Al Qaeda - A time to talk?

[KSaiyu]

An interesting programme came on the anniversary of 9/11 in Britain that I missed first time but saw a repeat of just now that asks this uneasy question: is it time to talk to Al Qaeda? It's one of the better documentaries I've seen in a while, and was made by Peter Taylor who you'll see has covered the subject extensively before. Here's the vid on google:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1418626141632151119&q=al+qaeda+a+time+to+talk

What are other people's opinions on it (prefferably after watching the vid, about an hour), and is the American way of thinking that there should "never be negotiations with terrorists" still held by you?

 

[Matt R]

I was all for the "no negotiation" stance we had after the attacks on us a little more than five years ago. Just as many other things have changed in those five years, so has my stance on the subject. Sort of.

Negotiation - Mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement.

What doesn't sound good about that? When negotiations take place for whatever reason, most likely terms follow that both sides agree with. One end may hold a better pot than the other, but to a certain degree, it's a win-win situation.

When Americans were kidnapped and held at ransom by terrorists demanding release of prisoners from certain camps around the world, I was furious that our government made the decision to not negotiate. It has happened numerous times with the same outcome, another American beheading. I understand that the demands made by the terrorists behind the kidnappings were outrageous, but I still can't seem to help but think we could have, in those instances, negotiated in some way. With every kidnapping we sit back and let the time table we're given fade away, and more lives are lost with only an apology given to the affected families from the President in order to keep up his good face.

I think negotiations should be a key tool in getting what we want from those who oppose us. With us not negotiating anything, it gives more justification to those who call us "bullies." Being hard-headed and never letting down won't get you results in these situations. It's a mind game they have to impress fear upon our nation, and it's working.

---------

I on another hand still don't feel as though we should negotiate with any terrorist organization. Once we do start negotiating, where will that leave us? Where do the negotiations end and at what losses to us and or them? If we do start negotiating and decide after a while that we won't anymore, would it be just for them to say we're unfair?

I'm up in the air on the topic of talking with Al Qaeda. It's a situation to be taken with the utmost consternation.

 

[Zrow]

"Win-win" situation - the thing is, I don't want them to win. Anyone who intentionally kills civilians shouldn't win anything.

Negotiation is what they want - it's what they flew planes into buildings, bombed trains in England and decapitate reporters hostage for. I'm not willing to give it to them.

 

[Matt R]

"Win-win" situation - the thing is, I don't want them to win. Anyone who intentionally kills civilians shouldn't win anything.

Negotiation is what they want - it's what they flew planes into buildings, bombed trains in England and decapitate reporters hostage for. I'm not willing to give it to them.

The intentional killing of civilians could possibly be halted if a negotition were to take place. They wouldn't necessarily "win" if we cut a deal with them. They'd get something they wanted as well as us.

I can see in advance their demands being absurd though. They already have been. They've already asked for the release of hundreds of prisoners worldwide in exchange for one American. If both sides offered something reasonable to the other, a successful negotiation would possibly take place.

 

[Zrow]

The intentional killing of civilians could possibly be halted if a negotition were to take place. They wouldn't necessarily "win" if we cut a deal with them. They'd get something they wanted as well as us.

You don't see the problem with this? Them taking a civilian hostage and then getting something out of it?

 

[Matt R]

You don't see the problem with this? Them taking a civilian hostage and then getting something out of it?

I see giving them something for the hostage as a better alternative than giving them nothing and them killing the hostage.

 

[a6m5]

I didn't necessarily agree with it, but good post by Jj.

There is a reason why some governments refuse to negotiate with the terrorists. It encourages them to do more of the stuff they do. Blowing stuff up and killing civilians.

While letting Al Qaeda kill the kidnap victim look cruel, if we started giving into their damands, or start negotiating with them, I gurantee you'll see ten times more the reports of kidnapping and the terrorist bomb threats on the news.

I will try to watch the video when I have some time(1 hour! ) and let you guys know if it changes my view at all.

 

[Matt R]

I didn't necessarily agree with it, but good post by Jj.

There is a reason why some governments refuse to negotiate with the terrorists. It encourages them to do more of the stuff they do. Blowing stuff up and killing civilians.

While letting Al Qaeda kill the kidnap victim look cruel, if we started giving into their damands, or start negotiating with them, I gurantee you'll see ten times more the reports of kidnapping and the terrorist bomb threats on the news.

I will try to watch the video when I have some time(1 hour! ) and let you guys know if it changes my view at all.

I agree with every point made. If we as a nation start giving into demands even through negotiations, we'll see more crimes of the like committed. By not giving in it shows them our unwillingness to respond to their threats, thus making them less likely to continue doing them. They'll become uninterested over time.

I can't help but feel that in some situations a middle ground could be reached that wouldn't pose a threat to either side. I don't know what a good situation would be though. With terrorists, maybe their isn't.

 

[Zrow]

I can't help but feel that in some situations a middle ground could be reached that wouldn't pose a threat to either side.

They're the ones posing a threat to us. How about they don't take civilians hostage... that's a good middle ground.

 

[Matt R]

They're the ones posing a threat to us. How about they don't take civilians hostage... that's a good middle ground.

Good middle ground or not, it won't happen.

Suicide bombers go out and kill themselves and in the process take countless civilian lives with them. In their own mind, they are not murderers. They do it because it is their belife that by sacrificing themselves and taking sinners down with them, they will have a rich and happy afterlife in the name of Allah.

We feel what they do is terroristic and wrong. They don't. That is why this war is so damn hard to win or even get a solid foothold on. Our beliefs differ from theirs to an extent that finding a middle ground is as close to impossible as anything you can think of.

 

[ledhed]

I dont want to negotiate with them , I want to find them and kill them .
What exactly is there to negotiate about ?

 

[YSSMAN]

Here is the problem with the whole thing:

Negotiating with Terrorists not only validates their existance and their cause, it also signals that the given country is "weak" enough to talk it out with a bunch of guys burried in a cave in the middle of nowhere. Speaking with them gives them power, more than what they would "gain" even with a loss of another innocent life.

...Baisically, a negotiation is a simple way of giving into their demands. One minuite it is 100 prisoners for one journalist, a group of high-ranking "freedom figthers" for a small family, the right to freedom of an entire nation to save a city...

I'd rather have nobody win, as it gives the Terrorists satisfaction in knowing that we consider their actions relevant.

 

[kennythebomb]

Good posts, guys.

Remember Hitler?

Wasn't it Chamberlain who returned home to the UK a hero "peace in our time" and soon after the Nazis blatantly broke the Munich Agreement?

Why?

Because they rationalized that since the UK and other nations had been giving into their demands so far with appeasement; they would do nothing (or at least be slow to retaliate with action) if they were to push the envelope. Lucky for us, when the Germans *did* push the envelope, we sealed their fate.

 

[KSaiyu]

See, this is where I got to after watching this - OK let's say we all follow the "no negotiation" stance; where do we go from here? If you've seen the last 15 minutes of the documentary you'll see how the attacks have become more frequent all over the globe, and just in the newspaper today we're told that Iraq and the world is at more danger after the 2003 invasion by the Americans themselves.

The most worrying thing I saw in the video was the Sleeper Cell situation, which is something that isn't really in the news until I fear it's too late. We all seem to forget about the muslim radicalists who go to fight the jihad, and then return, and the great danger they pose in one, two even three or more years time.

Can we possibly end, or at least lessen the threat by "finding them and killing them"?

 

[TheCracker]

You can't negotiate with Al Qaeda - they want the whole world to be Muslims, they despise the whole 'western worlds' way of life. Unless your negotiations go somewhere along the lines of "Ok, we'll all convert to Islam then" you'll get nowhere.

'Finding them and killing them' might sound simplistic - but you can't reason with them, they are religious fundimentalists at the end of the day, they're beyond reason. A show of greater strength and attitude of not stopping until they're wipped out is the only possible way of dealing with the issue.

 

[ledhed]

See, this is where I got to after watching this - OK let's say we all follow the "no negotiation" stance; where do we go from here? If you've seen the last 15 minutes of the documentary you'll see how the attacks have become more frequent all over the globe, and just in the newspaper today we're told that Iraq and the world is at more danger after the 2003 invasion by the Americans themselves.

The most worrying thing I saw in the video was the Sleeper Cell situation, which is something that isn't really in the news until I fear it's too late. We all seem to forget about the muslim radicalists who go to fight the jihad, and then return, and the great danger they pose in one, two even three or more years time.

Can we possibly end, or at least lessen the threat by "finding them and killing them"?

Uhhh ....that would certainly dampen their enthusiasm a bit being dead and all .

You just have to except the fact that there are times for talk and times for tracking down terrorist and removing them as threats.


But just to humor you , how excactly would you begin talking to a man and an organization in a hole somewhere hidden in the remote wilderness from bombs and missiles and the odd bounty hunter ? And what would you talk about ?


Go for it come up with something . I'll be investing money in haliburton .

 

[Danoff]

Talking to terrorists = Losing
Killing the terrorists = Winning

We need to get more serious in the middle east.

 

[Swift]

Talking to terrorists = Losing
Killing the terrorists = Winning

We need to get more serious in the middle east.

Thank you. 👍

Ksaiyu, I don't need to look at the movie. It's obvious that terror has been escalating and would escalate. Especially after Spain backed out of Iraq after the bombing in their country. Everytime we retreat it gives them encouragement.

Also, you didn't expect them to at least try to fight back? I hate the fact that they are killing people. But the sheer fact is that there will come a time when the populous will get sick of being blown up by a very small segment of their own people and take a stand of somekind. It's going to take something like this to make Iraq a stable nation.

Anyway, as usual, you're about as far to the left with your views as you can get Kasiyu. I'm not surprised, I just hope that you get a look at the big picture soon.

 

[Scaff]

The unfortunate problem here is that (as has been stated) Al-Qaeda's goals are rather difficult to negotiate with.

From - http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=6

Al-Qaeda’s philosophy is one of “defensive jihad.” Using this philosophy, bin Laden encourages each Muslim to take it upon them self to fight what it perceives as attacks on Muslims across the world. As an extension of this view, the group aims to overthrow 'un-Islamic regimes' that they believe oppress their Muslim citizens and replace them with genuine Islamic governments, to expel US soldiers and Western influences from the holy territories of the Gulf and Iraq, and to capture Jerusalem as a Muslim city.

Al-Qaeda allies with and supports terrorist groups throughout the world that further these goals. These include groups fighting Muslim governments with allegedly apostate rulers (Egypt, Algeria, post-2002 Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia), groups fighting regimes perceived to oppress their Muslim citizens (Kosovo, India, Russia and Indonesia), and groups fighting to establish their own Islamic state (Palestine, Chechnya, Dagestan and Mindanao).

As one of the stated goals is to overthrow and replace regimes that they believe oppress Muslim's that means we have no point of negotiation.

As TheCracker said its fairly much covert or else, even the most basic of stand points for them would mean every western presence out of the middle-east (that means all troops, companies and agencies including NGO's), the destruction of the State of Israel (and they do mean destruction here) and a Muslim state in any country that 'wants it'.

Its that last point that is the big one, as even if we were going to sacrifice Israel and leave the middle-east, any country in which a single Muslim claimed they wanted a Muslim state would be supported.

Now while the vast majority of Muslims living in the west have no such wish, all it takes is one person to stand up and say it (and they already do) and Al-Qaeda will support them.

All this leaves very little room for negotiation of any kind and I for one would have little faith in even limited negotiations.


Head over to this post and have a listen to the radio interview with Abu Izzadeen (who converted to Islam from Christianity) and tell me you fancy anyone's chances of negotiating with people more hard-line that he is.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2427201&postcount=56


Regards

Scaff

 

[FoolKiller]

If you've seen the last 15 minutes of the documentary you'll see how the attacks have become more frequent all over the globe, and just in the newspaper today we're told that Iraq and the world is at more danger after the 2003 invasion by the Americans themselves.

I'm surprised that so many people weren't aware of this. Their tactic now is to get people in Iraq to fear them enough to want to negotiate and give in, eventually leading to country with a Taliban-like government. The only way they can achieve this is by killing more and more people.

They plot to attack more US allies in hopes of getting them to negotiate and back down.

If every time a man walked in to a store with a gun and demanded money or he would kill people we just gave in and the police allowed him to walk free with his money because he didn't kill anyone do you think that crime would go up or down? Criminals then know they can get whatever they want and walk away without fear of being arrested or shot because they didn't kill anyone.

Whether it is a terrorist or a domestic criminal hostage taker you can't negotiate or it tells them that they can get what they want with violence (or threatened violence) more easily than anything else.

How long would it be before we are threatened with a nuclear weapon and promised that if we negotiate to stop using Middle East oil and remove all American business interests, including McDonald's (thus collapsing our economy) that it won't be used? Or what stops them from using one first to make their point and then being asked to negotiate to prevent another?

 

[Danoff]

As TheCracker said its fairly much covert or else, even the most basic of stand points for them would mean every western presence out of the middle-east (that means all troops, companies and agencies including NGO's), the destruction of the State of Israel (and they do mean destruction here) and a Muslim state in any country that 'wants it'.

Its that last point that is the big one...

Not that the muder of 6 million Israelis is a small point.

 

[KSaiyu]

First off before responding to all the posts I want to say the reason I posted this was because it's a good documentary, but also to illustrate the concerns it highlighted about the various sleeper cells that have been set up in countries the world over - and how the current campaign doesn't seem to be having that much of an effect on terror and the threat to us and those living in the middle east. It's not really a thread on my views, but to look at the possiblities of other methods to try and diminish the influence of terrorists over muslims and make everyone safer.

You can't negotiate with Al Qaeda - they want the whole world to be Muslims, they despise the whole 'western worlds' way of life. Unless your negotiations go somewhere along the lines of "Ok, we'll all convert to Islam then" you'll get nowhere.

Therein lies the problem - what would you negotiate with them. However, could their demands be lowered through talks or is that just naivety? Would it lower the loss of life and terror attacks by negotiating even small amounts or would it just be seen as giving into them?

'Finding them and killing them' might sound simplistic - but you can't reason with them, they are religious fundimentalists at the end of the day, they're beyond reason. A show of greater strength and attitude of not stopping until they're wipped out is the only possible way of dealing with the issue.

While I agreed with this view of following America's example, I'm left now a few years later wondering is it time for something else? Iraqi death tolls are up more than double what they were per day, there's a continued terror threat all over the world even in unexpected places (montpellier France, as shown in the video) and Islamic opinions have never been worse towards the West.

Uhhh ....that would certainly dampen their enthusiasm a bit being dead and all .

But it's exactly the opposite - Iraq showed how it's recruited more to the Al Qaeda cause and death hardly scares these people.

You just have to except the fact that there are times for talk and times for tracking down terrorist and removing them as threats.

Quite agree, especially with the terrorist recruiters and sleeper cells here in Western countries.

But just to humor you , how excactly would you begin talking to a man and an organization in a hole somewhere hidden in the remote wilderness from bombs and missiles and the odd bounty hunter ? And what would you talk about ?


Go for it come up with something . I'll be investing money in haliburton .

No idea what I'd talk about, but I'd have the aim of trying to establish a truce of some sort or a way of preventing further attacks here and in the middle east. Does this mean I approve of giving into demands favourable to terrorists - no, I'm just exploring the possibility of other means to protect us from future attacks and to reduce the support they receive from all over the world, as suggested by this documentary.

We need to get more serious in the middle east.

I agree, we do need to get more serious - but how exactly? Now the ex antiterror staff from the US tell us that Iraq was the perfect recruiting drive for Al Qaeda, how do you propose we should get more serious? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just want to hear what your ideas would be in dealing with this threat.

Thank you. 👍

Ksaiyu, I don't need to look at the movie. It's obvious that terror has been escalating and would escalate. Especially after Spain backed out of Iraq after the bombing in their country. Everytime we retreat it gives them encouragement.

Well, please, look at the report. This isn't some anti-war propaganada that's posted all the time on the internet, it's a BBC documentary from an award winning reporter that looks at the current problem and weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of starting to talk.

Also, you didn't expect them to at least try to fight back? I hate the fact that they are killing people. But the sheer fact is that there will come a time when the populous will get sick of being blown up by a very small segment of their own people and take a stand of somekind. It's going to take something like this to make Iraq a stable nation.

I don't understand, are you talking about Iraqis and if they will revolt against all extremists at some time??

Anyway, as usual, you're about as far to the left with your views as you can get Kasiyu. I'm not surprised, I just hope that you get a look at the big picture soon.

You base this on what - me criticising Israeli actions towards Lebanon and bringing up a video that you haven't seen that provides a thorough, fact based argument of another way to try and stop the terror from Al Qaeda? Did I say we had to negotiate with them - if you've seen the movie, the reporter and other sources mention Al Qaeda and other extremists radical demands in the past, his main argument is to start talks with, and not exactly give in to demands.

As for my stance, I'm pretty much in the middle - talking wouldn't hurt as long we don't give in to stupid demands and it wouldn't be a sign of us endorsing their behaviour. I also find it pretty sad that you think I keep missing the "big picture" every time I disagree with your views on these conflicts.

The unfortunate problem here is that (as has been stated) Al-Qaeda's goals are rather difficult to negotiate with.

As one of the stated goals is to overthrow and replace regimes that they believe oppress Muslim's that means we have no point of negotiation.

As TheCracker said its fairly much covert or else, even the most basic of stand points for them would mean every western presence out of the middle-east (that means all troops, companies and agencies including NGO's), the destruction of the State of Israel (and they do mean destruction here) and a Muslim state in any country that 'wants it'.

Its that last point that is the big one, as even if we were going to sacrifice Israel and leave the middle-east, any country in which a single Muslim claimed they wanted a Muslim state would be supported.

Now while the vast majority of Muslims living in the west have no such wish, all it takes is one person to stand up and say it (and they already do) and Al-Qaeda will support them.

All this leaves very little room for negotiation of any kind and I for one would have little faith in even limited negotiations.

I agree with what you say, and it is an real problem but I see the escalating terror attacks as a big problem that concerns us all, and since our current actions are not making much progress and in fact turning more people into extremists, I'm all for trying something different to try and reduce the threat.

Head over to this post and have a listen to the radio interview with Abu Izzadeen (who converted to Islam from Christianity) and tell me you fancy anyone's chances of negotiating with people more hard-line that he is.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2427201&postcount=56


Regards

Scaff

Funny enough he's in the documentary (showing his rally in East London I think), and the way he pronounces YISRAEEELIIIII makes me switch off from him straight away. Listening to that (heard about it in the news, thanks for the link) makes him sound even more of a madman preaching about crusades, tyrants and putting sharia law everywhere.

I'm surprised that so many people weren't aware of this. Their tactic now is to get people in Iraq to fear them enough to want to negotiate and give in, eventually leading to country with a Taliban-like government. The only way they can achieve this is by killing more and more people.

They plot to attack more US allies in hopes of getting them to negotiate and back down.

Those are good points, and both are addressed in the report. I'm just wondering what the best way to prevent this would be, since the "war on terror" is hardly working.

If every time a man walked in to a store with a gun and demanded money or he would kill people we just gave in and the police allowed him to walk free with his money because he didn't kill anyone do you think that crime would go up or down? Criminals then know they can get whatever they want and walk away without fear of being arrested or shot because they didn't kill anyone.

Whether it is a terrorist or a domestic criminal hostage taker you can't negotiate or it tells them that they can get what they want with violence (or threatened violence) more easily than anything else.

How long would it be before we are threatened with a nuclear weapon and promised that if we negotiate to stop using Middle East oil and remove all American business interests, including McDonald's (thus collapsing our economy) that it won't be used? Or what stops them from using one first to make their point and then being asked to negotiate to prevent another?

I see what you're getting at - it's the mentality that's been drummed into us that once we start negotiating then there'll be no turning back, something our Prime Minister had told us in the eighties. That is the most obvious problem I can see with starting to talk with terrorists, although examples in the past have shown it doesn't necessarily have to end up going down this road in the future.

 

[kennythebomb]

I see what you're getting at - it's the mentality that's been drummed into us that once we start negotiating then there'll be no turning back, something our Prime Minister had told us in the eighties. That is the most obvious problem I can see with starting to talk with terrorists, although examples in the past have shown it doesn't necessarily have to end up going down this road in the future.

Which examples?

I think the only way for us to combat al Queda is for the rest of the world to hate, detest, and abhor them as much as many westerners do. I think if countries across the globe were unified in support of the war on terror, and used every method possible to fight the Jihadists... they could be quenched. This would involve those countries that refuse to do so now to send troops to the middle east.

Now maybe this sounds crazy... but if a massive UN force of 100,000's of troops were deployed to the middle east and basically babysat Iraq and Afghanistan; and Pakistan and Iran and Saudi Arabia and... etc then these groups could be disarmed.

HOWEVER this is wishful thinking as most countries are too scared to send troops over, the leaders of those countries have a political career that they don't want to ruin by sending soldiers over there, and many of those middle eastern countries would vehemently fight a foreign occupation.

UNLESS - your average Arab could be convinced that terror networks like Al Queda are evil and dangerous. If your average Arab hated terrorism, and not Israel... a UN force could get something done.

 

[KSaiyu]

Which examples?

IRA
Hamas
Hezbollah
Tamil Tigers

Has it stopped all attacks? No way, but has this current course of action made a difference - has it even made the situation worse?

I think the only way for us to combat al Queda is for the rest of the world to hate, detest, and abhor them as much as many westerners do. I think if countries across the globe were unified in support of the war on terror, and used every method possible to fight the Jihadists... they could be quenched. This would involve those countries that refuse to do so now to send troops to the middle east.

Now maybe this sounds crazy... but if a massive UN force of 100,000's of troops were deployed to the middle east and basically babysat Iraq and Afghanistan; and Pakistan and Iran and Saudi Arabia and... etc then these groups could be disarmed.

HOWEVER this is wishful thinking as most countries are too scared to send troops over, the leaders of those countries have a political career that they don't want to ruin by sending soldiers over there, and many of those middle eastern countries would vehemently fight a foreign occupation.

I wish, but think about this for a second.

Opinions of muslims towards "us" are terrible at the moment, imagine if every country went to war against them, just imagine how the hate filling imams would preach that they are suffering persecution worse than the jews by the Nazis. Imagine the backlash you would have from moderate muslims the world over and the amount of new recruits you would see in terrorist training camps.

UNLESS - your average Arab could be convinced that terror networks like Al Queda are evil and dangerous. If your average Arab hated terrorism, and not Israel... a UN force could get something done.

Now that is wishful thinking, and would be impossible to acheive sad as it is to say.

 

[ledhed]

whats Al Queda's phone number ?

 

[kennythebomb]

IRA
Hamas
Hezbollah
Tamil Tigers

Has it stopped all attacks? No way, but has this current course of action made a difference - has it even made the situation worse?

Well the situation with the IRA has certainly improved.. but they were never as radical as these Muslim groups tend to be, in my opinion.

Hezbollah? Too early to throw them into this list... I don't think this is going to be the last we hear of their agression towards Israel. The ceasefire is working for now.

I wish, but think about this for a second.

Opinions of muslims towards "us" are terrible at the moment, imagine if every country went to war against them, just imagine how the hate filling imams would preach that they are suffering persecution worse than the jews by the Nazis. Imagine the backlash you would have from moderate muslims the world over and the amount of new recruits you would see in terrorist training camps.

Now that is wishful thinking, and would be impossible to acheive sad as it is to say.

Oh, certainly. They'd be lining up just like people do at homeless shelters... but they'd be receiving AK's and not bread.

And I agree, radical and moderate Muslims alike are not against terrorism. In my opinion if the moderate Muslims hated terrorism as much as we do, their voice would be a little stronger. Perhaps this statement is reaching a bit far... but I am firmly convinced that the overwhelming majority of those people are at least quiet supporters of terrorism against us and Israel.

whats Al Queda's phone number ?

If you want to have a blast, call...

 

[Danoff]

Now that is wishful thinking, and would be impossible to acheive sad as it is to say.

Why should that be so difficult? The Iraqis are the ones getting killed every day. They have as much a reason to hate terrorist activity as anyone.

The reason terrorism exists is because it is effective. If it were not effective, it would not exist. It's impossible for us to make it completely ineffective, but our goal should be to minimize it's effectiveness.

One does that in several ways:

- No negotiation
- No appeasment
- Strengthening of resolve after each attack
- Swift, powerful response

Anything else encourages terrorism.

 

[KSaiyu]

Well the situation with the IRA has certainly improved.. but they were never as radical as these Muslim groups tend to be, in my opinion.

Hezbollah? Too early to throw them into this list... I don't think this is going to be the last we hear of their agression towards Israel. The ceasefire is working for now.

Oh, certainly. They'd be lining up just like people do at homeless shelters... but they'd be receiving AK's and not bread.

And I agree, radical and moderate Muslims alike are not against terrorism. In my opinion if the moderate Muslims hated terrorism as much as we do, their voice would be a little stronger. Perhaps this statement is reaching a bit far... but I am firmly convinced that the overwhelming majority of those people are at least quiet supporters of terrorism against us and Israel.

You're not wrong there, we rarely hear news of muslims in the west denouncing terrorism committed against Israelis or anyone else for that matter. That's not to say they like the idea, but we definetly don't get the impression they're all-against it.

 

[Swift]

One does that in several ways:

- No negotiation
- No appeasment
- Strengthening of resolve after each attack
- Swift, powerful response

Anything else encourages terrorism.

That's right!

Well, please, look at the report. This isn't some anti-war propaganada that's posted all the time on the internet, it's a BBC documentary from an award winning reporter that looks at the current problem and weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of starting to talk.

There's no advantage to talking. Much like with the Isreali/Lebanon situation not long ago, anything less then opbliteration of the terroritists results in the non-terrorists winning.

I don't understand, are you talking about Iraqis and if they will revolt against all extremists at some time??

I'm talking about a people standing up for themselves after they've been sick and tired of going to the funerals of their family members.

You base this on what - me criticising Israeli actions towards Lebanon and bringing up a video that you haven't seen that provides a thorough, fact based argument of another way to try and stop the terror from Al Qaeda? Did I say we had to negotiate with them - if you've seen the movie, the reporter and other sources mention Al Qaeda and other extremists radical demands in the past, his main argument is to start talks with, and not exactly give in to demands.

I base this on not just that particular argument. But on all of your posts. You seem to have a very leftist viewpoint.

As for my stance, I'm pretty much in the middle - talking wouldn't hurt as long we don't give in to stupid demands and it wouldn't be a sign of us endorsing their behaviour. I also find it pretty sad that you think I keep missing the "big picture" every time I disagree with your views on these conflicts.

How could we talk and not give into at least some or part of their demands? The simple fact is we couldn't. Hence, their acts of terrorism were effective AND succesful. As Danoff stated.

 

[Flame-returns]

Well the situation with the IRA has certainly improved.. but they were never as radical as these Muslim groups tend to be, in my opinion.

You live in Chicago.

Did you have fun while the IRA were leaving bombs in post-boxes and car bombing buildings? Do you remeber the constant police cordons? The constant warnings? The constant threats? DId you visit Northern Ireland and see the tanks trundling through housing estates? Did you see thr fear and agitation on the faces of the soldiers positioned in those esates and on those streets?

Do you remember the huge slump in tourism caused when several countries advised tourists not to travel to Britain on account of it being a war zone?

During the IRA's campaign they proved to be a much bigger threat to the United Kingdom than Al Qaeda ever was, is, or could be. Pretty damn radical in my books.

If it were not for negotiation with the IRA and the foundation of a very stable ceasfire Britain would not be able to offer troops for the USA's 'War on Terror', we would still be fighting our own one.