Should we negotiate with "terrorists?"

I think this was touched on a little bit on Bill O'Reilly's show a few nights ago.

I see it like this (and I apologize if this sounds like a crappy example). If a guy walks up to me and slaps me, I can attack him back, maybe even kill him. If more and more people keep attacking me, I can keep defending myself in the same way. But eventually, after looking around and noticing that I'm the only one being attacked, I'd have to ask myself why. If they're attacking me for something I cannot control, like my race, then there is no negotiating to be done--I'd just have to keep fighting for my life. But what if I ask one of my attackers why, and he/she points out that somehow a swastika sign appeared on the back of my shirt. Upon learning such information, I'd be embarassed and immediately change shirts, etc., living happily ever after.

Likewise, there must be some issue (i.e., our foreign policies) that energizes organizations like Al Queda (sp?). Would it be *so* bad for our gov't to actually sit down with these guys and try to work out a truce? I mean, is it a matter of principle (I cannot blame someone for hating the idea of meeting with them especially after what occured on 911). Is it a matter of pride? If so, is it really worth all the lives that will continue to be lost?

I really do hope that this post does not offend anyone. I am not well versed on the situation with Israel/Palestine, etc. These are just the observations of a somewhat ignorant citizen.

One thing is to guarantee a just and lasting balance, another is to hand over democracy in exchange for... What?

And: who gets to represent who?

Call a truce, then negotiate when the intent / commitment of sticking to it appears stable, and not before that.

That's my POV.

I agree with you on the truce thing.

We have never negotiated with terrorists except for Ronald Reagan with arms for hostages which had a positive outcome. The one time we did negotiate, although in secret, the outcome was positive. Years of polocies of no negotiation have not stopped terrorism and one could say based on the evidence that terrorism has increased. So the no-negotiation policy makes no sense to me. Kennedy didn't go to war over the Cuban missiles but he did negotiate with Kruchev. You really have to be selfish, self-absorbed, arrogant, and stupid to never want to negotiate with so-called "terrorists." But that has been our history, our way or the highway. we never want to hear any grievences from anyone. We are right and that's it. No one else is entitled to have any self-interest.

but better. Everyone does something for a reason. It's better to at least know the reason.

I disagree in negotiating with Al Qaeda however I agree that you have to take a serious look at what the socio/political/economic climate that spawns terrorism. Thinking you are going change things by simply wiping them out is doomed to fail. History has told us that radicalism and hatred do not spawn out of a vacuum. Of course that points to taking a long hard look and face things we don't want to (oil consumption, foreign policy in the Middle Ease, support of corrupt/violent dictators in the region, our and our politicians relationship with the House of Saud). Of course shrub and his gang are so in bed with the interests that are spawning terror and it will never occur under his administration.

By labelling all people who oppose bush as "terrorists", then anyone
who speaks wisdom from that camp, is ignored as we cannot neogiate
with you. It is stupid beyond measure not to talk and to grease
the path for talking and disarming.

Terrorism builds out of the frustration of being politically
disenfranchised. When they're talking, they're not bombing, and
no matter the emotional simplicity of "killing all terrorists", the
real grey-scale reality is that they are just people who have
been terrorized by the american army and its actions for too long.

It is the israeli policy never to negotiate, as it allows them to
steal more land and ignore the voices of those whom they genocide
and ethnically cleanse. America is on that same frequency for the
same reasons.

Terrorists DESERVE dehumanization. They don't do human or humane acts after all.

And no, that's not people who "oppose Bush." That's people who deliberately harm civilians to instill terror.

Terrorism doesn't build out of anything. It's a merciless tactic that can NEVER be justified though you seem to try. Especially with you bogus claims about Israel. Trust me, if Israel really wanted to commit genocide on the Palestinians, their losses would be more than a couple thousand people over several years. Israel would actually like peace, but the terrorists who oppose it would like to destroy the state of Israel. There is no compromising and no talking with monsters who place bombs in the hands of 10-year-olds as the Palestinian terrorists did the other day.

In other words, if Al Queada agreed to a truce or cease fire, and then was willing to compromise, would you be against that too? I mean, how many more people have to die? They are not going to stop! The war on terrorism will never end if we continue to use the tactics we are using now.

What does a truce mean to groups that deliberately kill women and children? You are giving the status of a state. No. No compromising with them. No negotiating with them.

You are right about the last. The war on terrorism will never end. Technology has made it easy for fringe groups to kill many and terrorize more just to get their message heard. Terror is here to stay no matter what we do.

What is the difference? It's not like we had the UN backing us when we decided to bomb Iraq. Did you see the pictures of the children with half their heads blown off?

Is a huge difference. If a terrorist deliberately targets a civilian building -- say a hotel for instance. That is terror. If people are killed accidentally in a war zone, that is not terror.

I mean, accidentally getting killed by US bombs for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is something that could inspire fear and terror.

I might be like one of those Iraqis who is quite happy to have the Butcher of Baghdad out of office.

amnesty international and the un stated that one thousand people a week were dying as a result of sadamns minipulations. it has been a year now since those manipulations have ceased. so that means 52,000 people are alive now who would have been dead. and that number will increase by 1000 saved a week.

perhaps that is why 75% of iraqui's say they are happier now than they were under sadamn.

on edit 1000 a week, not a day

who died as a result of the UN led sanctions on Iraq (that was wholeheartedly supported by the U.S.)? Before you say it, I just wanted to say that blaming it all on Saddam is not enough. When we saw that he was not going to take action, we should have come up with an alternate method of getting Saddam in line. We are morally responsible for that, IMO.

We are not responsible for actions taken by the leaders of other nations. Saddam refused to obey the peace treaty he signed. He took actions that he knew had repurcussions. He just didn't care.

Are we responsible when North Korea starves its citizens to death? No.

no matter which way we spin it. If we lifted the sanctions, lives would have been saved.

That have no inherent right to trade with us. Their ACTIONS caused it, not ours.

not ours. the majority of the world's governments established those sanctions because of saddamn's actions. why do you think that happened?

perhaps because the majority of the world's governments felt the sanctions were necessary to repress his natural tendancies towards being a threat?

but saddamn had the means to end those sanctions at hand so he is ultimately responsible for those deaths as well. not to mention the subversion of funds and graft that fueled his and his bathist stoogies lifestyles.

if a man is holding hostages he is responsible for their well being.
sadamn held his own people hostage for what we now know was a lie.

and they were UN sanctions. the UN could have lifted them if the UN felt they were inappropriate.

"...who died as a result of the UN led sanctions on Iraq."

These people did not die as a result of sanctions, they died because Saddam deliberately withheld the money earned in the Oil for Food program for himself and for kick backs to the countries that 'refused' to remove him from power.

You do not give into your children because they throw a fit do you? Why would you reward a thug like Saddam because he is willing to starve his own people?

But if we know thousands are starving to death, shouldn't we do something about it. For example, if a parent was abusing his child for whatever reasons, do we punish the parent while keeping the child still in the parent's custody, even though we know that the child will be harmed the most?

we removed saddamn. saddamn will never starve anyone again.

That is really a load of crap since you're selling crap.

Mass murder and terror are the same, and you've got a blind eye
towards seeing your own military's actions as not terror.

Well, given that reasoning, then you'll perhaps understand that
al queda is a military action against imperialism, and that
the people are killed accidentally in a war zone.

And like you say, that is not terror.

War is war and it has always been thus. Deliberately seeking out civilians to kill to terrorize others is not war. It is barbarism.

There are indeed rules to war. There are no rules to terror.

The only rule in war is to win. Guerilla's always win against empire.

You speak of organized crime. Fortunately for us, its not a war,
for if it was, the consequences would be more serious for the
"homeland" as america loses.

There are no rules to war.

Destrying america in guerilla war involves destroying her soft
power, as it does no good to take out the country if everybody
loves it, as it will live on. The first step, then, as lenin put
it, (paraphrased) is to build the propaganda foundation of opposition.

The neocons tried this with their "think tanks" 30+ years ago to
dominate the debate framing today. A much more intense opponent
has done it in the global media in 2 years, and american soft
power is weaker than its ever been since WW2. Every attempt to
oppose a light, mobile opponent with heavy military action
has cost the USA billions and has made it hated. Its military
actions are unsustainable, and it is weak, being already over
deployed and unable to handle further military conflict.

The united states is more exposed to military attack today than
before we sent our army away to fight someone elses war. This is
not so dissimilar to britain around america's revolutionary war
time. The military overstretch of other wars, kept britain from
focusing on keeping the US terrorists in control.

Then attack all alliances with supporters. The militarism that
rises in the blood of empire is very much like the alergic reaction
to a bee-sting that kills, when the bee sting itself cannot.
The instability this engenders represses global trade and goodwill
weakening the economy, which is the second plank of US power behind
soft power. This weakening has a knock on effect of causing the
military overstretch to overrun the budget, and the money
available diminishes to pay for more empire.

Your ideology makes you a perfectly defeated opponent in this war.
You could be an irish unionist in 1900, or an american unionist
in 1774, but your endorsement of force without engagement, will
repeat those failures.

When the US does not stand for liberalism and universal rights, the
ground she is on is a sinking marsh, indefensible, and will only
cost us all terribly, regrettable chances to have a much better
world we're squandering throught war.

There are indeed rules to war. Ask the Germans about that one if you doubt me.

Guerillas do not always win. Mosby's guerillas were eventually shut down by union forces, for example.

The United States is exposed to military attack because it is huge and free. The very free nature of our society makes us vulnerable to attack from those who seek to cause terror. We could have a million troops on duty IN the U.S. and we would still be vulnerable.

The rest of your comments were pretty much just a rant. Have at it.

I think you grossly underestimate what america has become. The
nation state is a global military empire that is above the
constitution.

I oppose this abuse of trust of the american people to make an
unconstitutional bid for empire.

Your view of the united states, whilst very militarist, misrepresents
what it stands for.... global military dominance, first and
foremost.

"the sorrows of empire" by chalmers johnson

I use semantic opposition to your neocon-advised ignorance about
how using the miltiary inappropirately makes us safe.

The mere fact that we are having this conversation in a public forum indicates America is not that far gone.

You seem to think that a belief in military solutions to SOME problems is militaristic. Frankly, that's naive. The military has a definite function. It works when used properly.

As for your homework assignment, no thanks. I don't DU homework assignments Teach.

Its like bubbles of ideology. They can't overlap by the nature
of their uniqueness. But they are bubbles.

I agree with your first point, which is why it needs to be said, that
it could ever be in question. To question it, to push the envelope
is what we are charged with as public accusers.

I don't think, were we to print this thread, and call it a "play"
and actors read the parts on a stage, would it be allowed to be
performed.

Certainly, this thread would never be printed in a newspaper as
written. I do believe we challenge the enevelope of free-thought (printed)... and that taking these views in to radio and television
is more complex than you might imply. We do not really have
equal freedom of speech in the physical world.

The military does not work. It is a waste of public funds. It is
institutionally incompetent and "bored" so to pick up the slack
it is occupying the planet and militarizing space. There is a
happy medium between america's claim to imperial control of other
peoples and races. You defend it with bullshit and won't even
come on the level of your own country's military occupation of the
planet and grab for empire. Rather it is abstracted in to
some news strategy about terrorists, some rabble with knives and
semtex... who are NO THREAT to american civilization.

SOME problems can be solved by military means. Its not very many
however. Civilian means work much better. This terrorism thing
is a civilian government repression problem, not a threat of sovereign destruction. When there's a war, we'll thankkfully
call this peace.

I was not giving you a homework assignment. Merely a source
that debunks your representation of america as anything but
a military empire. Sorry if i said that in a rude way.

I am delighted to discuss this with you and exploring things.
I don't agree with violence against people, period. We only disagree about this, in reality.

Peace,

I think if we tried to perform this thread as a play or publish it, most people would be bored, not offended.

Having worked in newspapers, I disagree about what they would and would not publish.

The military works every day. It cracks me up when folks say it is a waste and then desperately want the military to do this or that. Go to Haiti. Go to Eastern Europe. Defend the helpless.

You can't have it both ways. Either the military is useful or it isn't. I know it is.

It is not occupying the planet. The planet is already occupied and militaries abound. Because militaries and threats abound, so must militaries. The day when ALL threats cease to exist, then we can discuss getting rid of a military.

There are indeed rules to war. Ask the Germans about that one if you doubt me.


Yeah, if the Germans had won who do you think would have been at Nuremburg? It would have been the Allies on trial for their firebombings and such. To the victor go the spoils. The other poster is right, the only "rule" in war is to win. War is fucking hell.

your premise is flawed. i cite my wife's ancestors as example.
if empire choses to eliminate guerilla action and if they have sufficient power and will to do so, guerilla action has no chance.

it was flawed to use the word "always" but geez, mate.

Places where guerilla's defeated a much more powerful empire
opponent who was overreaching: USA, Zimbabwe, ethiopia, south
africa, Ireland. I'm sure other DU'er's can name more nations
that have been born or fought guerilla actions to subvert empire
in its region, ultimately winning independence in many cases.

Chechnya is successful, as it is bankrupting putin's moral right to
rule, in the way it has forced him to over-police. Some gureilla
movements in mid-cycle are like half-grown cancers... palestine,
haiti, Kashmir, and they bankrupt all who empower them.

Another poster did put it well in that cost terms, terrorism is
there to bankrupt its opponent. Well put.

the examples you list don't fit. in all cases, empire quit. had they devoted themselves....?

and i'm not being snide but if the argument is put forth that guerrillas always win, i am likely to respond to said argument as posed. if they don't 'always' win, then what is your point?

I'm making a generalization that i've not the historian background
nor the time to research. But that generalization i use "always" to
say that all guerilla actions are successful. In that they all
affect huge multipliers of damange and costs on to the empire they
attack. They mostly win, in my history studies, and outside of the
case muddleoftheroad made, i've none. On the other side, the indigeounous people of a nation, usually usurup an emperor, as empires
fall apart. I think that generalization holds. As terrorism
comes about in this decline adn breakup period of empire. It is
sort of a meme of the will to "HATE" empire violently, and the
cycle of decline that breeds this. The cost of maintaining emprie
in such an infection is just dang costly, and whether it is successful or not depends on whether the one bearing the costs.

if publicity is there aim, they succeed. if they aim for post-mortem virgins, the question can't be answered. if you mean they are victorious in the conflict, you are still wrong.

frech guerillas did not win against the nazis.
polish guerillas did not win against the soviets.
original people have rarely won, and when they did, it was as i said ...because empire quit. it's still a victory but a rarity as well. since guerilla tactics so rarely bring victory, can you consider there may be another motive other than a rational belief that the guerillas will triumph for their actions?

French guerillas DID eventually get the nazis out, one way or
another. I'm sure they contributed to the liberation of france in WW2. Well the polish ones succeeded as well, their death legacy.

It takes a lotta resources to repress a people, and a rebellion,
and the warfare of the past is not really relevant to today, as the
internet has really revolutionized the speed of information transfer
and the globalization of news and ideological warfare. The war
we fight today is an ideological war about the future of the earth
where we represent forces that are "telling them what to do in
their own land" something we would fight militarily were the
tables reversed. Its not that such a war is not winnable, but
certainly not with lies and deception. Goodwill is lacking in total
war. When you crack the seal of total war against terror, you
destroy goodwill and you can never go back. It is time to get
bush out of government, there is no goodwill, none from him or
his people.

The terrorist claims to injustice should not have credence, and it really sucks that there is some. Civil war dehumanizes the real
victem, common people. Revolutionary war similarly. War creates
reality, and is not subject to rules. We could win this war against
the possibility of terrorism by being smart and getting a leash
on the military. cut their funding by 80% and tell them to get back
to the US borders. This is no rocket science. Every terrorist
attack in iraq and every US soldier over there is a school we don't
have stateside, a road without potholes, someone not homeless. It
is money unwisely spent, stupidly spent, and it does not work or
benefit the empire to waste those valuable resources.

if you seriously attribute the defeat of the nazis to the french resistance i'm done wasting my time. you insult all my elder male relatives who participated in a little thing called D-day. i devoted more time than usual to your ramblings. pffffffftt.

i'm saying that, circumstances of life has it, that there was
a french resistance in that war, and ultimately france was freed
by allied forces. If you're looking for some misreading of history
or such to be banal, forget it. I'm being quite realistic. The
local people who oppose empire have a lotta power, and in prolonged
conflict often depose that power, especially as empires overextend.
Terrorism has been associated with a stage in that decline of empire
now for also over 100 years. None of this is new. Trotsky wrote
about it 100 years ago.

It is a pleasure to chat, and a danger to jump to conclusions. :-)

and the fact that the french resistance fought on the winning side...BIG DIFFERENCE.

while you may enjoy typing essay on essay to traverse that ground, i am at a disadvantage having but one typing hand. i enjoy discussions but only when both participant have the desire to make progress rather than prose.

sorry, i have no interest in wandering through trotsky with you.
have a wonderful weekend.

Your calling me a chump, yet you offer no serious contribution
yourself, even with one hand. I'm not sorry i write fast with
two.

I do my best to make an argument, a propagandists argument, as that
is what this forum is, is it not? Sometimes i'm way off. sorry.

It is not written for you, rather as DU, a set of writers with
various ideologies, we come together, and i find the views "I" have
politically grossly underrepresented by teh body politic, so pardon
me for speaking up. My hope is that the work inspires other writers
in our collective propaganda efforts to overturn the tyranny, of
both bush and corporatism.

No need for your backhanded rudeness. Have a dandy weekend yerself.

:-)

your notion of empire is out of date. name a couple empires for me.

the new empire is the international corporation. stateless entities whose lust for money will put the raveges of empire into a whole new perspective.

An empire is the british commonwealth, the united nations, all
the sand on a beach, all of the smell of your lover. Empire is
the arrogance which defines by its existance, an abstract perpetuity
to a life otherwise mundane. Television is the empire of our time
and mass media businesses and conglomorates. I don't diaagree, just
they use the disruptive agent in the whitehouse as their own agent,
and these are inseparable, IMO.

Religion is the old empire and the new empire. You can call
corporatism a religion, where all wallmart employees gather to sing
songs and praise the great spirit of life, in the corporate church.
And a new christian diner has a rattlesnake in a glass tank on
every table so that you can speak to the devil privately. ;-)

Religion is what people will fight for. American religion is money.
It is why the army leaves the borders. It is a loose linkage of
contracts and agreements unwritten that are empire, 200 or so
global clans encircling the earth with their propaganda, like 200
"matrix'es" competing for batteries.

There is no empire. There is only the self. The individual
who is sovereign. Empire is an illusion for stories. It is the
man or woman who is empire over their own body, and fancifully
believing their identity to become larger than their person to
the boundaries of empire itself that they become immortal.
When in fact, they die, and empire does not exist.

"The military overstretch of other wars, kept britain from
focusing on keeping the US terrorists in control."

You aren't comparing our fight for independence with the current day 'terrorists' are you? Are you saying that we deliberately targeted civilians, (women and children)in the Revolutionary War?

To me, that is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. The intended targets - if it is against a government they are freedom fighters, if it is against civilians they are terrorist.

and that civilians were killed of course, in collateral damage
as in all wars, deprivation and disease, cold. Many a civilian
died in that revolutionary war, and you could say at the time, that
the revolutionarys (branded as terrorists by the british) lied when
they won the war, about the civilian death toll, and that perhaps
had they not rebelled, and stopped their terrorism that none of these
people, military or civlian would die, and rather would pay more tax.

In that sense, you could say that the revolutionary leadership
knowingly set about military revolution that it would cause many
thousands of avoidable deaths. Does that not have some historical
resonance to the choice we accuse bin laden of making. Yes, the
difference is that he represents no state, however middle eastern
states are artificial across tribal peoples, so perhaps he speaks
for more of a tribe than a state.

In any case, "we" deliberately targeted civilians in the revolutionary war through negligence. I accept complicity for
my forebears complicity in this crime, but it was one, against
those who died. War is a crime, and no excuse in my strict religion.

Bin laden is a freedom fighter to free the middle east of american
empire. You're rubbing two feathers together trying to make gold.
He may be heinous, and george washington was equally heinous to
the british empire once upon a time.

Terror is here to stay no matter what we do.

this is the bottom line. no matter what we do, there will always be people who have a beef with someone. there is no way in hell we can make everyone happy. the way we combat terrorism must be two fold.

focus on nuturing democracies and freedom to empower the powerless and come down on terrorists with all the power the world is able to muster to make it as unattractive an option as possible.

on edit spelling but spelling doesn't work on edit :wtf:

The "terrorists" you're dehumanizing are the military arm of a
political conscience, much how the US military is that of the neocons
similarly. Our army "deliberately harm civilians to instill terror"
10,000 of them in iraq and thousands in afganistan.

You don't know shit about terrorism to say it does not build out of
anything. What sloppy thinking. It is THE SAME tactic as high
altitude bombing... just reported differently by the media.

We are hipocritical, supporting 2 nuclear armed states (pakistan
and israel) in the area, where one is a failed dictatorship state
prone to islamic fundamentalism under our political guidance,
and the other executing organized ethnic cleansing with its
apartheid regime.

You are really just blowing bullshit to cover the real adgenda of
global empire, and military domination of all arab peoples. Then
no negoation sounds good, as nobody will support such an empire grab.

Your just an imperialist, and your propaganda is ignorance.

Your post smacks of one big defense and rationalization for people to kill innocent civilians. That, my friend, is crap.

The terrorists who dehumanize themselves are no military. They are criminals, monsters and thugs. Nothing more.

What they do is NOT the same as high altitude bombing. They deliberately seek out soft targets -- innocent men, women and children -- and try to kill them in horrific ways. Some of those barbarous bastards in the Palestinian terror network even include anti-coagulents in their bombs so they can make sure that their victims bleed to death.

I am not hypocritical and I don't support a nuclear armed Pakistan. I do support a nuclear armed Israel because those nukes are the only thing that guarantees there won't be another Jewish Holocaust.

You throw around a lot of bogus terms on Israel. Have you ever been there?

I have no interest in global empire. I do have interest in stopping or killing terrorists.

On the single surface of propaganda on which you're existing,

High altitude bombers are not "criminals, monsters and thugs" because
they only murder out of necessity, whereas, the folks who oppose
the imperial military, are "crminials, monsters and thugs" because
they are different. This difference being that their
targeting methods, whilst effective, do not ensure the safety
of innocent civilians. This is to be contrasted with 10,000 dead
iraqi civilians who were targeted by equally indescriminant targeting.

Your propaganda view is one sided, that the US military might makes
right. This goes back to your civil war argument where you say
might has made right. You are a militarist, and see the military
might as intstrumental in making right. It ripples through all
your posts on the subjects involving militarism.

The propaganda veiw i espouse is the other side that does not exist
in your klein bottle (that the bottle only exists in mathematical
imagination speaks to that). Real life objects have other sides.

I say that the miliarism is dead wrong as a tool against injustice.
Even injustice with military means is best opposed without arms.

There is no soverign threat to america from this terrorism. During
this stupid war on terror, more people have died of car accidents,
smoking and asbestosis. More people die from small arms proliferation and american-sponsored terrorism in south america.

The threat is overblown, and then good hearted americans get involved
believing that might makes right... and we start wars. All this
adeptly controlled by the powers of empire.

I see your propaganda klein bottle as not you, but rather typical
of the militarism the USA is sponsoring and its ideological reflection. Klein bottles don't cast reflections, yet they do.

I wonder the maths derivation of a klein bottle's shadow.

I'll just ignore the obscure and deal with the rest.

No targeting method, no combat method EVER ensures total safety for noncombatants. That isn't possible. When nations or groups go to battle with one another, the only way to be safe is to be somewhere else.

Given that military action freed my people, might can indeed make right. It did so then and it did so in World War II. Is military action always correct? Hell no, as the war in Iraq shows.

According to you, "There is no soverign threat to america from this terrorism." Tell that to the people who died on 9/11. Tell that to the people who lost their jobs because of the economic impact of terror.

That threat is not overblown. I still have family and friends in D.C. They know they are living, breathing targets for terror. They know that the threat is real.

A militarist believes that ultimately, power comes from a gun.

Yet there are other forms of power.

The sovereign threat, like i said, is the response to the terrorism,
not the actions themselves. A few thousand dead civilians,
as regrettable as it is, is nothing on the scale of deaths a REAL
war that threatened american sovereignty might be. You've grossly
missed the proportionality of your opponent. The entire world is
being armed and at war for a few tin pot zealots with semtex and
box cutters.

The response... "the war" is what is destroying the economy. I was
almost myself one of the people who died on 9/11 for my failure to
come to a conference in my business field where all the other
attendees were killed. I say there is no sovereign threat to
this great nation by blowing up one building, and there never will
be... get real.

Sovereign threat is 100 million dead, no city not unnuked larger than
1 million people, and in that radioactive mess, armed militia gangs
trying to establish territory of control as the government was
completely destroyed. The military is to protect us from that
war, not this little petty shit.

This is police action stuff. I am also a believer that miltiary
force can bring justice in some circumstances. However, i see no
need to use military force in this circumstance. I have not seen
the need to use military force in this world since the mid 80's.

Police, a good global undercover antiterrorism squad, and good
checkpoints at borders, and excellent covert computer datawarehouses.

What pisses me off about your kind of militarism, is that the asshole
who pulls out his gun when its not necessary reflects poorly on the
more serious military person who will REALLY defend the people
against a REAL threat. Such a person never draws their sword until
there is absolutely no alternative... and then that person does not
talk about militarism... they strike, kill and win.. then put the
sword away.

Talking about militarism is the ugliest stupidest part. It makes
us dull assholes. The terror is only real because we made it real.
Those people in caves have no power to touch you, unless you let
them with your TV networks, Whithouse announcements, and orange
alerts. The terrorists are inside the white house thinking
, like you are yourself, in their religon of militarism as a solution
to too many things.

So power comes from people, not guns.

You wildly underestimate the potential of terror. With nuclear and biological weapons, the potential for terror is not a few thousand deaths, but possibly millions or even billions. The U.S. government ran a wargame where terrorists had a dirty bomb. The resulting economic damage was about $500 BILLION.

This is far from police action stuff. Numerous nations in the world fund and support terror. That is the stuff militaries are made for.

There is no alternative when you are facing nations that fund terror. You strike at them from every possible direction.

Firstly, i can't believe you used a dollar amount, rather than a
death count to explain how a terrorist bomb attack might affect the
USA.

I agree about power being people, just militarism gets all bubbled
out into "army-identity" and "us" and "them"... as armys are inclined
to think that way. But given you speak as a statesman in a global
propaganda forum, there is no us and them, there is only us and we.
Al Queda reads what we post, just like the american military does,
just like joe citizen does.

Your denial of the humanity of people you don't understand, and then
the dreams of the "worst" attacks by weapons WE stock, proliferate
and invent. It speaks something very weird about our society that
we externalize this, as it is OUR bioweapons stock, and OUR nuclear
weapons stocks and OUR chemical weapons stocks that are the problem.
OUR military empire is out of control. It is using another generation
of fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) propaganda to scare the public
in to supporting a military buildup to empire. FIrst it was
socialism, then fascism, then communism, and now terrorism. These
are all just bullshit words for keeping the cold war spending
in the military-industrial weapons complex... to fund an empire
they desirately need to survive as weapons manufacturers in these
high tech ages of uber-weapons and uber-covert budgets.

I agree with your last remark:

" There is no alternative when you are facing nations that fund terror. You strike at them from every possible direction."

America is the primary creator, exporter and funder of terror around
the globe with a body-pile larger than any other rival by orders
of magnitude, massive prison-industrial complexes awaiting to
export their devices to the planet.

However being a citizen, and a loyal one, i can only advise against
militarism, and instead, engagement and establishing that ALL
people of the earth have the same human rights. This habit of
some thinkers, speakers and writers, to dehumanize the rest
of the planet in to "collateral damage" sucks. Given our
neoliberal empire, we should at least support the world's human
rights, even terrorists, as certainly we harbour them in the white
house, and the international criminal court would not dispute this
were it the jurisdiction. THe problem is the american jidiciary
is so militarist itself, that it would not root out the warmakers
and terrorist funders in american politics and military.

Ok. I would call the policy "not watching the baby" It is when
you purposely mislead your child in to thinking you can't see them
when in fact you can. It is letting them think they're pulling
one over.

From the outset of terrorism, in MY administration, this police
authority would have been negotated between world nations with
the international criminal court.

I would then have formed a truth commission, very similar to that
of south africa, and expose the pentagon and past administrations
to pardons based on giving evidence to funding terrorism, arming
terrorists, or undermining democracy.

This exposing of american terrorism would do more to end terrorism.

I would also ratify the international criminal court, and empower its
police force to access american financial and communications data
to prevent further funding of terrorism.

I would then pursue an intense programme of global disarmament. Take
away all legal protections from damages lawsuits by arms victems.
Empower the UN to stop all global arms sales of all calibres of
weapons. I would take the not watching the child policy towards
all global arms and covert military trade.

I would legallize drugs that the ONLY enemy in the war on terror
was the real enemy... someone who trades illegally in arms we
manufacture.

I'm a fucking nazi about terror. I would stomp it out so quick,
there'd be none left. I would empower seal team 6 and others to
pursue totally clandestine warfare, with (close congressional
oversight by 40 members bipartisan) watching. Their actions
would be denied and hidden. The real war on terror in my administration would not need to be sold. It would not exist.

I would be all happy happy to refer terrorism problems to the
international criminal court and its public prosecution office.

Then i would get the nation back to business, making money and
having a good time.

The resulting scenario had (can't recall the whole thing) either no or virtually no deaths because a dirty bomb isn't a true nuke. However, the shutdown of the stock markets and the closure of ports (the bomb in the scenario had been smuggled in by ship) caused widespread economic chaos and ruin.

If you think al Qaeda reads DU, I'd bet against it. They don't give a damn what we think about them. They are our mortal enemies.

I am more than happy to deny the humanity of monsters from Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Saddam to al Qaeda. What they do is not human or humane.

Our WMD are not a problem. The problem is a state like Iran that is trying to get nukes and already funds and supports terror. Combining THOSE two elements is the real threat.

You comment about America is downright laughable. It's like I'm reading from Mao's Little Red Book or from some college debating society crib sheet.

I would presume that people who deeply sympathize with Al Queda,
who are themselves enemies of the united states, but would never
speak on DU, and rather lurk and look at what stupid things we say
on the internet whilst our government has its army in their country.

If you posted a message to Al Queda in your post, they'd get it
if not directly by referral, from some internet cafe or whatever.
I'm sure we sound really whacky, totally disconnected from that
half of the planet, whilst living on the other half from where
we tell them what to do.

I think you're wrong about dehumanization. Hitler is a good example.
People are actually very ignorant of "hitler" and know him rather as
a propaganda caricature. To call someone "hitler" means he's a
terrible evil tyrant, and its so abstract, it might as well mean
the same as "satan". The result is that these demonized characters
are all the same "hitler,stalin,mao" as "satan" and by dehumanizing
them, they become mythical.

The problem is that you're hoping to educate a public to learn from
these people's lives and what went wrong. This works much better by
humanizing them. Then people can come to see, how hitler went wrong,
so they don't make the same mistakes, rather than simply hating him.
Sadly, we repeat the mistakes, because this dehumanization is a wrong
lesson from history. It stops us from recording truth as a culture
and from learning from our own mistakes.

Iran is no threat to you. America could nuke their country 1000
times over. In the worst case, iran might one day have a deterrent
in a pan-islamic alliance with pakistan to give the people of the
region nuclear protection. Perhaps 10 years from now, a pan-arabic
nuclear nation will fight a war in the middle east region which
we, as costmic actors, are weaving today with our political religions.

I know my work can sound ridiculous some times.... its fast draft.

My laughable comment about america was there for your humour.

It was right there on my crib sheet from KFC. You know the new
terrorism at the chicken place. I just write in off the little
box cover. Ain't that shit cool. :-)

Your post rambled more than a bit.

First off, I am not ignorant of Hitler. What's scariest about him is not just that he thought he was doing right, but that he actually had a normal side to his life -- with friends, loyalties and beliefs. That is what is so monstrous.

Iran is definitely a thread. It doesn't matter if we can nuke them a million times, they can still get a nuke and nuke us -- even if it's once. Then the world will scream and bet and cry saying of course we don't dare nuke them in response. To do so would be an outrage.

Any sort of nuclear-armed Islamic alliance will likely lead to nuclear war, so I obviously oppose that happening.

i try to keep up but maybe i missed it.

That is to say, the government allows it by decree and the state of
forces agreement, but the army us unwanted by the majority of the
people where it is.

To presume that the bush lies of support by foreign governments
extend to the people... is not a good idea.

Funny, as soon as Rumsfeld made noise about those troops leaving, the South Korean government shut the hell up pretty fast.

When they made rumblings, the army unit that is very close to the
border went to pull out on short notice. This would be read in a
war zone, of intent to attack, and pulling the forward troops back
to begin nuclear shelling. The move could seriously have exacerabated
a tactical problem.

It was deliberately done that way to fuck the koreans. A staged
pullout is what is reasonable, but the military did it's action to
keep its position inside korea.

I left out pakistan, the obvious one.

They also talked about taking ALL 37,000 troops elsewhere. The South Korean leadership didn't like that idea.

They like having Uncle Sugar to bash. But they also like Uncle Sugar there to keep the loony North in line.

I spent some time in korea years ago, and experienced personally
the anti-american vibrations in that place. It is simmering
underneath the surface of that culture.

We gave their country away to slavery (under japan) in 1910(?) or so.
Then in post world war 2, we left many of the japanese imperials
in charge after the war (like taking out saddam, and leaving the
rest of his mob). This created such hatred of our adminstration,
that historians argue that had the north not invaded south korea
that the american-propped up government would have fallen in a
coup anyways.

Korean culture is very long in time, despite the "new history" that
south korea began post ww2. The kingdoms of korea have been
separated most of their multi-thousand year history. This threat
of war is exaggerated by our presence, and we are not serious
about withdrawing. Until you've gone around the DMZ and seen the
forward battlefield emplacements of tanks, helicopters and troops
that you realize how fragile that whole situation is.

The USA should withdraw from there. We shoudl make sure SK
has what it needs and get out of there, letting the korean people
deal with their own cousins. They live together for christ's stake
on that tiny peninsula. Now you say the view is difrerent that
what i've experienced and such. Quite possible... maybe the
people suddenly changed their veiws on america, but i doubt it.
We've been threatening to use nuclear war on that peninsula very
subtly in this recent time. This is no friend who threatens such
a thing. When you're not spinning and have a chance to seriously
dig in to the korean conundrum, its a hard nut.

is by the actions of the governments they elect. if the people do not elect governments that tell us to go, it must mean they either want use there or it is a lower priority issue.

if germany wanted us gone, we'd go. turkey told use we couldn't enter iraq via their country, we didn't until they said we could. we are leaving bases in the phillipines because they wanr us to. you think korea doesn't want us there? bwaaaahhhahaha.

The South Korean regime is a corrupt american prop-up government
that had to look good, in the cold war against communism. This
corrupt busienss cartel-based society with its corrupt government
are in a corrupt corroberation of interests with the US military
after 50 years of sleeping together.

We're giving them free protection. They have the iron and the
will to do it themselves. It is time to leave. We'll have to
fight the status quo to change this. They did not do it right.
It should still be done. The american miltiary should not be in
south korea to fight their battles for them anymore.

It is no longer a proxy warground between us and china. We should
stand down. Another powder keg out of the field.

Terror has multiple goals:

Inflict terror
Damage economies
Kill people
Alter public opinion
Alter government opinion
Create paranoia

I believe 911 heavily damaged our economy and probably exacerbated the recession. Mercifully, the recession was not as long or as deep as it could have been.

Terror, IMHO, was directly responsible for loss of jobs, lack of consumer confidence, stock market decline, down turn of travel, etc.

There is an equation any nation goes through in promoting a position. Are the costs of implementing a plan lower or balanced by the benfits. These costs and benefits take into account both public opinion as well as financial and tactical advantages. Since the parties interested in defeating the other party cannot dismantle the percieved advantages they can only act on the costs.

The goal of terrorism is to raise the costs of the larger party to such a level that they will back away. That is it. Pure and simple. Any way they can make it hurt to for the other group to continue their actions will be taken.

I can see the truth in that.

But, what I was attempting to illustrate was that there were many routes toward that goal.

interest in the financial impact of the attack.

it's wise to understand how the other guy is keeping score.

you seem to think killing done by military is less terrible then killing done by terrorists.
you rationalize the killing done by the military.

Terrorists strive for maximum civilian body count. Militaries strive just the opposite.

One dead through a military attack, the other through a "terrorist" attack. The result is still the same. I guess it depends on what school of philosophy you side with most. Intent is subjective, and we can never be sure of what a criminal's true intentions were. To avoid that confusion, look at the outcome only.

So two people are killed in the inner city -- someplace like Southeast D.C. where I used to live.

The first was killed by a drug dealer who just got mad at a neighbor for calling the cops. So he killed her.

The second is killed during a battle between the police and the drug dealers as they try to bring the first murderer to justice.

And you would equate the two deaths?

Amazing.

Typically where you will find terrorists is when there is a massive inbalance between the power of those in charge and the reach of those who believe they are oppressed. When a person is so silenced and believe themself to be in dire straights they will strive to do as much damage to their percieved oppressor as they believe they are suffering.

The inability to wage war against the machinery of the oppressor means they have to strike at something else in order to make a difference. They stand no chance in a head to head "civilized" war. Thus they strike at that which they can reach. They use tactics which enable them to harm and survive.

If they stood up and fought the battle on our terms they would be dead faster than you can say Predator Drone. They are not stupid. They simply believe something that we disagree with.

The only way to disarm these situations is to undermine their source of recruits. To do that we need to negotiate with the people (not the terrorists themself). We need to reach out and try to understand their positions and not impose ourselves on their lives. We need to work with them that they may work with us.

Imposing your "will" and suppressing people will always create terrorism.

The only thing that changed in the last five thousand years is the size of the stick the ruler has.

"Typically where you will find terrorists is when there is a massive inbalance between the power of those in charge and the reach of those who believe they are oppressed. When a person is so silenced and believe themself to be in dire straights they will strive to do as much damage to their percieved oppressor as they believe they are suffering."

I read this and other posts like it several times, in doing so I'm starting to question whether the war in Iraq is wrong... Let me explain, there was obvious severe oppression going on there, if they can really create a democratic form of government and it flourishes, wouldn't that create hope for other countries around them to do the same thing? If they did the same thing, then wouldn't this go a long way in removing some of the terrorist? If this occurs then wouldn't the war in Iraq actually help in the war on terror?

If not, please explain because I'm getting confused.

I also think that muddleoftheroad is correct in that, there will always be some terrorist, because they join up for different reasons. Some of them are fighting based solely on the religious aspect of the Jihad. I don't think you will ever stop that.

First, yes there will always be those that see violence as the first and only answer in any sufficiently large group of people. Their voice is a minority and they are typically unable to act on their views without support. Thus they are nullified.

But when stress and oppression burden a people these radical elements gain more support. As the burden increases the support increase. Imagine what it would take to convince you to kill yourself in order to strike back against a people. Both Islam and Christianity share a belief that the afterlife is superior and great rewards are in store for those that die serving god (think martyred saints). So it is within both religions to create such individuals. Ready to give their life for the cause. But even so, the pressure required to create these people is tremendous.

We come to them offering freedom. We forget that this freedom did not come to us easily won. We struggled for hundreds of years with the various systems and philosophies that defined freedom. Countless lives were lost. This was because it takes time for a people to change their world view.

Culture shock is one of the most devestating forces a society can encounter. There are countless tribes in Africa and South America that have been devestated because their encounter with modern society was so over balanced that their ways collapsed in its face. The Arab nations are not so over balanced. Thus the struggle to survive as a culture is stronger in them.

Instead of forming their own path to modern society we are forcing our own upon them. Regardless of our value for our definitions of freedom, they are simply not accepted in heart by many of the Arab nations. It is not their truth. Thus trying to force a Democracy on them when the vary value of it is not apparent to them is a dangerous path.

There are tribal customs still alive and well within their culture. Death vendettas and blood oathes. Good and Evil are real palpible things in their view. The very notion of relativistic morality is an Evil concept to them (as it is to some here still). Just as you cannot force a people to believe a thing, you cannot force freedom on them. You can educate, you can aid, you can advise. But you cannot mandate that they be free from their ways.

Unfortunately we are ultimately responsible for the devestation that is the middle east. Our interference in the name of our own financial gain has completely disrupted the natural flow of cutlural evolution in their societies. The forcing of Israel into this the most unstable of locals further jarred the issue. Great devestation has been done to these cultures. And like nature gone wild we cannot know the end result of our tampering in such a haphazzard manner in this crucible.

Terrorism doesn't build out of anything.

Something motivates people to blow up buildings.

Al Qaeda claims that they want Western influence out of the Middle East. That may not be totally possible, but it's certainly possible to minimize the Western presence in that area.


Especially with you bogus claims about Israel.

Seems I remember a photo of an Israeli and a Palestinian shaking hands. It was tentative, but it happened.


Israel would actually like peace, but the terrorists who oppose it would like to destroy the state of Israel.

In fact, Jews and Arabs lived together in that area of the world for generations. It was not until someone drew lines on a map and arbitrarily claimed that certain land "belonged" to one group and certain other land "belonged" to another group that problems really escalated. Seems to me that this concept of owning land and forbidding the free use of that land to others has caused trouble here in the U.S. as well as in the Middle East. Another issue that has caused problems in both nations is the rapid influx of a group of people whose culture, understandings, and traditional ways are different from those of the indigenous people. It doesn't help that in these cases those of us carrying the Western traditions with us assume that our culture is better or that the other has nothing to offer that we would care to learn.

....generalizing and calling names doesn't work. I believe a peaceful solution is always a possibility. If someone lives in a war zone, there is no individual terror..the war is the terror.

When you ask a question like this the first thing everybody says is Munich! Chamberlain! Hitler! That's because they've had years of conditioning, and know--like good little doggies--that's how they're supposed to react.

Islamic terrorism is NOT the same as Hitler's armies poised to overrun the world. These are peoples without standing armies, without significant weapons, without a voice, without influence. They are people protesting the persecution of Palestinians, protesting the occupation of Iraq, protesting the western supported tyranny of oil rich middle east regimes, and terribly frustrated at their own inability to do anything about it.

The American people are too dumb to think it through, but this is the kind of situation we can never win. Far, far, far better to discuss these things in an open, honest dialogue with representatives of this point of view--not representatives we choose--their own representatives. But that would not be macho enough for this frightened, blood thirsty nation.

We will cling to our own ignorance for many more years until the inevitable wholesale destruction of some major city, a tragedy so immense, we will finally come to see that, as Churchill said, "Better to jaw-jaw-jaw, than war-war-war." Or maybe Jesus said it better.

When the guy on O'Reilly said we should negotiate with terrorists in some cases, just as we would with any other government, I was appalled. But then I thought about it, and I realized he does have a point. We are conditioned in this country to have an attitude of defiance when it comes to things like this. All "terrorist" groups cannot be negotiated with. But we should know their agendas, and if (and only if) they actually have a valid point, maybe we should put our pride aside and make changes.

There are about 50 Muslim nations in the UN. Together they have a voting bloc larger than almost any other. Many of these nations also control vast oil wealth. They are not without influence.

No, Islamic terror is not the same as Hitler's armies. But in many ways it is just as bad.

Just look at how well they've succeeded in overcoming the things they are protesting. Not!

The inadequacy of the many Muslim governments is not entirely our fault.

I see where you are coming from, totally. But my thing is, if we could become less dependent on their oil then we wouldn't be in half the situations we're in now. We need to get our own resources and let them be.

I think it should be a priority. That of course is likely to antagonize those nations more, not less. If they become poor overnight because of hydrogen cars, for example, then we will have even more problems.

I agree with Muddle! The endtimes are shirley near.

Have you heard about Brazil's alcohol-powered cars? Fuel you can plant! I wish we pushed it harder, we're about 15% away from total oil self-reliance.

BTW: Oddly, fundie Islamic terror never bothered to bomb Brazil. I wonder why.

I think we have agreed a few times of late.

Those cars pose little threat. But if American oil companies sold hydogren fuel for Detroit made hydrogen powered cars, then the oil nations would go bankrupt pretty fast. Brazil is a small market by comparison.

But then wouldn't that inspire change in their government...change for the better? It's not like their populace is uneducated. They can change and adapt. The people will have more power, not just the kings and Presidents. But thats just my opinion. I'm not a sociologist.

exporting the idea from Brazil to other countries. What's the main source of American-made ethanol? In Europe, IIRC, it's beetroot.

Can be made from all sorts of tubers like potatoes and such as well. But I still prefer leaping ahead to hydrogen if possible.

It works. Now. Ethanol engines have been in use in Brazil for 30 years, and lots of technological quirks have been sorted out already.

And now they're producing hybrid cars, which run on EITHER gasoline OR alcohol. Try to do that with hydrogen.

Update: here we make it off sugar cane, as is typical in warm-weather countries.

I don't get it... why is Brazil more advanced in this area than we are? Actually I do get it... but its sickening nonetheless.

And I'm pretty sure the mileage of an alcohol car is much better than that ratio. Wait a sec... got the mileages now.

Mileage of a gasoline car is 50% better than alcohol. So the net advantage of alcohol is -- you pay 40% less in fuel. Neat huh? I can't understand why it isn't nearly universal here. On second thought, I can. :mad: :mad: :mad:

That's why we NEED presidents who don't roll over and say "thank you sir may I have another" to the USA. Thank you for reminding me why I voted Lula.

I read conflicting reports on whether it takes more energy to produce it than it delivers.

You say:
If they become poor overnight because of hydrogen cars, for example, then we will have even more problems.

What do you mean, "If they become poor overnight..." ? These people are not rich. Their governments are rich. Not the people.

A decline in oil revenues might destabilize their governments, which might just force their governments to think about legitimizing their rule via democracy.

They are as wealthy as sin. But their leaders aren't good at sharing the wealth -- but they do share it some. Perhaps that's inevitable because such wealth does provide jobs and an economic base for the oil nations.

But if oil is no longer needed, these nations don't have much else to offer.

We are the consumer. We call the shots. We drew up the boundaries of these countries along with the Brits in 1921. We oversee the selection of their governments. We sell them their weapons systems. We send them billions of dollars every year.

We are the world leader.

But you want to beg out of any responsibility for the outcome of our leadership.

Your avatar, Martin Luther King, would be the first to say we must communicate with our enemy, we must attempt to bring peace to the world. As somebody who actually knew Martin Luther King, I would hope you would consider what he stood for before you jump to knee-jerk, rah-rah, macho solutions to problems like this.

Perhaps the The War Against Terror (TWAT !) will target those
neocons and take them down. Then it would be serving its function
at least... but the TWAT title is well earned... ;-)

I consider the NeoCons to be terrorists as well.

Isn't this whole "you're either with us or against us" an idea of the neocon terrorists?
Is it not true that the neocons *need* an enemy against which the people can be united, in order to stay in power? Even the notion that we have to give up freedoms in order to defend these freedoms against terrorism, comes from the neocons.

i don't know, for sure, why islamic extremists hate us.

if i were to take usama at his word, in 98 (i think) he declared a religious war against America. so it is a possibility that the motives of some of these people are only exacerbated by foreign policy, not rooted solely in same.

how do we know what is in the heart of these people. is israel the main bone of contention or simply a step in a larger jihad? osama said it was our presence in the holy land which fueled his ire. we have withdrawn from the land of mecca and medina yet the terror continues with a new emphasis on our support for israel.

it would seem that even if we give in to their demands, their demands just shift. i don't see that as a promising sign for success in any
policy of negotiations.

We have made no attempts whatsoever to even listen to their demands.
They are clearly in opposition to forces inside the US:

1. Who see taking all arab oil as a US mission, just like relieving
those pesky ameircan indians of the north american continent.

2. Who see israel as a 52nd state and that its behaviour is not
terrorism.

3. Who see this really as a 3rd crusade for the holy land to destroy
the islamic infidels.

These folks who will not say, but operate on these 3 reasons, have
no time to listen to demands to desist.

The terrorists are in the white house and they cannot be negotiated
with because they will not discuss.

ON EDIT
pearls before swine
wasting my time

Resulting to the old neocon ad hominem attack cuz your statement
is indefensible, eh? :-)

The only swine here are freeper lurkers... make your point.

terrorism as an assult against islam but unwilling to take the word of terrorists that their attacks have a religious compontent is not worth conversing with.

eom

I'm flummoxed by your remark.

Lets look at the root. An imperial nation has positioned its
army and sponsored wars to take over any non-friendly nations in
the middle east over the past 50 years. This blatant imperialism
has drawn an anti-imperialist military response. The response,
as in the microcosm of the israeli conflict, uses unconventional
warfare, as conventional warfare is simply not realistic.

The invaded peoples have no contractual rights and no civil rights
over their own peoples and nations, by the very fact of the imperialists, so that their abilty to negotiate equally is not
realistic. Their demands however, are rather simple.

Get out of our nations, get your military bases out, stop supporting
dictatorships and other bad government in our areas, and get out.

On the other side, the imperialists say: Only if we can guarantee
our supply of oil. Only if you will never attack us.

Given that the real substance of the disagreement is quite visceral,
the real reason the west won't discuss, is that they are in no
interest to negotiate, rather they have unilateral objectives to
steal the oil... period.

Then the terrorists harden their views for a long infitada against
the US imperium. They use idological propaganda to polarize their
peoples towards this infitada and will wage this covert war
against america until it leaves or is destroyed.

This is not, and has never been about religion... except the
religion of imperialism. Only the extremists on both sides (who
are in power on both sides) use religion as a reason.

Both claim the others are infidels. The truth is that they both
are infidels, and these warriing parties have no religious roots
at all. They are fighting a war of revolution against empire.

This is just like the kind of revolution that founded america
against an equally determined empire.

The imperialism on this thread, veiled behind secondary reasons
for not negotiating with terrorists, is rife. Rather americans
might consider the same scenario in 1776, when citizens of the
empire denounced american terrorism, and would not negotiate with
them, rather forcing them further in to what became independence.

The gureilla's always win. This war is setting us up for a fall.

you speak as if the nutcases speak for the entire nations.

you speak as if these countries do not want to sell their oil. witness opeq and their price/production controls...surely that is an exercise in control of their own resources?

the blather about 'take over any non-friendly nations in
the middle east over the past 50 years' is just wacko propaganda. if the US ever actually decided to take over a country and take it's resources it would do just that. it hasn't....lately.

finally, no one has any real way of knowing what this is all about unless they are one of the terrorists. even assuming that all terrorists are motivated by the same issues is preposterous. you choose to project your hatred for imperialistic America as their motive but you don't KNOW anymore than i do what is their true motive.

personally, i think osama got started in this because he was not the first or second son and had no illustrious future in his father's house.

prove me wrong.

Since the nations are not democracies, due to american interference
and support for dictatorships. Osama's photograph is quite popular,
and he's a hero in some relgions of the ME. Why is that if he
is just speaking for his own band of radicals.?

We overthrew the elected government of iran for oil. We support
the saudi dictatorship for oil. We're setting up bases around
the caspian basin for oil. Yes, some want to sell it, and if the
only american presence in the middle east was its oil tanker buying
oil, then i'm sure all would be fine... just why is there an army
base in most every gulf nation except iran. We do take over countries covertly is my point, and i think you presume i mean it
bagdhad style. I mean it more how we put saddam in power, or how
we started the civil war by messing with lebbanon, or how we've
kept the house of saud in power when without our help, it would
not be.

You presume more about me than you know. I don't hate america, and
am rather discussing on a thread regarding negotiating with them
and coming to an end of conflict. The issues projected by folks
defending this stupid war action, are more hateful to america and
her interests than what i've said. I agree that there are many
many views, just that the demands are rather obvious, and you
don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that many arab
people feel that way. I've met quite a few who have said as much,
from pakistan, saudi, palestinean refugees from israeli cleansing,
iraqi and afgani refugees. The number of refugees from the
american messes in the middle east who are in britain is quite
a few. They are in the supermarkets and in the pubs, all of
them flee bad government, and we've been very busy keeping that
the status quo.

I agree i don't know their true motives any more than i know yours
or bush's. When you talk to people and negotiate, you come to find
their motives and what is important. Then you can end this
foolish waste of the word "war".

Osama is helpless without his ideological support by the terrorist
factory of the middle east failed states and other islamic failed
states.

You are dead right on mate. I haven't all the answers, and am
just taking a stab and considering what would end this whole scrub.

That statement really irritates me because its so simple and it doesn't involve any critical thinking. Who would blow themselves up over such nonsense? Clearly something more is at work. I actually do believe that the Osamas of the world would have let us be if we lessened our selective occupations. It might be too late now. If an entire city is nuked, negotiations will never be possible.

In order to find that out. Not the likes of Rush Limbaugh, etc.

and i can't believe anyone would need to consult an expert to understand that.

critical thinking.

OK, lets assume for a minute that our government acquiesces and decides to bring the terrorists to the table.
The two sides have 'productive' talks, make some compromises, and even agree to disagree on some points.
The representatives of said terrorist group give their solemn word and even sign treaties which say they will never, EVER again commit atrocities such as we have seen lately.
All concerned parties leave the table, have a happy little photo op, and everyone walks away smiling.
The next day......BANG......the same terrorist group decides they have additional demands that have not been met and they would rather go back to tried and true terrorist tactics. Another 3000 innocent civilians die as a result of a surprise attack...

Whats the solution??

I've said it before, and anyone who has children understands the concept here...."If you give a mouse a cookie"...

-chef-

it would seem that even if we give in to their demands, their demands just shift. i don't see that as a promising sign for success in any policy of negotiations.

The Western Powers have been occupying their "Holy Land" for nearly a millenia. Every few hundred years, the Europeans or the Americans re-invade. It has been going on since the Crusades. This is the History no one wants to know.

No.

Its about finding and understanding the root causes of the rise of terrorists. People do not immediately resort to suicide attacks at the drop of a hat. It takes extrodinary circumstances to convince a person to kill themself to change something. There is real stress going on here and killing more people trying to stop it is simply going to increase the stress and make more terrorists.

We need to understand where they are coming from and what their problems are. We need to find ways to both educate them and educate ourselves so there is less need for either side to attack the other. We need to become more familiar with them so that they may become more familiar with us. It is the differences that lead to hostility. It is shared experience that leads to peace.

thanks! :-)

We only have to show respect for the 99% of the population that does not commit this kind of violence.


:bounce:

It's a net plus to talk. You might get a few concessions for the effort. You'll find out what the real grievances are. But, just because you negotiate doesn't mean you give in to the demands. That is an entirely different set of issues.

You can't negotiate with scum like this. They will be emboldened by their new-found status by being treated as equals.

They are not equal. They are monstrous.

and decide to start a killing spree? Do you think that you can simply tell a person to go kill themself for a cause? Terrorism does not occurr in a vaccum. It has a cause. It has an environment.

You may not have to negotiate with the terrorists themself. But dismantle the environment that gives rise to them and you cut off their source for new members and money. They are not necissarily scum. If George declared marshal law and killed off our rights I am sure there would be some actions taken to dismantle his hold on the people.

the questions you ask are silly.

Oh, wait, you didn't make any.

I am reacting to the fact that most people seem to be of the opinion that terrorists are mad dogs and they need to be put down as the scum they are. They completely ignore the ways that terrorism arises. There seems to be this imaginary factory that turns out these nonhuman things that spontaneously set about committing acts of terrorism.

Terrorism is a reaction. It is a reaction on the part of those that see no other way to defend their position. Terrorism is the result of when people feel terror inflicted on them.

There are a million reasons for terror -- each different than the last. There is still no justification for it and terrorists are indeed mad dogs that I would gladly put down.

What is terror? Is terror a bomb on a bus? Or is terror an armor plated bulldozer? When a people are so over matched that any resistance is sure to fail what recourse do they have? Frustration and loss of hope are mighty inspirations to people trodd on by the strong. Even the bible shows terror as a weapon to free an oppressed people.

Terror is not right, but the oppression is not right either. Of course it would be preferable for all to resort to discussions and negotiations to achieve peace but unfortunately we are dealing with a clash of cultures and some are being imposed. Destruction of culture can be just as stressful to a people as death.

one would need some proof that terrorists can be trusted to honor their "treaty."

When has any terrorist demonstrated this honor? When? When? When????

It is impossible for them to honor a treaty because they are not a government, they are not accountable, in many cases they lack fundamental leadership and/or command and control conventions that we are obligated to respect.

Anyone who believes that he can trust a terrorist is by definition a fool.

Furthermore, it is my belief that a whole set of circumstances have created modern terrorism-- some of these circumstance involve US intervention and meddling, but many are simply a by-product of our modern age: travel, communications, technology, WMD's, political alliances, rights and freedoms.

It may behoove us to abandon some of our practices and remove some of our forces from foreign lands which are not bound by treaty. But these actions on our part which we make take up "unilaterally," not as a form of negotiation, but merely as a good practice, will not eliminate terrorism.

We are destined to endure terror, primarily from radical Islamic Jihadists because we are who we are-- infidels. Heathens. Secularists. Jews. Pornographers. Homosexuals. Women's Libbers. Name it.

This is our cross to bear forever-- until we destroy their will to fight or until they destroy ours.

Terrorists left unnurtured will eventually burn out. Without a flow of new members they eventually become increasingly irrelevant cranks. You do not negotiate with the individuals holding the gun. You deal with the society they exist within and find the source of stress that gives them their strength and focus on that.

As long as the people involved feel oppressed terrorism will arise from the extremes. Limit the stress and you kill the source of the terrorists. There will always be nuts. Without support of the masses they become helpless and soon run out of ground to hide in.

While oppression may have something to do with the grievances of the Islamic Jihadists, it is NOT the only grievance.

Have a look at the list of demands:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9005784%255E7583,00.html

The Jihadists don't exactly seem to be interested in "getting their rights" but of pushing their fundamentalist philospohy on us. In their eyes,

WE must convert
WE must change
WE must oppress women, homosexuals, Jews
WE must cede territory and control

These demands are utterly unreasonable by any standard. And don't be misled into believing that these demands are a "starting point" for negotiations.

If Oslo was a starting point for the PA, we can see that the Israelis conceding to 95% of the demands was simply not good enough. And the terror continues there.

Wise up!

You will not soothe these radicals by concessions. You have three choices:

Surrender and change
Fight
Die

That's all.

They need the masses to draw their numbers from. Particularly if they are going to use their existing numbers for suicide missions.

Perhaps you are mistaken in assuming I am suggesting we negotiate with the terrorists. This is not what I am saying. I am saying that if you counter their terror with our own brand of terror we only swell their ranks. We need to cut their base out from under them by talking to the people. Making all sides known to those involved. Every society has cranks. You increase their numbers when you treat the general population like dirt.

"that terrorists are mad dogs and they need to be put down as the scum they are."

you are projecting what you want to believe are the motives of others.

have you spoken to "most people" or did you maybe hear someone say that once or hear someone else say they heard someone say it once?


and as to the idea that "It is a reaction on the part of those that see no other way to defend their position"...poppycock. well they may indeed see things that way but that doesn't mean they are correct and sure as hell doesn't mean we should treat them as if they are.

one in a million (maybe) of any given population is willing to engage in terror, on average. how is it that the other 999,999 people manage to endure the slings and arrows without deciding to blow up a pizza joint or a hotel?

obviously they either do not share the feelings of outrage or they feel they have other options. so, this concept that terrorists have no alternative path is nonsense. they pursue terror as a course by choice, not for lack of them.

i am constantly bewildered by the desire to romanticize terrorists....
really weird since other bullies and sneaks are not viewed with like sentiment.

I am by no means romaticizing the terrorists. In fact I do not know that negotiations can be succesfully engaged with terrorists. It is the people that comprise the societies the terrorists draw their numbers from that must be negotiated with. People who are still willing to find a path. The terrorists have cut themself off from that path.

But the trouble here is that sometimes those who claim to be in the right may not recognise the terror they bring. Thus both sides see their actions as defensible and see the oppositions active forces as the terrorist. Does it matter whether it is a bomb on a bus killing your family or a military helicopter piloted by a soldier? Over bearing military force is the most terrifying thing a people can face.

While you are bewildered by the romaticizing of terrorists I am bewildered by the romanticizing of civilized war. As if killing people in the proper way made it right. Oppressing a people whether by means of military might or acts of terror still has the same effect on people. Terror.

and give them weapons? </cynicism>

There are only people and organizations. If the best solution for the situation is negotiation, we should negotiate. Plain and simple.

terrorists don't want to negotiate, they want to incite terror in hopes that the existing power structure will crumble due to one agregious act of violence. The entire idea behind terrorism is that a revolution of some sort is imminent and something like a terrorist attack might set it off. Terrorisim is inherantly non-negotiable - it's what the proper response is that's the imporant part.

Terrorism is more an act of desperation. When an unstoppable military power moves into a territory it is foolish to attempt to take them on by killing the designated miltary targets. Attacking a peoples willingness to impose their will on others has always been a means of striking back.

Its simple really. A group that wishes to remain viable when confronted by another group that is far more powerful than they attempting to impose their will causes them to seek any way to strike back.

Blowing up empty buildings is no where near as effective as blowing up people. Look at any war. It is the demolition of a peoples willigngness to continue that ends the wars. Sherman demolished a huge swath of the south. We killed countless civillians to end WWII. People will fight as long as they believe the cost is justified by the outcome. There are two ways to win this balance. Dismantle the desired outcome or raise the costs.

This is by no means a defense of terrorism. It is a recognition of how desperate people will react.

Al Queda and it's vast networks aren't concerned with territory or any sort of socio-political gain in their attacks. They incite terror for the mere sake of inciting terror. When Osama Bin Laden declared a Jihad on the United States, it may have been in response to US involvement in the Mid-East but the idea behind the Jihad has evolved beyond that simple military and physical ramification. It's now an ideological war as much as it is a physical one - When the Sept. 11th attacks occured, the United States wasn't involved in any substacial way with the MidEast other than a few scattered bombings of Saddam Hussein. There were no substancial troops on the ground and no indication of further US involvment, but the attack happened anyways and embolded Bush to wage his war on terror. What this incident demonstrates that the entire idea behind Al Queda's Jihad wasn't one of protecting their terrority from the Foreign invaders, as it had been with the Vietnamese nationalists in the 60s. No, it was one of an entire holy war on the United States, in hopes that either the WTC attacks would either 1) embolden Islamic fundamentalists everywhere or 2) destroy the American powerstructure. One of those succeded, unfortuneatly.

I don't see how negotiations with terrorists like Al Queda can occur. They have no substancial demands other than wanting to see us dead. You can't negotiate your way out of somebody trying to kill you, so the proper response is a response in kind.

Now Iraqi nationalists are another story. If there is a terrorist movment within Iraq whose sole purpose is a free and independent from American influence Iraq, then while no negotiation is possible it's clear that American withdrawl will lead to the cessesation of those attacks. But to say that Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists are open for negotiation is to assume a more utopian world than what is reality.

We believe we bring freedom and reason to people. We believe that all people should rejoice at the very notion of these things. Yet there are societies that did not undergo our particular cultural revolutions. Theirs are still fixed on systems we believe to be archaic and domineering. Yet to them, they are the truth that is the world around them.

There is a struggle that is going on throughout the world. It is particularly vociferous in the US and the Middle East. Here in the US the cry for dogmatic moral authority is crying out from the religious fundimentalists who are trying to retake the reigns of power.

In the ME they are fighting to keep the revolution from changing their claim to absolute dogmatic morality. Our insistance on what we believe to be fairness and freedom to them are corruption and sacrilage.

It is ultimately ironic that it is the US that is trying to impose secular law on these people seeing as how we are currently beseiged by people trying to undo our own secular laws. It is the same people that want to force the truth of our systems on these people that are trying to undo our own constitutions and rights.

or do you deny his was an act of terror.

McVeigh and his ilk believe that this country is being destroyed by moral relativists and liberals. Attempting to take their rights away and weaken the country.

I am not justifying their interpretation of invasion. I am merely pointing out how their mental structure justifies their actions to themself.

If you want to end terrorism its probably a good idea to understand where it comes from. Terrorism is an idea. You can't wipe it out by destroying a country or a leader. It is an idea that will constantly come back whenever a people feel they are in jeopardy and cannot find a way to defend themself through more civil channels.

When you stomp on a terrorist you create more terrorists. Its idea is spread by destruction. Either theirs or their enemies.

We fail to see all the learned concepts that our culture developed and associate with our interpretation of freedom. Thus when we honestly reach out and offer others freedom we do not see all that we offer with it that they may not percieve as freedom.

nothing more. and i totally accept the need to understand the motives of those who use terror to try and get their way. the thing is, just because i understand a motive does not make me willing to acceed to their desires.

so, i am not willing to see israel destroyed which is the desire of at least some terrorists.

now what?

Thats what I said above. Its about getting to the root causes that create terrorists. As I am sure you are aware the Israel situation is a mine field. Simply demonizing one side does not make the issues go away. We cannot kill all of one side for the more we increase the destruction and oppression the more terror will become their only means of redress.

If people feel there is no hope they are forced to act for themself.

That will end terror. No matter what you do, there will be terror groups still active as a result. Hamas, Hezbollah and others will never stop till they wipe out Israel.

if we don't honestly try to find one. Unfortunately those trying to force the various systems in place all have their own motivations and biases.

No one said solving such issues was easy. But as long as there is no hope there will be terror.

Hamas has sworn to fight till Israel is wiped out. Other terrorists have made the same claim. Hell, the PLO still hasn't officially changed its charter saying the same thing.

It is possible to have a situation that has no solution. The I/P crisis is one such case. Both sides claim the same ground and, after decades of war, both sides hate each other.

Hamas is a group of people. It is held together by the anger and oppression that its members feel from a host of sources including Israel and the US. They lose member at a steady pace. Without new recruits they will quickly dwindle and die.

As to Israel we have two choices. Find a solution or face eternal terrorism. Solutions could range from the complete eradication of one side or the other (bad bad bad) to the destruction of the holy ground that both sides covet(bad bad). There are solutions. We just need to work towards finding a solution that everyone can live with.

In the end the thing that works in our favor is that the bulk of the people grow tired of conflict. Through this route we can find a way to work towards peace with the ones in both societies that are willing to do so. But it necessitates the negotiators putting aside their own agendas. And unfortunately ME is full of power players each with their own agendas and biases. It will take a more intelligent representitive that George Bush to find a path to peace and in the mean time the continuous cycle of killing will simply increase the body count on both sides.

1) Surrender and flee the area. (If they surrender and stay, they will be murdered or just ethnically cleansed like in the rest of the Arab world.)

2) Face terror forever.

There is no third option. Anything Israel does will only impact the swing between those two distant choices, but it won't stop terror.

Yes, without steady recruits, even Hamas could die. There is no lack of wacko terror recruits in the Arab world.

You expect one side or the other to grow tired of conflict? They have been going at this for thousands of years.

There are advocates for peace on both sides. There is a way through the fire to find that peace they all seek. It is not a peace to be found with bombs or bulldozers. How hard are you willing to work towards peace? People killing people has not worked so far. Time to try something else.

Yes there advocates for peace, but as long as the terrorists stay active, then there can be no peace. The Palestinians have been unwilling to end the terror or even strike back at it.

There will be no I/P peace in our lifetime.

Humor for the end. We can trade will/will not endlessly. I can just say that if we do not make a real try for peace and keep it up we will never know. If instead we wish to congratulate ourselves for kicking bad people around we should just keep waging the war on terra (pun intended). There will be an endless supply of very evil people who will continue to reject our freedom and will fight us to the bitter end.

Enjoy the dancing spidey during this mistaken duplicate post.

"There are advocates for peach on both sides."

Yes you are right, but unfortunately there are also advocates for the total anhiliation of the other side too. You will always have that element. I do believe that if each government took responsiblility and actually enforced a 'no terrorist' policy, that peace could work. Until the governments arrest and imprision terrorist there will be no peace.

The terrorist groups need to be rounded up before any peace can take place. How do you ask a government not to react to daily terrorist bombings of it's citizens? Especially if nothing is being done on the other side to control it.

Note, peach :-D

When we move into a territory without consideration for the wishes of the individuals living there we are percieved as the terrorists. When we dismantle and destroy their way of life we have done a great injustice in their eyes. Yet we will never offer our leaders up for their justice.

We are dealing with cultures that have long held traditions involving taking a life for a life. They simply cannot lay down these beliefs any more than we can lay down ours. There are all manner of beliefs and traditions involved in these nations. Our blundering attempts to force them into the 20th century are responsible for much of the hatred and oppression there now. We are the terrorists in their eyes and we must be brought to justice.

Justice is an illusion based on societal expectations. Jailing a person for stealing does not in any real way balance the books. Killing a man for killing a man does not bring the original victim back. When two cultures meet they have very different definitions of justice. If we ignore their sense of justice we can expect them to ignore ours. Thus the clash begins and the imbalance inreases.

"there will always be terrorism"
"we will never negotiate"
"you're either with us or against us"

"If we let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely,
and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
- Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle

JUST WAGE TOTAL F*IN WAR

isn't that a brilliant idea.

and i agree that it is a mine field.

you wrote "If people feel there is no hope they are forced to act for themself. "

again with the "forced". one in ten thousand, maybe, in palestine are willing to do terror. the rest are willing to work for peace. why should we cater or negotiate with the .001 % who view bomb building as the roadway to peace?

btw...i will not go further with the I/P issue here. it's against DU rules.

On EDIT...except to say that the jews waited for centuries for a homeland. the palistinians have been waiting decades. patience is a virtue and is more likely to bring change that throwing temper tantrums or bombing buses.

It's too late now. We shouldn't have aided and abetted people like Osama in the first place.

I think the young men in those countries have no hope. I think that's part of it.

I think a military operation should be combined with a plan to stop terrorism by non-violent means, rather than just trying to kill individual terrorists.

But I got slammed for this view in LBN, so....

intelligent discussion.

What did the US do, if anything, to provoke those terrorists?

If it's solely because of religion (uh-huh, and my favorite organ is 50 feet long) then there's nothing we can do.

But if we did something vile toward them, I reckon they have every right to fight back - it doesn't matter how. They're going to do it. Wrong us, shall we not revenge?

The question is, who made the first wrong? Given the US history, you know where I'd be heading here...

But also consider, the dude with the swaztika on his shirt may like it there and be belligerant all the same. Nobody's perfect.

to be used in this thread.

Negotiate with Bin Laden? Never.

Negotiate with Yassir Arafat? We tried. It was a mistake.

However, Vietnam could have been avoided had we had elections. We also could have negotiated with Ho Chi Minh - remember many acts of the VC would be considered terrorist in todays world.

It really depends on the case. In most cases, no. But sometimes it is the wisest choice.

However, in public i would use a 100% open negotiation policy, that
we WANT to talk and we make it known that we listen, put an internet
terminal in bagdhad and let local folks write on an iraqi DU. Let
pakistani DU get the extremists insulting and flaming each other
in text instead of semtex.

The feminine is very important in this public akido of disarming
terrorism. While the terrorist is getting angry, we talk to him/her with open arms and listen to their problems, we openly talk and
ask why they feel they way they do, and if they've ever been
imprisoned or had a relative killed. This open acceptance of the
real life in some places, by the media public, would diffuse much
of the pressure, IMO. Ted Kascynzki was pretty much pre-internet
and could not get himself heard by simply publishing on DU, and
instead became a terrorist. Maybe that one was avoidable had he had
a way to vent where he felt heard.

Never underestimate the gesture of listening. We should always
appear to listen and negotiate. That is the fine discipline of
statesmanship no matter the politics.

For us
to be genuine about our response, obviously militarism policy is
going to have to change.

Well, sure, in a few circumstances. They'll 'negotiate' if someone has hostages (though the hostage takers are unlikely to end up with what they want), and DA's will 'negotiate' during plea discussions with the defendant's attorneys.

But they never negotiate with suspected criminals as if they were nation-states. Criminals are generally don't have a 'war' declared on them. That's where Bush has really gone horribly wrong (well, one of the places...there are others).

An act of 'terrorism' is a criminal justice issue. If bin Laden had gone around blowing up buildings in order to rob banks or some other profit motive (and the people killled were 'collateral' to what he was trying to do), would our approach be different? Why?

Of course, the causes and roots of terrorism are as many have suggested: poverty, desperation, and so on. I'd like to point out that many of these roots are the same as those of any violent crime problem. And we'll likely eliminate terrorism at the same time we eliminate violent crime. It's a social justice issue. The individual acts of terrorism are criminal justice issues, however. It shouldn't be a nation-state issue.

Bush made bin Laden far more important that he previously was with his approach, and gave up opportunities to arrest bin Laden for the sake of his political image as a 'tough guy'.

The Taliban were willing up until the last moment to turn bin Laden over to another Islamic country for trial (though I'd guess they were hoping for Pakistan), if only we'd present our case to them that he was behind the attacks on 9/11. Bush refused them, since he wouldn't 'negotiate' with 'terrorists' Since he'd already defined 'those who harbor terrorists' as 'terrorists', the Taliban were terrorists.

Would any Western European country have acted any differently? If the US were to come to Belgium or Switzerland and demand they turn over a long-term resident alien to us, wouldn't they demand some sort of proof of the crime before they deport them? When China has asked us to turn over various dissidents to them without evidence of them having committed a crime, have we? (actually, we have a few times...but that's a different issue).

So where this all went terribly wrong is that Bush has acted with almost entirely political motives since he got into office. He's been playing to what he thinks is the crowd this whole time. And in the process, he turned Osama bin Laden into Elvis.

It wasn't just Bin Laden we wanted, but many other members of Al Qaeda, yet they refused. This was about much more than just Bin Laden, it was about bringing those in his organization responsible to justice as well.

Normally, police investigators will tend to go easy on the little fish to get the big fish. Not the other way around.

So you are suggesting that the US had to let bin Laden go in order to catch his lieutenants? I can only hope that you don't believe that and are saying it for partisan reasons, since it makes no damn sense.

I'm saying that they wanted Bin Laden, they also wanted others. Lets say you did only get Bin Laden, well ok somebody will replace him and the organization continues, he wasn't the only one involved in planning these attacks.

tell me that and I'll participate in your pole. Give me an exact definition. Tell me what distinguishes a terrorist from a soldier.

RC

apparently the discourse has been concluded.

do not attempt to actually define the term. that could lead to some kind of understanding.

how can we have a war on terror if we can not define terror?

RC

There is a huge difference between negotiating with terrorists and working to remove the problems that create terrorists. We SHOULD negotiate with moderate, level-headed people all over the world, but there is absolutely no reason why we should negotiate with the few extremists who are willing to strap bombs to themselves to kill us. Certainly, we should always examine our society, as closely and from as many perspectives as possible, but there is nothing to be gained from negotiating with terrorists, other than more terror. In Isreal, for example, the Isrealis never seem to be willing to openly and honestly work with the moderate palestinian leadership, prefering to neuter them while enacting prisoner exchanges with hamas and violently oppressing the people. not a winning strategy, in my book.

Does it really matter if the guy who has military leverage over us is using suicide bombers or atomic weapons? If negotiation is the smartest diplomatic move, we should take it, we certainly shouldnt tie our hands behind our back in some psuedo-moralistic act of pride and limit the options we have to protect our citizens.

Terrorist leaders are just as rational as foriegn leaders. Maybe some of them are violent for the sake of violence, obviously they would not be good targets of diplomacy, but niether would an unreasonably violent head of state. But many groups that use terrorist tactics are groups who feel that they must use those tactics in order to get something accomplished. HOw is this different from a world leader who feels that he may need to use his military to get something accomplished? Either way, negotiation is certainly a valid course of action.

Lets negotiate their surrender so that they can be put in jail. By negotiating to come to terms with these organizations you are absolving them of responsibility.

Basically, by negotiating with terrorists, we legitimize their means of applying leverage. Keep in mind that terrorists generally don't represent the majority view. Terrorists may be as rational as foreign leaders, but they generally have a hell of a lot less to lose... they don't care if we kill civilians, that only helps their cause... while i understand your idea that terrorism is a means through which people with out voice can speak, and i DO encourage addressing the roots of terrorism, terrorists are criminals. I cannot accept the targeting of civilians in an attempt to create fear and panic as moral or just, and to negotiate with terrorists legitimizes their actions, in fact, it encourages others to take them as a precedent: if forced to, sure, we can negotiate with terrorists, the same way we would have negotiated with hitler if the war had gone badly... it's just not something that I want to do.

:shrug:

Are you talking about real criminal acts or the Western construction and caricature of the "Terrorist" that has been used to wage (and continue to wage) massive wars.

Both are hitting civilians. Is well and good to say we won't negotiate with terrorists - but it almost amounts to a blanket - we won't negotiate with poor countries. And tell me - just how effective has that been - for everyone?? This eco-crippled world can't survive much more of this stupidity!!