Northern Ireland.FEOS wrote:
Point to an example of where negotiating and giving in to terrorists' demands has resulted in a positive for the state involved.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Ah yes, it always comes back to that, doesn't it. Never back down. Never negotiate. Never talk. Never sort the problem out.Pug wrote:
Let's say they do. What's next?
4,000 dead in Chicago to get the US to leave NATO?
No, you have me wrong. I've stated my opinion several times about Palestinians.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Ah yes, it always comes back to that, doesn't it. Never back down. Never negotiate. Never talk. Never sort the problem out.Pug wrote:
Let's say they do. What's next?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Actually, there is an important question here:
If as is stated in the video (by reputable sources) AQ attacked the US on 9/11 because of 'the Palestinian problem', why isn't the US changing it's policy of support for Israel?
4,000 dead in Chicago to get the US to leave NATO?
Plus you are assuming I'm only taking about crazy Arabs. But besides that...what's next?
It's an honest question on two fronts:
1) Does this open the door for more similar incidents?
2) Do you believe a change in policy will make a difference?
Let me answer for you:
No and Yes
Me:
Well I don't think so.
You:
I'm always right.
Me:
Sure, but have you even consider these items? Is there a possibility these could be correct? Have you thought about them objectively?
You:
No, no, and no. It's just stupid.
Me:
Ok. Well we disagree.
(shortened it to one post so we don't have to talk anymore today. I hope this works for you too)
Wrong, I have considered them, the possibility they could be correct and thought about it objectively.Pug wrote:
No, you have me wrong. I've stated my opinion several times about Palestinians.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Ah yes, it always comes back to that, doesn't it. Never back down. Never negotiate. Never talk. Never sort the problem out.Pug wrote:
Let's say they do. What's next?
4,000 dead in Chicago to get the US to leave NATO?
Plus you are assuming I'm only taking about crazy Arabs. But besides that...what's next?
It's an honest question on two fronts:
1) Does this open the door for more similar incidents?
2) Do you believe a change in policy will make a difference?
Let me answer for you:
No and Yes
Me:
Well I don't think so.
You:
I'm always right.
Me:
Sure, but have you even consider these items? Is there a possibility these could be correct? Have you thought about them objectively?
You:
No, no, and no. It's just stupid.
Me:
Ok. Well we disagree.
(shortened it to one post so we don't have to talk anymore today. I hope this works for you too)
But, I look at the evidence around the world (see my pevious post for one good example) and I see that negotiating with terrorists works. Fighting them does not.
Have you considered this? Is there a possibility it could be correct? Have you thought about it objectively?
Do you just ditch your friend because some bully (who already bashed your nose once) says you should ?
Listening and talking would be ok in my book. Cowtowing to coercion via terror is bs.
Does anyone honestly think that cutting off aid for the Israelis would make a shred of difference to OBL and other such types ...
Listening and talking would be ok in my book. Cowtowing to coercion via terror is bs.
Does anyone honestly think that cutting off aid for the Israelis would make a shred of difference to OBL and other such types ...
Actually, the most militant Zionists tend to be Christian Dispensationalists. They have a fixation on Israel because of its role in the supposed Armageddon.Vax wrote:
Yep, it's them "zionists" controlling everything
Sneaky joos
Basically, evangelicals, the military industrial complex, and Big Oil have one unholy alliance in American politics.
Wow, so you actually want to do this then and have the same result. Ok.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Wrong, I have considered them, the possibility they could be correct and thought about it objectively.
But, I look at the evidence around the world (see my pevious post for one good example) and I see that negotiating with terrorists works. Fighting them does not.
Have you considered this? Is there a possibility it could be correct? Have you thought about it objectively?
Good job on not answering my questions by the way.
First point: I never said deal with them violently. I said negotiations with AQ are fruitless.
Second: there's been a handful of insurgencies (aka terrorist activity groups) which have been successful in all of history...less than 1%. Pointing out Ireland is not the norm, it's a rarity.
Third: Negotiating with terrorists worked with Ireland because England was able to give Ireland what they wanted.
Can the US give AQ what they want? No. Why? It involves other countries. Ok, so let's get Israel to agree to pull back to the borders and pay reparations. Can you guarantee that's going to be enough? The 100% iron clad Ireland-as-an-example guarantee? What percentage would you put on that?
^^^ and that is why it the US cannot give AQ what they want, because 1) its too difficult to obtain, and 2) there's no guarantee.
Lastly, talking with AQ is NOT who we need to be dealing with. Its the governments in the region.
Objective enough for you? I disagree with you that we should be negotiating with the AQ for the reasons above, which will soon will be trivialized by you.
Now your next line is:
"I'm always right"
Unless we skipped the script a bit to:
"No, no, and no. It's just stupid"
All your questions are exactly why negotiations work.Pug wrote:
Wow, so you actually want to do this then and have the same result. Ok.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Wrong, I have considered them, the possibility they could be correct and thought about it objectively.
But, I look at the evidence around the world (see my pevious post for one good example) and I see that negotiating with terrorists works. Fighting them does not.
Have you considered this? Is there a possibility it could be correct? Have you thought about it objectively?
Good job on not answering my questions by the way.
First point: I never said deal with them violently. I said negotiations with AQ are fruitless.
Second: there's been a handful of insurgencies (aka terrorist activity groups) which have been successful in all of history...less than 1%. Pointing out Ireland is not the norm, it's a rarity.
Third: Negotiating with terrorists worked with Ireland because England was able to give Ireland what they wanted.
Can the US give AQ what they want? No. Why? It involves other countries. Ok, so let's get Israel to agree to pull back to the borders and pay reparations. Can you guarantee that's going to be enough? The 100% iron clad Ireland-as-an-example guarantee? What percentage would you put on that?
^^^ and that is why it the US cannot give AQ what they want, because 1) its too difficult to obtain, and 2) there's no guarantee.
Lastly, talking with AQ is NOT who we need to be dealing with. Its the governments in the region.
Objective enough for you? I disagree with you that we should be negotiating with the AQ for the reasons above, which will soon will be trivialized by you.
Now your next line is:
"I'm always right"
Unless we skipped the script a bit to:
"No, no, and no. It's just stupid"
If you don't talk you can only ever guess as to what the possible outcomes of any action may be.
First seek to understand. Only then can you change the world.
No, you don't understand.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
All your questions are exactly why negotiations work.
If you don't talk you can only ever guess as to what the possible outcomes of any action may be.
First seek to understand. Only then can you change the world.
The US is NOT in a position to negotiate effectively at any level with AQ. Because the demands BY EITHER SIDE are unobtainable and make it a pipe dream. AQ wants US to isolate Israel (and other stuff not Israeli related). The US wants AQ to disband. Neither are obtainable because AQ will not disband until its objectives are met (if then), and the US has other interests besides being involved with Israel that AQ wants to influence.
So submitting to the demands will only result is setting up the opportunity for the future target & corresponding negotiation at swordpoint. If you don't believe this, then there's no point in discussing it.
My point is you got to negotiate with the governments who are allowing the existence of these groups to be able to do anything about it.
At one point all the sides in Northern Ireland were in that position - one side wanted the whole of Ireland to be part of the republic, the other wanted Northern Ireland to be part of the UK, the UK just wanted the IRA to stop blowing people up.Pug wrote:
No, you don't understand.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
All your questions are exactly why negotiations work.
If you don't talk you can only ever guess as to what the possible outcomes of any action may be.
First seek to understand. Only then can you change the world.
The US is NOT in a position to negotiate effectively at any level with AQ. Because the demands BY EITHER SIDE are unobtainable and make it a pipe dream. AQ wants US to isolate Israel (and other stuff not Israeli related). The US wants AQ to disband. Neither are obtainable because AQ will not disband until its objectives are met (if then), and the US has other interests besides being involved with Israel that AQ wants to influence.
So submitting to the demands will only result is setting up the opportunity for the future target & corresponding negotiation at swordpoint. If you don't believe this, then there's no point in discussing it.
My point is you got to negotiate with the governments who are allowing the existence of these groups to be able to do anything about it.
Neither sides demands seemed obtainable - the UK wanted the terrorists on both side to disband, neither set of terrorists would disband until their demands were met.
But we sat both sides down. And we talked. And we talked. And we talked. And eventually we found that actually the situation wasn't as intractible as it seemed.
We now have peace in Northern Ireland. We no longer have IRA bombs going off in British cities.
The situations are entirely comparable.
"If you don't believe this, then there's no point in discussing it" - that's exactly the attitude that perpetuates the violence.
Ok, well then give me the magic bullet. AQ is active worldwide. Meet their demands....ready....GO!Scorpion0x17 wrote:
"If you don't believe this, then there's no point in discussing it" - that's exactly the attitude that perpetuates the violence.
I've already told you. Hell, AQ have even told you.Pug wrote:
Ok, well then give me the magic bullet. AQ is active worldwide. Meet their demands....ready....GO!Scorpion0x17 wrote:
"If you don't believe this, then there's no point in discussing it" - that's exactly the attitude that perpetuates the violence.
Clearly I need to spell it out, right, here goes, follow along with me:
S I T
D O W N
A N D
T A L K
Uh... talking with Hamas and Israel is something we're already doing.
We're not exactly going to have anything resembling a conversation with Al Quida.
We're not exactly going to have anything resembling a conversation with Al Quida.
As far as you know you haven't told me about Indonesia, Africa or the other 20 or so countries they are involved in. Maybe we should give them a seat on the UN.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've already told you. Hell, AQ have even told you.Pug wrote:
Ok, well then give me the magic bullet. AQ is active worldwide. Meet their demands....ready....GO!Scorpion0x17 wrote:
"If you don't believe this, then there's no point in discussing it" - that's exactly the attitude that perpetuates the violence.
Clearly I need to spell it out, right, here goes, follow along with me:
S I T
D O W N
A N D
T A L K
Just want to make sure of the magnitude of what you are proposing.
Hey, I told you up front we weren't going to agree.
Why? They've said they will talk.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... talking with Hamas and Israel is something we're already doing.
We're not exactly going to have anything resembling a conversation with Al Quida.
I've told you why.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why? They've said they will talk.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... talking with Hamas and Israel is something we're already doing.
We're not exactly going to have anything resembling a conversation with Al Quida.
Maybe.Pug wrote:
As far as you know you haven't told me about Indonesia, Africa or the other 20 or so countries they are involved in. Maybe we should give them a seat on the UN.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've already told you. Hell, AQ have even told you.Pug wrote:
Ok, well then give me the magic bullet. AQ is active worldwide. Meet their demands....ready....GO!
Clearly I need to spell it out, right, here goes, follow along with me:
S I T
D O W N
A N D
T A L K
Just want to make sure of the magnitude of what you are proposing.
Hey, I told you up front we weren't going to agree.
Would that not be better than having more innocent lives lost?
Their version of a conversation involves IEDs, bullets, and shoulder fired rockets. That doesn't leave too many options.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why? They've said they will talk.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... talking with Hamas and Israel is something we're already doing.
We're not exactly going to have anything resembling a conversation with Al Quida.
Besides... can you realistically expect ANY country to enter talks with a group that did something like 9/11?
Sure, we've talked with Al Sadr and his nutjobs, but that's only because we absolutely had to. Al Quida is on an entirely different level of insanity. No talking is going to happen with them.
No you haven't.Pug wrote:
I've told you why.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why? They've said they will talk.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... talking with Hamas and Israel is something we're already doing.
We're not exactly going to have anything resembling a conversation with Al Quida.
You understand we aren't that far off. I'm saying the negotiations need to happen between the US and the governments in the region, so that then AQ can have pressure from all sides.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Maybe.
Would that not be better than having more innocent lives lost?
The IRA killed a higher proportion of the British population than AQ killed of the US population on 9/11.Turquoise wrote:
Their version of a conversation involves IEDs, bullets, and shoulder fired rockets. That doesn't leave too many options.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why? They've said they will talk.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... talking with Hamas and Israel is something we're already doing.
We're not exactly going to have anything resembling a conversation with Al Quida.
Besides... can you realistically expect ANY country to enter talks with a group that did something like 9/11?
Sure, we've talked with Al Sadr and his nutjobs, but that's only because we absolutely had to. Al Quida is on an entirely different level of insanity. No talking is going to happen with them.
You have to put these things in the past and do what is right for the future.
Perpetuating the violence is not what is right for the future.
As far as you know you haven't told me about Indonesia, Africa or the other 20 or so countries they are involved in. Maybe we should give them a seat on the UN.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No you haven't.Pug wrote:
I've told you why.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why? They've said they will talk.
Just want to make sure of the magnitude of what you are proposing.
Live footage of U.S. diplomats and A.Q. operatives discussing peace.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No you haven't.Pug wrote:
I've told you why.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why? They've said they will talk.
Now you're just repeating yourself.Pug wrote:
As far as you know you haven't told me about Indonesia, Africa or the other 20 or so countries they are involved in. Maybe we should give them a seat on the UN.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No you haven't.Pug wrote:
I've told you why.
Just want to make sure of the magnitude of what you are proposing.
As I said last time:
Maybe.
Would that not be better than having more innocent lives lost?
For sure, but that's why we negotiate with governments, not terror groups. The only reason it worked in Northern Ireland is because the Irish weren't totally insane.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The IRA killed a higher proportion of the British population than AQ killed of the US population on 9/11.Turquoise wrote:
Their version of a conversation involves IEDs, bullets, and shoulder fired rockets. That doesn't leave too many options.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why? They've said they will talk.
Besides... can you realistically expect ANY country to enter talks with a group that did something like 9/11?
Sure, we've talked with Al Sadr and his nutjobs, but that's only because we absolutely had to. Al Quida is on an entirely different level of insanity. No talking is going to happen with them.
You have to put these things in the past and do what is right for the future.
Perpetuating the violence is not what is right for the future.
You gotta understand that AQ has no real interest in a peace that exists with non-Muslims. Their idea of peace is making all of the world Muslim.
This is why, instead, we negotiate with various groups that help us kill AQ.
Yay, patronising and at the same time, takes the simpletons "high road"Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've already told you. Hell, AQ have even told you.Pug wrote:
Ok, well then give me the magic bullet. AQ is active worldwide. Meet their demands....ready....GO!Scorpion0x17 wrote:
"If you don't believe this, then there's no point in discussing it" - that's exactly the attitude that perpetuates the violence.
Clearly I need to spell it out, right, here goes, follow along with me:
S I T
D O W N
A N D
T A L K
You get to ignore the actual question, and seem like the peace loving, sensible type who everyone loves.
Fine
But
So how do you deal with the uh, wahabbists and radical islamists who as part of their demands (since we are carefully LISTENING to what they say) would insist on a draconian interpretation of the faith...which really does not allow for much negotiation regarding the dominance of Islam, and, not much room for dialogue when it comes to "infidels"
I'm talking about the Radical elements, not all muslims