should "western" governments negotiate with terrorists?

[om3ga]

The Agreement – also known as the Belfast Agreement (Irish: Comhaontú Bhéal Feirste) or the Good Friday Agreement (Irish: Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta), and occasionally as the Stormont Agreement – was a major political development in the Northern Ireland peace process. It was signed in Belfast on 10 April 1998 (Good Friday) by the British and Irish governments and endorsed by most Northern Ireland political parties. On 23 May 1998 the Agreement was endorsed by the voters of Northern Ireland in a referendum. On the same day, voters in the Republic voted separately to change their constitution in line with the Agreement. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was the only large party that opposed the Agreement. The Agreement came into ***** on 2 December 1999

The Good Friday Agreement didn't just appear out of thin air...

 

[D-rock]

I don't care if we have communication with them, but you never negotiate with terrorist. If you do they will have all the more reason to continue their terrorism because it then becomes a strategy that will give them results. If they get something why should they stop? Why would they do anything else the next time they are unhappy about something if terrorism worked for them? The only negotiating we should do should be in the form of ultimatums we make.

 

[maildude]

It won't do any good.

 

[georges]

Criminals like shoplifters?
Criminals like speeding motorists?

What a laughably simplistic point of view that will only perpetuate ******** on both sides & never lead to any resolution. We have to attempt a dialogue with those that decide to use terrorism. It may not work & conflict may be the only final option but we have to try surely? Despite recent events it has worked in Northern Ireland.

Criminals like serial killers, gang members, serial rapists, cannibals, sociapaths, pyschopaths and kamikazis must be ******. Speeding motorists can be ticketed and shoplifters can be fined so that is not the point I was talking about.

 

[mrtrebus]

Criminals like serial killers, gang members, serial rapists, cannibals, sociapaths, pyschopaths and kamikazis must be ******. Speeding motorists can be ticketed and shoplifters can be fined so that is not the point I was talking about.

Well then you need to specify rather than make these broad generalisations. I still disagree with you.

More importantly not sure that suicidal world war 2 Japanese fighter pilots are still around though, or that what they did/do(?) was/is(?) deemed a criminal act in the eyes of the law. & how can you **** a Kamikaze anyway? Bring them back to life & **** them again! :tongue:

 

[ed007]

Criminals like serial killers, gang members, serial rapists, cannibals, sociapaths, pyschopaths and kamikazis must be ******. Speeding motorists can be ticketed and shoplifters can be fined so that is not the point I was talking about.

gang members should be ******? :violent:
are you sure?

if a member of your ****** joined a gang they should be ******? :violent:
are you sure?

this doesn't make sense to me. :crash:

 

[Jagger69]

No. To do so legitimizes their existence and, since terrorist organizations are nothing but outlaws, they should be treated as such. They need to be ignored in any diplomatic process and systematically wiped out whenever encountered....much as one would **** a cockroach.

There's no place in the oak-paneled conference room for those who so wantonly **** innocents in an effort to promote their own extreme ideologies without. Destroy them with extreme prejudice whenever possible and NEVER negotiate with them.

 

[ed007]

^^ thanks for your comments, Jagger69.
i think i understand your point but surely the truth is sadly governments have to negotiate with "some" of these people.

western governments always have and sometimes when it suits them they even use these "so called terrorist organisations" to achieve their own objectives.

 

[CunningStunts]

No. To do so legitimizes their existence and, since terrorist organizations are nothing but outlaws, they should be treated as such. They need to be ignored in any diplomatic process and systematically wiped out whenever encountered....much as one would **** a cockroach.

There's no place in the oak-paneled conference room for those who so wantonly **** innocents in an effort to promote their own extreme ideologies without. Destroy them with extreme prejudice whenever possible and NEVER negotiate with them.

Well said, agree.:thumbsup:

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

NEVER.

Just look at Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis. 50 Americans were held hostage in Iran, and Jimmy Carter did nothing but wring his hands and try to negotiate with those losers. He did have an attempt at a rescue that was a complete failure. Jimmy Carter was a weak panty waist who had no idea how to deal with those rag headed, foul smelling losers.

As a result, the 50 Americans remained captive for the last 444 days of the Carter Administration.

Fortunately, America then elected a man who really knew how to deal with the lovely muslim "holy" men. Ronald Reagan made it very clear that when he came to power that the sheet heads responsible would be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

What happened? The hostages were on an airplane home within 45 minutes after President Reagan was inagurated.

Of course, the press tried to spin the whole thing with headlines like "Jimmy Carter's heroic effort in his last minutes as president..." What a joke!!

Reagan also showed Mohmar Qadafi that he wouldn't put up with his garbage either. He bombed Qadafi's compound, and nobody in the US heard much from him at all until not just after Reagan was out of power, but until Reagan ****** away.

That's how you deal with terrorists.

444 days or 45 minutes? It seems pretty clear to me which policy works best when dealing with muslim extremists. Just ask yourself: WWRD = What Would Ronnie Do?

 

[bodie54]

Fortunately, America then elected a man who really knew how to deal with the lovely muslim "holy" men. Ronald Reagan made it very clear that when he came to power that the sheet heads responsible would be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

The "sheet heads" were so intimidated they proceeded to bomb the US Embassy in Beirut in April of 83. Then for good measure they bombed a marine barracks in September in the same city. 241 U.S. servicemen died. Then in '85 the PLO showed how much they feared Reagan by highjacking the Achille Lauro. Still in terrible fear of Ronnie, more "sheet heads" bombed a Berlin disco frequented by US servicemen in Berlin in 1986. Then while trembling with fear they plotted the Lockerbie bombing in '88 - more on that below.

What happened? The hostages were on an airplane home within 45 minutes after President Reagan was inagurated. Of course, the press tried to spin the whole thing with headlines like "Jimmy Carter's heroic effort in his last minutes as president..." What a joke!!

Reagan had nothing to do with negotiating the Algiers Accords that ended the crisis. The Chief U.S. Negotiator was Carter's Deputy Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. The Shah died in July of 80. Iraq invaded Iran in September, so the Iranians had good reason to be more open to negotiations (which concluded while Carter was still in office) and a hell of a lot more to worry about than a tough talking ex-actor with no foreign policy experience.

The joke is the uncritical fawning over Reagan - the selective memory about how safe we supposedly were from terrorism during his administration, when in fact there were multiple terrorist acts against Americans.

Reagan also showed Mohmar Qadafi that he wouldn't put up with his garbage either. He bombed Qadafi's compound, and nobody in the US heard much from him at all until not just after Reagan was out of power, but until Reagan ****** away.

Really? Reagan bombed Libya in April of '86. In response Gaddafi sponsored the highjacking of a Pan Am flight in Pakistan in September. Then in December of '88, while Reagan was still president, Gadaffi sent agents to blow up Pan Am 103, ******* (among others) 270 American and British passengers. Those don't sound like the acts of a man living in silent **********.

 

[ed007]

^^ bodie54, i solute you. i couldn't have said it better.

 

[Jagger69]

NEVER.

Just look at Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis. 50 Americans were held hostage in Iran, and Jimmy Carter did nothing but wring his hands and try to negotiate with those losers. He did have an attempt at a rescue that was a complete failure. Jimmy Carter was a weak panty waist who had no idea how to deal with those rag headed, foul smelling losers.

As a result, the 50 Americans remained captive for the last 444 days of the Carter Administration.

Fortunately, America then elected a man who really knew how to deal with the lovely muslim "holy" men. Ronald Reagan made it very clear that when he came to power that the sheet heads responsible would be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

What happened? The hostages were on an airplane home within 45 minutes after President Reagan was inagurated.

Of course, the press tried to spin the whole thing with headlines like "Jimmy Carter's heroic effort in his last minutes as president..." What a joke!!

Reagan also showed Mohmar Qadafi that he wouldn't put up with his garbage either. He bombed Qadafi's compound, and nobody in the US heard much from him at all until not just after Reagan was out of power, but until Reagan ****** away.

That's how you deal with terrorists.

444 days or 45 minutes? It seems pretty clear to me which policy works best when dealing with muslim extremists. Just ask yourself: WWRD = What Would Ronnie Do?

100% wrong. Iran is (and was at the time of the Islamic revolution that swept Pahlavi from power) a sovereign nation so it was not simply a matter of dealing with terrorists. The Iranian government endorsed the action so, from an internal standpoint, it was in no way a "terrorist" act. Big difference.

The "sheet heads" were so intimidated they proceeded to bomb the US Embassy in Beirut in April of 83. Then for good measure they bombed a marine barracks in September in the same city. 241 U.S. servicemen died. Then in '85 the PLO showed how much they feared Reagan by highjacking the Achille Lauro. Still in terrible fear of Ronnie, more "sheet heads" bombed a Berlin disco frequented by US servicemen in Berlin in 1986. Then while trembling with fear they plotted the Lockerbie bombing in '88 - more on that below.



Reagan had nothing to do with negotiating the Algiers Accords that ended the crisis. The Chief U.S. Negotiator was Carter's Deputy Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. The Shah died in July of 80. Iraq invaded Iran in September, so the Iranians had good reason to be more open to negotiations (which concluded while Carter was still in office) and a hell of a lot more to worry about than a tough talking ex-actor with no foreign policy experience.

The joke is the uncritical fawning over Reagan - the selective memory about how safe we supposedly were from terrorism during his administration, when in fact there were multiple terrorist acts against Americans.



Really? Reagan bombed Libya in April of '86. In response Gaddafi sponsored the highjacking of a Pan Am flight in Pakistan in September. Then in December of '88, while Reagan was still president, Gadaffi sent agents to blow up Pan Am 103, ******* (among others) 270 American and British passengers. Those don't sound like the acts of a man living in silent **********.

Yes! :thumbsup:

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Of course not. These people are not above blowing baby carriages up just to wipe out a few they ****. They strap bombs on themselves both ******** and adults. They car bomb. They mercilessly ******, ****, *******, and destroy anything in their path. HOw do you honestly try and talk sense into them?

Even if we did appease them who is to say they won't come back and demand more?

They need to be wiped out. They are a cancer on this planet and will continue ******* unless we get serious about truly ending them and putting a complete stop to them. I mean, they been in national headlines since the 1970s. It's time to buckle down and do some serious cleansing.

 

[emceeemcee]

What are we defining terrorists when we say 'these people'?

If what we is AQ and the taleban then the question would suggest that we in the west have bargaining power left to negotiate with. We don't.

The recent annoucement that a bribe will be paid to the taliban says to me that the western armies in Afghanistan are pretty close to defeat. We've lost militarily and there is no way taxpayers are going to want to keep footing the bill for a lost cause -It's not like AQ and the Taliban aren't aware of this so why on earth would they cut a deal with us? They just have to wait a bit longer and we'll either be out of there due to total military defeat or from political pressure back home. They hold all of the cards, we hold fuck all.

They'll take the bribe money and sign the agreement. We'll leave, prop up the Karzai regime until its dying days and the Taliban be back in power and reneg on anything they signed up to and there won't be damn thing we can do about, aside from lob bombs at them from far away.

We've tried the 'never negotiate with terrorists' bollocks for a while now. It gets the testosterone flowing and helps jingoistic policitians get elected but that about all it's achieved (unless you count record high military suicide rates, absurdly expensive wars that turn once friendly populations against us, an achievement) Maybe it's time to stop thinking we have the capability to achieve a glorious military victory over terrorism® and start to examine our own fucked up foreign policies

The only way to stop AQ is not to negotiate with them but to submit to their key demands (House of Saud, Israel, our troops in Muslim countries etc). I don't have any problems doing any of those things, especially as most of them are in contravention with our own laws and values.

Anyone who argues we shouldn't reassess those things and we should continue to opt for only a military and *************** solution is dooming us to being bombed and terrorized forever.


oh and whimzy who is that girl in your avatar please matey?

 

[Doc Scurlock]

I watched The Delta ***** starring Chuck Norris yesterday. We need Chuck to "negotiate" with these terrorists as he gets **** done. Him and his rocket firing motorcycle would have the Middle East cleaned up in a week or two depending if he takes a break or not.

 

[Jagger69]

^
Or Jack Bauer.

 

[domshooter]

the only true way for the western powers to take care of the terrorist problem is to bring back tactics of previous wars.

did we not firebomb 72% of germany and japan to push their infrastructures to the breaking point?

or bomb the holy living **** out of North Vietnam with Operation Linebacker II, dropping well over 50,000 tonnes or bombs in 1972?

the west has for some reason lost its willingness to play rough in the last 40 years, mainly due to the Vietnam era of adults. without that willingness, we will never win this war, period. the US especially(in my view) has to bring back playing rough, stop looking at itself like a cop and more like a warrior. something has to happen for our countries to see what im talking about. its not gonna be pretty, its goiing to be a horrible event, worse than 9/11. im not saying i WANT this to happen, but it is necessary for us to see the light.

but hey, thats just my :2 cents:

 

[domshooter]

the only true way for the western powers to take care of the terrorist problem is to bring back tactics of previous wars.

did we not firebomb 72% of germany and japan to push their infrastructures to the breaking point?

or bomb the holy living **** out of North Vietnam with Operation Linebacker II, dropping well over 50,000 tonnes or bombs in 1972?

the west has for some reason lost its willingness to play rough in the last 40 years, mainly due to the Vietnam era of adults. without that willingness, we will never win this war, period. the US especially(in my view) has to bring back playing rough, stop looking at itself like a cop and more like a warrior. something has to happen for our countries to see what im talking about. its not gonna be pretty, its goiing to be a horrible event, worse than 9/11. im not saying i WANT this to happen, but it is necessary for us to see the light.

but hey, thats just my :2 cents:

in hind sight, i should have said something is GOING to happen, not HAS to happen. bad choice of words

 

[marquis2]

The problem is asymmetric *****.Terrorism is the tactic of the weak and the problem is that it isn't amenable to defeat by military means.America is a powerful country but all the arms it possesses can't be brought to bear on the enemy directly.Dealing with Germany and Japan was much more straightforward-anything which hurt them helped win the war.But we don't even know who the enemy is in a terrorist ******.People who have lived on good terms in a local community start planting bombs.They don't wear uniform and you can't recognise them.When you meet them they seem pleasant and reasonable people.