BF2S Forums Can You Handle The Truth

Imortal nailed it.

Scorpion, normally, I side with diplomacy, but I'd rather be working things out with other groups to help us kill AQ than actually negotiating with AQ itself.

Let me put it differently then...  If you had the option of killing off a murderous extremist group with the help of a lot of other groups, would you still opt for negotiating with the extremists if doing so really doesn't further your interests in any way?

Negotiating with a group like AQ sets a bad precedent because it opens the door for other people to act in extreme ways to get what they want.

While I agree that AQ will likely exist for quite some time, I think keeping them on the fringes of society is a good thing.  We don't want to legitimize radicalism.  We must simply maintain sound security protocols.

If the vast majority of the world can be turned against AQ effectively, then extremism will largely be ineffective.

A certain amount of death and violence is inevitable.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-07 20:45:14)

You may personally feel that way, but the extremists who disagree with you are quite content to demonstrate their difference of opinion.

"Keep calm and carry on" makes a lot more sense to me than "negotiate with the enemy."

Negotiating with a group like AQ sets a bad precedent because it opens the door for other people to act in extreme ways to get what they want.


Agreed

Scorpion, I think your heart is in the right place,  and I agree negotiating is preferable in most circumstances but this case is different

AQ is only going to be brought down by using a variety of  methods, undermining their popularity, dividing them, getting moderates to turn on them, and yeah, probably some violence.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Imortal nailed it.

Scorpion, normally, I side with diplomacy, but I'd rather be working things out with other groups to help us kill AQ than actually negotiating with AQ itself.

Why?

They're just human beings like everyone else, therefore they can be reasoned with.

It is a grave mistake to assume that anyone can be reasoned with.  There are too many possible differences, attitudes, goals, and preconceptions for negotiations to always work.

Example: Two men are trapped on a desert island.  They know there will be a rescue boat there in a week, but there is only enough fresh water to allow one man to live a week.  If they try to share, both will die.   Man A wants to live.  Man B wants to live.  There are no other variables.  Now, kindly explain how negotiation and reason will help these two come to a reasoned solution.

(yes, it is a simplistic example, and about as subtle as a brick to the side of the head.)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

That's where we disagree - violence is never inevitable - there's always another way.

Okay, you are an idealist (and most likely a young one).  There is nothing wrong with that.  Just try to accept the difference between the way you think the world should run with the way it really and usually does.

Life is not fair.
People do not like to compromise.
Nobody expects to lose.
Violence does, and has, solved problems (just ask the city fathers of Carthage, or the leaders of the Nazi Party.  Or the Romanov Czars)

Last edited by imortal (2008-05-07 22:13:53)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Why?

They're just human beings like everyone else, therefore they can be reasoned with.

It is a grave mistake to assume that anyone can be reasoned with.  There are too many possible differences, attitudes, goals, and preconceptions for negotiations to always work.

Example: Two men are trapped on a desert island.  They know there will be a rescue boat there in a week, but there is only enough fresh water to allow one man to live a week.  If they try to share, both will die.   Man A wants to live.  Man B wants to live.  There are no other variables.  Now, kindly explain how negotiation and reason will help these two come to a reasoned solution.

The reasoned solution is to utilise whatever resources are available to make it possible for both men to survive. They use their brains instead of their brawn.

The most likely outcome of using brawn is that both of them will suffer fatal injuries that, without medical assistance, will kill them before their boat comes in.

That was a pretty wishy-washy, generalized answer to try to avoid coming to an ugly decision.  Even though I made it as simple as possible, you tried to wiggle out of it as best you could.  Are you a politician?

imortal wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

imortal wrote:

It is a grave mistake to assume that anyone can be reasoned with.  There are too many possible differences, attitudes, goals, and preconceptions for negotiations to always work.

Example: Two men are trapped on a desert island.  They know there will be a rescue boat there in a week, but there is only enough fresh water to allow one man to live a week.  If they try to share, both will die.   Man A wants to live.  Man B wants to live.  There are no other variables.  Now, kindly explain how negotiation and reason will help these two come to a reasoned solution.

The reasoned solution is to utilise whatever resources are available to make it possible for both men to survive. They use their brains instead of their brawn.

The most likely outcome of using brawn is that both of them will suffer fatal injuries that, without medical assistance, will kill them before their boat comes in.

That was a pretty wishy-washy, generalized answer to try to avoid coming to an ugly decision.  Even though I made it as simple as possible, you tried to wiggle out of it as best you could.  Are you a politician?

Bullshit, it was what you asked for - a solution that uses reason and negotiation.

What's wrong, does it not fit your pre-conceived ideas of reality?

You're now trying to wriggle out of the fact that I clearly demonstrated that reason wins.

Turquoise wrote:

One thing I probably should've mentioned earlier is that the central flaw in Scorpion's thinking is due to AQ being primarily composed of people whose "great reward" is waiting for them in the next life.  These are people eager to die to get their 72 virgins, so negotiating with them is nigh impossible short of either converting to Islam or sending them to the next life.  Obviously, we've opted for the second choice.

If anything, the terrorists should thank us for helping them to reach their beloved virgins a little earlier than normal.

Again, bullshit, from what I see, AQ is primarily composed of politicians. It is the foot soldiers of AQ that are brain-washed into thinking that there will be great rewards waiting for them in the afterlife.

Negotiate and reach a compromise with the politicians and they will stop recruiting and brainwashing the foot-soldiers.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-05-09 17:27:57)

Turquoise wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing I probably should've mentioned earlier is that the central flaw in Scorpion's thinking is due to AQ being primarily composed of people whose "great reward" is waiting for them in the next life.  These are people eager to die to get their 72 virgins, so negotiating with them is nigh impossible short of either converting to Islam or sending them to the next life.  Obviously, we've opted for the second choice.

If anything, the terrorists should thank us for helping them to reach their beloved virgins a little earlier than normal.

Again, bullshit, from what I see, AQ is primarily composed of politicians. It is the foot soldiers of AQ that are brain-washed into thinking that there will be great rewards waiting for them in the afterlife.

Negotiate and reach a compromise with the politicians and they will stop recruiting and brainwashing the foot-soldiers.

Observe what happened with the Mahdi Army.  Al Sadr began negotiating with us by declaring cease fires on our troops.  What happened?  A lot of their members did actually stop attacking us.  However, fringe groups broke off of the Army that continued attacking us.  Now, Al Sadr's influence in the Mahdi Army is questionable.

The point is this...  When dealing with groups as extreme as the Mahdi Army and Al Quida, there is a high percentage of members that only want to fight.  They have no interest in peace until they are completely dominant over a region.  Al Quida is very much this way.

Negotiation might neutralize some of Al Quida, but fringe groups would inevitably develop, and then we'd be back to square one.

Again, I refer you to Northern Ireland - when negotiations first started several splinter groups formed, who were only interested in continuing the fight, however, as the process continued those splinter groups lost both the political and popular support that they needed to continue existing.

I never said negotiation was a magic bullet, and issues like this will arise, but with persistence and the necessary political will, it is the only way we're ever going to see peace in the Middle East.

Turquoise wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Again, I refer you to Northern Ireland - when negotiations first started several splinter groups formed, who were only interested in continuing the fight, however, as the process continued those splinter groups lost both the political and popular support that they needed to continue existing.

I never said negotiation was a magic bullet, and issues like this will arise, but with persistence and the necessary political will, it is the only way we're ever going to see peace in the Middle East.

Quick question: who do you think more closely resembles AQ?  The Mahdi Army or the IRA?

They all resemble each other - they're all human beings.

Pug wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Quick question: who do you think more closely resembles AQ?  The Mahdi Army or the IRA?

They all resemble each other - they're all human beings.

And if they are, do we therefore trust them automatically?

Should we automatically distrust them?

FEOS wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Pug wrote:

And if they are, do we therefore trust them automatically?

Should we automatically distrust them?

Trust...but verify.

Agreed.