Negotiating with terrorists - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-18-2004, 12:06 PM   #1
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Negotiating with terrorists

A bit of a debate was on the radio about this the other day, and I truly reckon there are 2 sides to this subject. Intellectually we can never negotiate as we cannot give in and bow tow to them, we cannot give them strength and power, cannot give them the upperhand. We cannot weaken the resolve. We just can't.

But can we cannot let people die, knowingly. Can we?

Should the negotiations start way before we have a hostage situation? Can they start way before the terrorists are holed up in whatever/where ever with their hostages? Can we do something to prevent it getting to this stage? We try now, we have been seeing talks with various regions for years and years. Middle East Peace talks are always a topic in the news, always.

Where are we all going wrong? The terrorists who we hear most about are the ones who bloodily persue their threats and behead their hostages, or we see Beslan. And clearly there is something wrong with these people. Perhaps with many of them there is no reasoning or any means of useless negotiation or compromise anyway. How can you rationally reach a mutually beneficial decision with a man/group who is willing to behead someone or partake in the murder of a child?

One thing I did think about, was what does it make us when our hands are tied and we're forced to allow them to kill their hostages? It's a moral issue, but we're essentially allowing a murder when we could actually stop it, but intellectually we are thinking "no, we can't go down this road".

We've heard the arguments in this forum many times, and most often the argument is coming quite rationally and justly from one side or the other. How do we come at this from both?
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 12:46 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 09:42 AM
The main thing is, you cannot let them think their tactics work, or they will continue to do that to get more and more, and other groups will take it up if they see it works. Also, you cannot 'negotiate' with people who are willing to die. If you can't threaten them with their lives, what have you got. Money? Many of the groups shun the western capitalistic lifestyle and want no part of it. As A_Wanderer posted recently, the goal of many of these groups is just to wipe out all the people they see as infidels, there is no negotiating with that.
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 01:09 PM   #3
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Briefly, and I hope I can say this without offending someone, but it occurs to me that "negotiating with terrorists" was to an extent who Ireland's "troubles" calm down. The conflict is not totally resolved yet, but from what I know, folks are yelling at each other now and not blowing up supermarkets. This would not have been possible, for one, if the Brits hadn't talked to reps. of Irish separatists.

Just some thoughts. There is no easy or perfect answer.



SD
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 01:14 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 09:42 AM
Normal

But the difference is, the IRA were not out to wipe out everyone who disagreed with them, and they did not believe if they killed the enemy in a suicide attack they would go to glory. It's a different situation, a different set of rules, a different ideology, a different 'breed of dog.'

I remember seeing the Bobby Sands hunger strike reports on TV as a kid. He did end up dying, but later there were no more hunger strikes because they believed that suicide was a sin and they would not use it to achieve their goals. That is very different from the middle eastern terrorists today.


and of course it was really U2 who brought peace to N. Ireland
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 02:39 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
When one negotiates with terrorist in order to save 5, 10, or 15 people or more people, one is giving the terrorist things that will enable them to kill more people and take more hostages in the future. Whether it be money, political leverage or just showing that the a government can be brought to its knees by such action, it encourages more action because it is seen as a successful way to accomplish ones political or other objectives.

The result of the negotiations with terrorist is an increase in the number of people that will eventually die from terrorism.

I'd say the IRA talked because their position and idea's were weakening among people who would have normally supported them in Northern Ireland. The British new this and naturally entered negotiations as a way to further the process. Economic growth in Northern Ireland is ultimately what led to an end to most of the conflict. The discrimination and poor economic situation for Catholic's was the fuel for much of the conflict in the late 1960s and 1970s. Massive economic success in recent years has made that situation disappear. When I was in Northern Ireland in 2002, I did not see a single British soldier. No Guard Towers were manned in either Belfast or Derry. People in Belfast talked about the conflict in the past tense and were more interested in what Club they were going to go to in Belfast that night. The Murals and monuments to the conflict are all still there, but the feeling I got when I was there was that the conflict for most was largely in the past. The Zelots and criminals on both sides of course will still make a seen, but they are just as much involved with drugs and prostitution as they are with the whole political thing.

I'd say the conflict would still be waging with just as much intensity today, if there were still 40% unemployment for Catholics and the continued discrimination by both sides, significantly as a result of economic hardship. Extremist on both sides took advantage of the average persons hardship to turn them into recruits for their political causes. Economic prosperity kills political extemism.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 03:08 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:42 AM
If you don't believe in negotiating with terrorists you should vote for Kerry and the Democrates.

If you want to negotiate with, coddle, and enable terrorists vote Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 04:29 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:42 AM
May you please clarify that statement, I don't think that either Democrat or Republicans would negotiate with terrorists. That statement makes absolutely no sense.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 05:04 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:42 AM
Jimmy Carter refused to negotiate with Iranian hostage takers/ terrorists. He did authorize a botched rescue mission.

Reagan campaigned hard against Carter as being weak / inept on that issue.

Reagan ,in office, negotiated with Iranian/ Hezbollah terrorists. His people tried to insulate him by using third parties, i.e. Israelis, Arab arms brokers, etc. Still he did trade arms for hostages. Cheney, and Rumsfeld were right there with him.


I could list GHW Bush dealings also.

W is negotiating with and keeping in Musharif regime in power for some phony, luke-warm cooperation on Al-Quiada.

The House of Saud is corrupt and the TRUE financiers, participants and enablers of 9-11 attacks.
Bush and family are completely enmeshed financially with these despicable people.

I did not watch Moore’s F 911 and have no interest in seeing it.
I come by my opinions from reading many sources and first hand observations of these politicians’ dealings. I have lived through these events as an adult.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 05:12 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Indeed, but how is dealing with Musharraf negotiating with terrorists? The ISI was instrumental in the organization of the Taliban but working with a foreign government to go after international terrorists is not negotiating with them.

Now Saudi Arabia is a very complicated situation. It is definitely the center of Islamist terrorism and it exports it all over the world but Osama bin Laden desires to topple the Saudi Royal Family and to do this he has to destroy the US/Saudi relationship. This is done by using Saudi hijackers, to create the perception that it is Saudi Arabia that must be annihilated and from that chaos when the monarchy is toppled bin Laden / Islamists could sieze control of a sizable ammount of the world oil supply. The enemies of the Saudi government are the same terrorists that go after us, it is a Saudi civil war exported as a global problem. The only way to "fix" Saudi Arabia is to secure other oil supplys in the region so when you apply pressure all hell will not break loose.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 06:06 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Jimmy Carter refused to negotiate with Iranian hostage takers/ terrorists. He did authorize a botched rescue mission.

Reagan campaigned hard against Carter as being weak / inept on that issue.

Reagan ,in office, negotiated with Iranian/ Hezbollah terrorists. His people tried to insulate him by using third parties, i.e. Israelis, Arab arms brokers, etc. Still he did trade arms for hostages. Cheney, and Rumsfeld were right there with him.


I could list GHW Bush dealings also.

W is negotiating with and keeping in Musharif regime in power for some phony, luke-warm cooperation on Al-Quiada.

The House of Saud is corrupt and the TRUE financiers, participants and enablers of 9-11 attacks.
Bush and family are completely enmeshed financially with these despicable people.

I did not watch Moore’s F 911 and have no interest in seeing it.
I come by my opinions from reading many sources and first hand observations of these politicians’ dealings. I have lived through these events as an adult.
Reagan administrations dealings in the Arms for hostages trades were wrong. Cheney and Rumsfeld were not involved in those dealings though.

Musharif is in power on his own strength. Pakistan has captured more Al Quada terrorist than any other country besides the United States. This effort is indeed working. Just as US efforts to support Stalins Soviet Union were vital in winning World War II. Saudi Arabia has had a long and deep relationship with every US administration since Franklin Roosevelt who started the relationship. It has resulted in an abundence of cheap energy that has fueled economic expansion and prosperity throughout the world and improved the standard of living of most people including yourself.

There are people in Saudi Arabia that support terrorism, but that is not the governments position. For Saudi Arabia to attack the United States in any way would essentially be the same as attacking themselves. The two countries are interdependent. Bin Ladin wants to create an image of Saudi Arabia as the enemy of the United States in order to destroy this relationship which is why he stacked the deck with the hi-Jackers insuring that most would be from Saudi Arabia. He was hoping this would fool many people and indeed it has.

John Kerry on the other hand has met with enemy during a war. During the last years of the Vietnam war, he met with North Vietnamese representives in Paris as a private citizen and not a part of the US State Department.

While US prisoners of war were being tortured in order to sign statements that they and the US military committed atrocities against the Vietnamese and resisting this torture, John Kerry went before the US congress and said the same lies and inaccurate statements that the North Vietnamese had wanted their tortured prisoners to say.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 06:23 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:42 AM
Quote:
It has resulted in an abundence of cheap energy that has fueled economic expansion and prosperity throughout the world and improved the standard of living of most people including yourself.

You said it.

It is blood for oil.

How much is tolerable?

Most Eropeans pay quite a bit more than we do.
They seem to be doing alright.


But, then again we pay about three times what they do for medicine.

Tell me that is supply and demand and not price fixing.

Cheney is a profiteer. He is the lowest of the low.

He was doing busniess with and wanted santions off of Iran. (Axis of Evil, you may recall).
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 01:32 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Pretence of negotiation could be done to prolong the situation and to help secure release of hostages or determine course of attack.

But absolutely no final negotiation in Beslan-kind-of terrorism should be done
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 01:41 AM   #13
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Would you, AcrobatMan, and anyone else, still think that if it were your child in that school? I'm not asking to find flaws with this argument as I dont think it is flawed to take a clinical stance in theory and then backtrack when it becomes personal.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 02:06 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Would you, AcrobatMan, and anyone else, still think that if it were your child in that school? I'm not asking to find flaws with this argument as I dont think it is flawed to take a clinical stance in theory and then backtrack when it becomes personal.
I would personally want, hope & pray my child to be saved by ANY means ( negotiation or otherwise)

Having said that, if the governments policy is not to negotiate with the terrorists ever, I would understand if the rule is not changed.

However there is no guarentee that negotiation would necessarily secure my child and counter-attack would necessarily do the opposite.

But the government should be always consistent in not
negotiating with the terrorists.

Only yesterday , I was seeing a documentary where a child held in beslan was interviewed as in what should be done to hostage takers..

He said "all such people should be caught and shot because if you put them in jail, they would somehow escape and take people hostage again".

A 10 year old boy can understand this bit...Why cant we ?
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 02:51 AM   #15
The Fly
 
achtung davy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ireland
Posts: 252
Local Time: 02:42 PM
i really really hate people who know nothing about northern ireland, trying (and failing) to explain their theorys, and their ideas from 2000 miles away
__________________

__________________
achtung davy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com