Negotiating with terrorists and the war in Iraq

[drugpimp]

First off you will have to forgive my tardiness. This topic was brought up yesterday in another thread and I am just now able to address it.

While discussing issues in Iraq, it was suggested that the best way to deal with the situation was by negotiating. I agree that talk is always best, I honestly cant find a reason to justify dealing with terrorists. All I can see become of this is more kidnappings and extortionist threats.

Another question, to whom do we negotiate with? Any Tom, Dick or Harry that has an AK-47, ski mask, and a hostage? Who are the terrorists, what do they want? American withdrawl might be thier immediate goal, but what do they hope to accomplish when we leave?

I leave this thread open to just about any topic in relation to Iraq, all I ask is that you keep it civil.

[RusskiSoldat]

While discussing issues in Iraq, it was suggested that the best way to deal with the situation was by negotiating. I agree that talk is always best, I honestly cant find a reason to justify dealing with terrorists. All I can see become of this is more kidnappings and extortionist threats.

If I was pro democracy I would've been for exactly the opposite.
First off all all borders should be closed as tightly as possible, second off all we should deal with Ba'athists, since they are the only sensible non religious ones, as for the muslim fanatics, I really don't see a tactic against them short of say getting 10,000 troops to go into a city and completely search through all of it and kill anyone suspected of being a terrorist. Ideally we could just utilize some the best airforce in the world and some artillery to take care of a few hotspots, but I imagine how Europe will respond to that.

[HorseArcher]

First off all all borders should be closed as tightly as possible,

That is impossible. Do you know the size of Iraq? Now, if you would know (below) use your imagination to calculate the borders.
171,599 square miles, (444,439 square kilometers)

second off all we should deal with Ba'athists, since they are the only sensible non religious ones, as for the muslim fanatics
, I really don't see a tactic against them short of say getting 10,000 troops to go into a city and completely search through all of it and kill anyone suspected of being a terrorist. Ideally we could just utilize some the best airforce in the world and some artillery to take care of a few hotspots, but I imagine how Europe will respond to that.

All impossible. 10,000 troops into a city and search through all of it?

what do you mean "all of it" ?
All people? Do you know the population of iraq?
22 million.

I think you would need a few more troops there. Not to mention, it would never happen anyway.

".

...and kill anyone suspected being a terrorist

?"

How do you know or how do you determine who is terrorist and who's not?
I don't think asking "are you a terrorist?" would work either.

"......

Ideally we could just utilize some the best airforce in the world and some artillery to take care of a few hotspots

?"

Terrorists won't gather in a given spot on a map as "terrorist gathering point <- bomb here".
Most of the "terrorists" you talk about are drawn from the ordinary citizens with family and home. Or they're recruited from another country (syria, iran etc.) and they won't print a bullseye on their shirt either.

[Atheist Peace]

I think if it is possible to find a way to negotiate (i seriously doubt the us is trying) with the terrorist leaders like Abu Musab Al-Zharqaui (sp?) and negotiate some way to stop the terror, id be all for it but i dont know if it is possible right now.

As for closing the borders tightly, thats not really possible without major help from the bordering nations, and that doesnt seem very likely. Syria has been letting terrorists through the border apparently and Iran certainly is no friend to the US.

[danzig]

I think if it is possible to find a way to negotiate (i seriously doubt the us is trying) with the terrorist leaders like Abu Musab Al-Zharqaui (sp?) and negotiate some way to stop the terror, id be all for it but i dont know if it is possible right now.

Why would you negotiate with someone who has beheaded/killed countless innocent people on purpose? What possible conversation could you have with such a man? They killed the Egyptian diplomat for what? There are people you can negoitate with and should attempt to and there are those who deserve nothing but a prison cell for the rest of their life or a bullet in the head...like Zarqawi. Im all for talking with the Iraq INSURGENTS but the terrorists? All they deserve is justice.

[Atheist Peace]

I meant insurgents when i said that, sorry for the mix up. When i talk about negotiating with Al-Zarqawi i dont mean if we were actually face to face with him, in that case id say capture him or if necessary, kill him. I mean, if he continues to be evasive, we could try communicating with him somehow.

[drugpimp]

But my question is how do you seperate the two, inurgents vs terrorists? Who is in charge, what demands do they have that we arent trying to meet?

Do any of you honestly believe that the US wants to keep its ground forces in Iraq any longer than needed? It would seem to me if they would stop the attacks, on civilians mind you, then the US would be able to withdrawl and peaceful election can take place.

Right now anyone causing violence in Iraq does not want peace for Iraq but choas and anarchy.

[Atheist Peace]

Well, first off, we cant be sure what the insurgents really want.

As to the US desire to continue staying in Iraq, no, i dont think they necessarily want to stay longer than needed but Bush's persistent blindly optimistic rhetoric about Iraq certainly doesnt help and doesnt give me too much confidence that hes to intent on a fast exit.

[danzig]

But my question is how do you seperate the two, inurgents vs terrorists? Who is in charge, what demands do they have that we arent trying to meet?

Do any of you honestly believe that the US wants to keep its ground forces in Iraq any longer than needed? It would seem to me if they would stop the attacks, on civilians mind you, then the US would be able to withdrawl and peaceful election can take place.

Right now anyone causing violence in Iraq does not want peace for Iraq but choas and anarchy.

In my eyes the difference is pretty clear, insurgents will (generally) target US troops and Iraqi troops (who unfortunately ARE fair game) and are people who 1) want US out of Iraq 2) have to accept Saddam is gone and intergrate into the new Iraqi goverment/future..ie those who are ex military etc. Those people are worth talking to imo (and probably the biggest failure of the actual war, more should have been done to contact those who werent tied up into possible war crimes in the Iraqi military and reach out to them), of course it IS hard to pin point who is on what side but thats where the work needs to be done to draw a clear seperate line between the two. That is where the effort is worthwhile trying to figure out who and have the Iraqi goverment reach out to them.

[Atheist Peace]

It seems nearly impossible to determine which guy shooting at your soldiers is an insurgent or a terrorist though. Insurgents, in my mind, do have a just cause because they likely do want whats best for Iraq and they dont think the US is doing that but they need to realize that they are only holding up progress for the Iraqis and delaying the US exit. Honestly though, i think that most of them are the terrorists and most of them come from Syria and Iran. Its really a big mess though when they are using car bombs and things of that nature so its hard to determine which is which when your trying not to get blown up or kidnapped. and let me make it clear that i wouldnt negotiate with anyone who took hostages the way they have, that, to me is one of, if not the most disgusting and barbaric way to kill someone possible. Holding someone like that for days or weeks and taping them and then beheading them...just awful.

[Elu Barcino]

I belive that it is possible to negotiate with the terrorists, people should definately try to anyway, and saying that it is impossible to know what they want is definately not true. I think that it is most likely that they are angered by the US's continous funding of Israel, that is where the heart of the Middle East problem lies, as many of the groups support the Palestinians.

[drugpimp]

I belive that it is possible to negotiate with the terrorists, people should definately try to anyway, and saying that it is impossible to know what they want is definately not true. I think that it is most likely that they are angered by the US's continous funding of Israel, that is where the heart of the Middle East problem lies, as many of the groups support the Palestinians.

Do they not realize that the US also funds the palestinians (sp) and the Egyptians. We give aid all around the world, why should Israel draw such ire?

[Erik]

People should always be open for negotiation with terrorists.
It doesn't mean you should give in to any of their demands but it's good to at least try to improve the situation with talks.
Maybe you can convince them to stop attacking certain targets like schools or journalists.
It's a processs that has to start one day, why wait for another 10 or 20 years?

The line "we don't negotiate with terrorists" can be translated into: "We are to proud to talk to those guys, even if it saves many lives".
It shows an attitude for revenge in stead of working towards a solution.

[Ummon]

Negotiating with terrorists is wrong, IMHO. It is the way to encourage anyone who is strong enough and angry enough to become a terrorist. There are some things which one must accept only in the most dire circumstances. I think negotiating with terrorists is one of these.

[drugpimp]

People should always be open for negotiation with terrorists.
It doesn't mean you should give in to any of their demands but it's good to at least try to improve the situation with talks.
Maybe you can convince them to stop attacking certain targets like schools or journalists.
It's a processs that has to start one day, why wait for another 10 or 20 years?

The line "we don't negotiate with terrorists" can be translated into: "We are to proud to talk to those guys, even if it saves many lives".
It shows an attitude for revenge in stead of working towards a solution.

No, it shows foresight.

Talking with terrorists is fine, but do you think thats what they are after? If you give in to thier demands, it will empower others to do the same. Its not just the US that has this stance, so please dont make it sound like it is pride and arrogance that leads to this type of a policy.

What kills me, is how many of you think that you can reason with these guys. Anyone who willingly cuts the heads off of victims does not possess the rational thought needed to deal with them.

Look if these guys were freedom fighters and wanted the best for Iraq then maybe you could have some common ground to work with. But IMO we are not dealing with freedom fighters but mostly foreigners with a grudge who could care less about Iraq and more about themselves.

[Meneldil]

Errrr...I fear you don't really understand the terrorists' aim. They aren't in Irak to force US and UK to leave the country, they mostly don't care about that. They're in Irak because they want to fight against the Western World.

If you negociate with them (which would seem unlikely), they might stop or accept some deal, but only to reorganise and attack at a later moment.

These guys want to destroy the western way of life. Their aim is to kill everyone whose religion isn't radical Islam. Many of their leaders have already expressed their willing : to have a muslim flags in London/Paris/New Work. This is a fight to death : either we kill them or they kill us. Period. I can't even see why we would negociate with them rather than killing them on sight.

This might sound harsh, but as a French, I know how my country had to deal with muslim terrorist in the past. If you start negociating with them they'll think "they don't have the balls to fight against us", and this would be the worst idea someone could have atm.

[Erik]

No, it shows foresight.

Talking with terrorists is fine, but do you think thats what they are after? If you give in to thier demands,

Did I not say explicitly that this doesn't mean you should give in to any of their demands????
READ MY POST FIRST!

it will empower others to do the same. Its not just the US that has this stance, so please dont make it sound like it is pride and arrogance that leads to this type of a policy.

Oh yeah, only the US is capable of pride and arrogance.....

I think the argument that it wil encourage more terrorists is flawed.
This is what politicians always say but I realy doubt it's true.
How many new terrorist groups have been created in N-Ireland because the Brits negotiated with the IRA?
Like I said: you don't have to give in to their demands, just listen to them and try to improve the situation (a bit).

Compare it to hijackers: you negotiate with them to free some of their captives (the pregnant woman, the little kids etc.)
Does this encourage more people to become hijackers? no.

What kills me, is how many of you think that you can reason with these guys. Anyone who willingly cuts the heads off of victims does not possess the rational thought needed to deal with them.

Look if these guys were freedom fighters and wanted the best for Iraq then maybe you could have some common ground to work with. But IMO we are not dealing with freedom fighters but mostly foreigners with a grudge who could care less about Iraq and more about themselves.

We don't know who we are dealing with because nobody want to talk to them.
Maybe SOME groups have very reasonable demands (WARNING! read this line before you react to it, I said SOME not all).

Just think about that Muqtada Al-Sadr guy: he was willing to disband his army and go into politics in stead.
To me this sounds like a reasonable demand, unfortunately he killed 2 guys and that's why the US rather keeps fighting him.

[Erik]

These guys want to destroy the western way of life. Their aim is to kill everyone whose religion isn't radical Islam. Many of their leaders have already expressed their willing : to have a muslim flags in London/Paris/New Work. This is a fight to death : either we kill them or they kill us. Period. I can't even see why we would negociate with them rather than killing them on sight.

Thats BS (pardon my French, punch intended).

They don't want to take over the West, they want to stop the West from getting involved in their own countries.
Simply they want the West to stop supporting their oppressive secular governments (like the Saudi's) in exchange for cheap oil, oil that isn't sold for the benefit of the people (as the Koran says it should be) but for the benefit of the elites were put into power by the West in the first place.

They also don't want the west to give their lands to jews because the West have prosecuted the jews for centuries and now they are sorry. (they would not mind the West giving part of germany to the jews)

Terrorism is a reaction on imperialism, if people can't see this there is little hope for any solution.

[Major.Stupidity]

It was in the news awhile back with the US holding un official meetings with Sunni leaders who have close relations with Sunni Insurgents. So like it or not, the US is negotiation with the Insurgents. I think it’s a good move, because it would help to bring the Sunni's into the political process while alienating the likes of Zarcowi (sp???)

[drugpimp]

Did I not say explicitly that this doesn't mean you should give in to any of their demands????
READ MY POST FIRST!



Oh yeah, only the US is capable of pride and arrogance.....

I think the argument that it wil encourage more terrorists is flawed.
This is what politicians always say but I realy doubt it's true.
How many new terrorist groups have been created in N-Ireland because the Brits negotiated with the IRA?
Like I said: you don't have to give in to their demands, just listen to them and try to improve the situation (a bit).

Compare it to hijackers: you negotiate with them to free some of their captives (the pregnant woman, the little kids etc.)
Does this encourage more people to become hijackers? no.



We don't know who we are dealing with because nobody want to talk to them.
Maybe SOME groups have very reasonable demands (WARNING! read this line before you react to it, I said SOME not all).

Just think about that Muqtada Al-Sadr guy: he was willing to disband his army and go into politics in stead.
To me this sounds like a reasonable demand, unfortunately he killed 2 guys and that's why the US rather keeps fighting him.

Sure Erik we can talk with them, ask them about the wife and kids. When will it rain, whats thier favorite color, that sort of thing. But I dont think that is what you had in mind, when you say negotiate, that means make deals, give and take, and that my friend is something you cannot do.

First off, what knowledge do you possess that we dont, which leads you to believe that the US has never talked with these guys? Memo, intercepted radio exerpt? ESP? Maybe ESPN? hehe

Lets do this, lets put the the blame on the terrorists. Have they tried to reason with us first? I have no proof that they have tried anything other than violence to get what they want. You blame the US for not talking, while forgiving the terrorists for thier sins. How can you blame the US for not talking when the terrorists arent talking themselves?

And as for the oppressive secular governments, whats your point? They want to replace one with another. Dont make it sound like a religious government would be a great improvement over a non-religious one.