If so which race do they hate??



First point...

Why should Barnaby acknowledge something you won't ConservPat. You always talk from a moral High Ground. Yet we kill civilians too. All you do is justify why it is OK for us to kill civilians, by making a distinction, that we don't target civilians. Not to be confused with... we don't kill them intentionally, cause we do do that.

Second Point...

They do not abide by our laws so it is no more murder than when we kill people in other foreign lands... Let's try to look at this objectively.

When "Shock and Awe" was initiated, do you think it was legal to bomb infrastructure and buildings and barracks and what ever else we bombed, under Iraqi law??

Do you believe people were killed with the sanction of the Iraqi government during shock and awe.

Therefore, did we not break Iraqi law??

Is killing people illegally considered murder??

Does that make us MURDERERS???

If not why...



That's cool if you stick by your guns...

so are you saying any Marine or soldier or Marine who killed a civilian is a murderer??

Are you willing to name any pilot who has dropped a bomb that has killed civilians a murderer??

Any sailor who pushed a button that launched a rocket that killed civilians a murderer??

Because I assure you each group kills civilians intentionally all the time. Let us define intentional.




I'm not saying that there are no true accidents in war, but rather that most are calculated. If we have a target, say a electrical plant, and we bomb it any civilians killed were not unintended deaths. They are a calculated, and maybe unfortunate, casualty of war. Same is true if we have a target among civilian population... or with their family... The other civilians may not be targets... but their deaths weren't accidental.

Same is true for soldiers or Marines who may feel they were fired upon from a building. If they shoot the building up killing innocent civilians inside as well as their target, you can't call the deaths of the Civilians accidental. The grunts didn't accidentally barrage the building with bullets They didn't unintentionally take the safety off and start shooting.


So are our service member murderers??



He doesn't need MORE technology, he needs our technology... and our assets. If he could shoot down our jets and bomb our bases significantly enough that we could not exist in the Middle East.... then he would do so. And once we were gone there would be no need to kill us any more.

Also I have a major, I mean major question.... What's so good about a democracy??? Why are we trying to promote democracies around the world... This is what you said earlier conservpat in response to Barnaby telling you why British and people of Spain were attacked.



This is laughable!!! America, Spain, and Great Britain are all democratic nations. Who is responsible for a governments action, in a democracy, if not the people?? For some reason I thought that was what made democracies so great.... their government are supposed to listen to them!!! And if most of the British and Americans are against the Iraq war, and Great Britain and America are in the war in Iraq... I guess that makes both of us extremely poor examples of democracies. Maybe if we worked on that... our ability to have a government that answers to us, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.



Wow... wrong... the soviets/russians still had/have terroristic problems.. and still do, just not from al queada!! So your premise that there can't be any attacks on russia from within russia.. is wrong

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/04...hool/index.html



Be careful ConservPat, you and "wrong" are going to become synonymous. Al Queada doesn't mess with Russia, because Russia doesn't mess with them... very simple.



You tell me... when have the "terrorists" ever lied to the American people?? Spain was attacked, but not since the pull out of Iraq. France hasn't been attacked.. and they have plenty of Muslims. Canada hasn't been attacked. Mexico hasn't been attacked... Oh... let me just put the icing on the cake to seal the deal for all you nay sayers.... Cause this is how droop224 rolls.

Looky here, LOOKY RIGHT HERE!!!!




Oh..... my....... GOOOOD!!! It worked.... the negotiation worked... all the Filipino's did was take their uninvited country men out of another people's country and in return... saved the life of a captured country man. The "Terrorists" kept their word.

These aren't facts Droop, they're semantics. If you want to argue with me about what anti-semetic means that's fine, open up a thread, I'm sure it'll be a doozy [kidding, just trying to lighten the mood] The fact is that Al-Qaeda hates Jews, the word to describe that is anti-Semetic, as I said earlier, racist was not the optimal word, but again, this isn't really much of an issue.

I thought that the title of the thread was "should we negotiate with terrorists" not, "has the US acted like terrorists before". I completely acknowledge that we have killed civilians [you'd have to offer proof to convince me we do it on purpose, other than obviously WWII]. But again this is completely irrelevant.


Again this doesn't pertain to what I was saying. I didn't say a word about law. They are murderers in that they purposefully take innocent life. This isn't a legal issue.

Droop, I'm not trying to be a jerk [it just happens], but this is getting ridiculous. Every argument you've made has been a strawman, you're arguing against something that nobody said. I have not said ONE word about democracy in this thread. In fact that last sentence was the first one with the word included in it, so again, this is irrelevant.

What's laughable is you denying that most Brits and Americans are against the war...According to every reputable poll this is correct.

This is surreal. Surreal. I NEVER said that Russia doesn't have terrorist problems...I said that when OBL was fighting the Soviets that he didn't do so with terrorist actions within Russia...in the 1980s...not now! I feel like I'm losing my mind here.

As are you and "strawman" if you don't begin addressing arguments that I'm actually making.

Listen, if you're not willing to say that terrorism is a type of warfare based on deception, I don't know if we should go any further.

I guess at this point I'd be dissapointed if I didn't see another strawman...I never said negotiation can't work...I said that we shouldn't do it. Pretty siginficant difference there.

CP

Moral high ground is a meaningless cliche. Not nearly as useful as collateral damage. These terms are the exact thing that Orwell was warning against, the terminology adjustment that takes the pain out of the reality of what is happening. Collateral damage is the KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS. But, many Americans will hear of such collateral damage and justify it by dismissing it entirely, "War is cruel" or "these things happen in war" or "This is no tea party." We have no moral high ground. We never have and we never will. We are supposed to be a superior culture, advanced in civilization and not inclined to embrace such barbaric behavior because we are just BETTER THAN THEM. Yet, we passed legislation through the House the other day that said you can throw people in jail without explaining why and try them without providing evidence. It also allows the President to decide on his own, when the Geneva Convention applies to enemy combatants and when it does not. We are slipping toward barbarism. Our Marines slaughtered scores in Haditha and covered it up. We tortured and humiliated Muslims at Abu Ghraib. We bomb villages killing scores there as well and call it collateral damage. And then when they behead one of our civilians we cry, "OH THE HUMANITY!!" When they destroy our trade centers we weep, "THOSE SAVAGES!!" When they strap a bomb to their person and blow up a bus, we call it "HOMICIDE BOMBING" a completely accurate term, nothing like collateral damage that strips away the humanity and sounds like something that happens to a car.

My point is that there is no good guy, there is no bad guy, only opposition. The Iraq war is an extension of politics and failed diplomacy, like all wars are. Except in this case, there is no negotiation between the participants. We have no idea where victory is, or what an acceptable compromise could be, because we don't negotiate. We do not have to sit at a table with Osama bin Laden. We can talk to the Muslim Shia Clerics that have political power within that culture. We can reach an understanding with them. We can define compliance and breaches of an agreement, possible penalties or ramifications for breaking our agreement. We can get a thorough understanding of why their hatred exists. You and I have debated today on the concept of Convert of Die and Withdraw troops and Israeli support. Neither one of us has convinced each other that one of us is correct, partially correct, or even in the realm of understanding. We can get there if we talk to them. With your option of non-negotiations there is only one certainty, death.



Yes I do think it is reasonable for them to have nuclear weapons. Because we have them. And if history is any indication of our approach to nuclear weapons, it is in their best interest to possess them.

Personally, I think nuclear weapons technology closes the military gap between our nation and the rest of the world. So many people have died around the world because of nuclear technology in the past 50-60 years. All the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, and South America combined make me believe that this weapon is better off to not have existed.

Dontreadonme,

I was speaking with a bit of hyperbole with the rocks and sticks comment. But for you to suggest that somehow they have a chance at engaging us militarily is just a flat out LOAD.

Let me adjust your final paragraph to construct my response, my changes are in color.

A group of people that have no remorse over killing women and children in Haditha, gang-raping a girl in Mahmudiya, and jabbing broomsticks in the rectum of detainees at Abu Ghraib........those who make absolutely no distinction between killing civilians and military.....are not worth the time to negotiate with. I care less what their grievances are at that point.

So help me out here........since they are not our technological or logistical equals......killing civilian men, women and children is justified? And don't give me the tired mantra of we kill civilians too. I acknowledge that. The difference is we, as an institution, accept the possibility of civilian deaths in an operation, but we take steps to at least mitigate them. The 'insurgents', as a rule, either attempt to kill as many as possible, or simply take NO consideration of their deaths.
So to use your argument, we are no better than them when we TRY NOT to kill civilians and they try TO kill civilians????? I can and will never be persuaded to accept that bit of illogic.

They have every chance of engaging us militarily, as they often do. They however do not have much of a chance to defeat us militarily for various reasons. So how does the insurgent mindset travel from that reality to the idea of slaughtering children on the roadside in Iraq? These are people you wish to sit down with as equals? Knock yourself out if you wish to have a chat with them, I'll choose to look at them with crosshairs on their forehead.........at least until they stop random slaughtering.

Your re-wording of my paragraph only illustrates my opinion. We have individuals who commit war crimes. They are horrific yet isolated and random occurrences, and we prosecute the offenders. The insurgents commit the same vein of atrocities by design and as an institution. I would no more negotiate with them than I would Himmler, Goebbels and Eichmann

In your first response to me, you quoted a paragraph of mine that was preceded by a paragraph that stated that killing innocent civilians is wrong. I stand by that statement, Killing innocent civilians is wrong. What I am trying to point out to you is not that they are justified, but that they have no alternative if they hope to achieve victory. You and I agree, that al-Qaeda versus the United States in a military battle is like a Pop Warner team playing the Indianapolis Colts, it's no contest. Conflict with the U.S. military will result in certain death. You ask the appropriate question in your second paragraph, so I will address it below....


You ask about Trying to kill civilians, and how that correlates to their approach in Iraq. They are trying to gain political power, both foreign and domestic. The beheadings of American civilian contractors is a horrifying event, one that I assume they believe will break down our will to fight. I am sure that many a civilian contractor here in the States has at least considered the possibility that if they go to Iraq as part of a government contract that the possibility exists that they will have their head chopped off. I would also venture to guess that many a contractor has figured that the price of beheading is greater than the salary offered by their company. Also, many bombings in Iraq that are reported have been of Police Stations.
May 23, 2006http://www.showmenews.com/2006/May/20060523News009.asp
In this one is a picture of a US service member standing side by side with an Iraqi Police Chief, hardly an innocent civilian.
Jan. 31, 2004http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?&story_id_key=5724
Oct. 9, 2003http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_090303C.shtmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3176742.stm
Sep. 2, 2003http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/974343/posts
Jan. 5, 2005http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n...1101EST0530.DTL

I really could go on for awhile with these. These are not innocent civilians. Police officers that coordinate with American military are allies in the American military invasion of Iraq. They are in effect committing treason against their own country. Anybody that kills these police officers is in essence killing a U.S. military member.

I also argue that any civilian contractor is not an innocent death. They are assisting the U.S. military in their operations and there death would have a direct effect on the efficiency of the U.S. military to carry out that mission.

Also, here is an article by CNN that reports that the U.S. military was responsible for almost 25,000 deaths. And that most Iraqi civilian deaths were by Iraqi criminals, not Iraqi insurgents or al-Qaeda.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount/
Here is the case by case breakdown of the civilian deaths.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
And a telling quotation from the former article.

U.S. led forces 37%
Anti-Occupation forces 9%
How do you explain this Dontreadonme?

So basically, the U.S. has TRIED NOT to kill 25,000 innocent civilians. I don't even need to get into the Amnesty International report about how our use of cluster bombs has killed hundreds of innocent civilians in the initial invasion in 2003. I don't need to get into it, but I will.....
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140652003

Can you say, WAR CRIME?
This was a fairly compassionate quotation from one of your boys in uniform.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.
“Change the channel”[NYT 12th April 2004]

Who is doing the random slaughtering now? You are no different than they are, you are just better equipped.

No they are facts... And the only issue I have with it is this.. You repeat propaganda enough... it tends to look like facts... and then facts tend to loo like semantics. Al queada does hate Jews... but you have to at sometime take the time to look at roots.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/jews.htm


Earlier you made it your point to prove that Al Qeada hates Jews because of their religion. But this is just so inaccurate. Before Israel 900,000 Jews through out Arab lands... how did they exist?? Why weren't they all slaughtered??? How did they exist so many centuries... After Israel... less than 60 years later... there are only 8000, likely dealing with a lot of hatred.

Can you make that connection.

How do you think the infiltration of Western Jews into the middle east followed by the creation of a Jewish State affected the Muslim-Jew relationship...

People like Bin Laden use religion as a tool. It is used to gather people, to sway people, to encourage people, thus you are going to hear tons and tons of religious rhetoric. But that doesn't prevent you from having the ability to see at it's roots the problems are political.

The creation of Israel... political
The support of Israel... political
The invasion of Iraq.... political
etc... etc....

Your an American... you love America... Lets say a group invaded the US... I don't know some sort of Native American descendants... And right smack in the middle of the U.S. they made a Country named "Republic of Aztec" Now all of the world except every country in the Northern and central America agreed that it had the right to exist... can you see the issues, you'd probably have.

So that is the point I was trying to address



ConservePat... please take the time to reread your posts... I even quoted you before I made my statements... and you are still calling them "straw man" arguments. I'll take the time to clarify.

1. I must refuse to comply with your demand that I find proof we are killing civilians. We kill civilians in every war where we are an invading force. You know this... I know you know this... so I explained what intentional means. When we purposefully drop bombs and civilians die we can't call their death accidental or unintentional.

You've made the argument that "terrorist" lose their moral high ground by intentionally killing civilians, I am submitting a counter argument that we also intentionally kill civilians, thus we don't have a moral high ground either. Since neither of us have a moral high ground, negotiations should not be a problem. So it wasn't a straw man... it was acounta countere of your arguments...

2. Again it is not a straw man. I can not be held responsible, because you use words with out knowing the definition or meaning. By using the word "murderer" rather than "killer" you make it a legal issue. A murderer is someone who commits murder. Murder is the illegal killing of another human. So regardless if you "said a word about law", you used a word that dealt with law.

3. Again... not a straw man it goes against this argument exchange between you and Barnaby



You separated the British government military from the British citizens. Do you not realize you did that with this statement?? So my question is, how can you do this in a democracy?? Who is responsible for the government it's actions in a democracy, if not the people?? It doesn't seem like a straw man to me, maybe you just don't want to answer it.

4. You've failed to show one legitimate straw man... in one case you likely just didn't understand my point.... in the second case you didn't know what murderer meant... in the third case you failed to understand the implications of your own arguments, thus my counter argument looked like a straw man to you.

ConservPat


ConservPat


Maybe what you were trying to say didn't come out right... but I assure you these were your words I quoted. After rereading what you said some times you used present tense verbs some times you used past tense... but I can believe you meant to write strictly in the past tense. But you still have to take a hit on that one.



That's your call. You shouldn't just say something, and then say if I don't acknowledge it we won't discuss. In war... if you are not the stronger, than your tactics will be deceptive. This is the nature of all war. During the American Revolution did we face Britain open combat or did we use deception. However, if it is warfare, than it is not terrorism... or all warfare is a form of terrorism.




Music please...



I know you didn't say directly that terrorist couldn't be negotiated with, but you did make this argument about Barnaby.


So one I think we have a lot more instances of our government lying to us, rather than terrorists... two the story serves as an example that negotiations can and do work.

To droop224


Yes, but one issue that can often be overlooked is this. We don’t share typically in the Muslim perception of the world, or to refine as much as I can at this point that of the fundamentalist or radical Muslim perception of the world. The U.S has never hijacked planes to my knowing and piloted them into buildings full of innocent people. Now I will agree with some ideas that when they had those planes many targets could have been hit, such as nuclear facilities, or heck even some daycare facility, but they attacked the world trade center. I feel this has much to do with the psychological aspect of why some people are attracted in parts of the world to Muslim or again radical Muslim thought, and of course the leadership of such has to tow this line to save from internal combustion or corruption.

Now on that note, without being able to see or feel the world in the way they do, I find it hard to be able to fully account for what they do and why, more so we don’t even have a really firmly scientifically based understanding of such either to go from, and more often then not the basic reasons for such, like the forced existence of the state of Israel really only draws from emotion more then anything else. No one in America would stand it if Canada started to send bulldozers and settlers into Minnesota, but such an example will hardly pull the emotion from the issue, heck native Americans had there culture practically erased in a genocide, do you think they have some special right of return, no they have some benefits though.

I do find it funny though, that for the first time that a major attack occurred on American soil that is basically meant the world as everyone knew it had to end, i think it basically shows that the U.S truly does lack sympathy for the reality of many other groups of humans that currently inhabit the planet in some named cultural group have to face or have faced many times. Not to downplay the tragedy that 9-11 was, its just that America had never really witnessed that before, and not to long after really set in a rabid insanity that allowed for the war in Iraq. I remember clearly at first news channels called all acts of combat in Iraq fueled by terrorists, I could not help but to think how racist that was, blatant racism, it did not even concern itself with people in Iraq that might now want us there for reasons outside of radical Islam, though I am sure it helped move them to that way of life. We may be high on the food chain, but it does not mean we need to carry ourselves like that all the time is really what I am trying to say.

I don’t blame the situation in Iraq on insurgents as much as I blame it on people shot callers back in conus. They felt compelled to go into Iraq from true and compelling evidence of stuff that truly never existed as they stated, its not only that but I find it funny to think that Saddam way trying to kill Zarqawi before we even came ashore. I don’t think the media is that powerful of a tool, I think its intelligence and its form that is, America at home may simply be losing faith in why we are there, then you only have to take another step and couple this with the reality our troops face, and of course secret leaked Intel reports hidden from the public of a democracy.

Though again back on the issue, I don’t find any harm that could come from talking to these groups. Israel openly did it, they are still there, and in far better shape then there foes for that matter. We will though, and currently do lack the ability to see the world in the eyes of such people, so for me its very difficult to try and defend anything they do, simply because I can only draw from what I know or feel to judge on it. I will agree though that double standards never seem to work, but maybe this is just a natural aspect of the human experience we are yet to define or understand or work into the equation for that matter.

I wanted address this earlier but I did not want to double post, so now is my chance. A democracy is a representative government; represented by the people. You separated the British people and the British military in your response. The concept of democracy does not separate the people from the government, nor does Osama bin Laden. If we are voting in George W. Bush as our President and his policy is preemptive invasion of a sovereign Muslim country, then I would think that the people of the United States are, to some extent, responsible for what our government officials do.



No, but you said:

You are backtracking, first it IS impossible, and now you change to WAS impossible, via the 'in the 1980s...not now!' phrase. The first al-Qaeda linked attack happened to the United States in 1993, two years after the first Gulf War and our troops staying in Saudi Arabia. How many times has al-Qaeda attacked Russia during this time?

This is one of the most incredulous statements I have heard in a debate forum. You admit that negotiations can work, just that you refuse to utilize them. If negotiations work, do you realize how many lives could be saved? Not just American and coalition lives, but Muslims around the globe. The wars we could avoid in the future? Yet you continue to reject such a notion that negotiations are the wrong option. Could you please present an alternative? Barring negotiations, what does ConservePat do?

N