should "western" governments negotiate with terrorists?

[Supafly]

I think you need to get those emotions out of the arguments.

Does fighting work out, if you look at numbers? Like, does it change the situation effectively?

If there are experiences with negotiating and if they show statisticly better results - wouldn't you say that after all, the most effewctive strategy should be gone for?

And, again: Did the activities of governments which go against terrorists stand up when looked upon in daylight?

The USA sold waepons to Saddam and the Mujahideen and lent a massive hand to them. To let them do basically terrorist actions against the enemies of the USA, still terrorist. Sire enough, it was called reedom fighting back then, always a very point of view issue.

Then the USA did not find them useful, they shed them off.

And suddenly, they are terrorists.

Hypocrisis doesn't really help, better try to solve these problems on a rational level.

 

[JayJohn85]

I think the problem is that when the word terrorist is mentioned American's in general only think of Islamic terrorists. There are plenty all over the world that the west has to deal with, like ETA, like the IRA - who some Americans actually supported, even financially! Are these the same Americans now saying we should never negotiate with terrorists?!? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So we should attempt to stop terrorism by looking at the causes of it, trying to address it with some sort of attempted dialogue with them not just shooting them. It may be necessary to use violence but if that's the only tactic, well it will never stop terrorism.

The UVF, UDA and co obviously arent terrorist groups. Nor where they ever quietly armed or supported by the british government If your gonna spout of about the IRA at least include the full argument. And no I aint a supporter of them or dissidents but I dont like double standards.

Also where I would draw comparisons is not the freedom fighter argument as its old no I would draw my comparisons in that every group you mentioned there is not trying to export there ideology to a global scale. The north of this island isnt some small isolated island its actually god forbid part of the larger land mass of Ireland.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

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, killing (among others) 270 American and British passengers. Those don't sound like the acts of a man living in silent submission.

Well Bodie, you provided a lot of good evidence to support your points. There isn't much I can say except that I stand corrected on a lot of them.

About the only thing I will disagree with you on is Warren Christopher. I find it hard to believe that the election of "a tough talking ex-actor with no foreigh policy experience" wouldn't have worried the Iranians. Detractors used to accuse Reagan of being a reckless cowboy with his finger on the red button. If you ask me, that's exactly the type of guy you have to worry about, because you can't count on his backing down.

What you said about the timing of the Iraqi invasion of Iran does make sense, but I still believe the strength Reagan projected had to have an effect as well.

Furthermore, I don't think anyone can argue that Jimmy Carter was much good in dealing with them when you consider how long they were held under his watch.

Anyway, you're a good guy Bodie, and you made some excellent points. You deserve to be given credit for that, and when someone points out my mistakes, I try to be man enough to admit it. Excellent post my friend. :thumbsup:

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

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.

You're "technically" correct in that it was an act endorsed by the Iranian government, but the act was still carried out, by a group of islamic extremists in the name of Allah.

If a government endorses such an act, I would then consider it an act of war. Just because they call themselves a "country" doesn't mean they are any more civilized than their terrorist brothers.

 

[Johan]

5 years ago i would have answer "Hell, no !"
BUT, Irak is a disaster. Afghanistan seemed to be a victory but in fact the country was never freed from the Talibans and today, they are coming back very strong.

I prefer negiocating for peace with terrorists rather than an endless war against them, resulting into hundreds of civilians and military victims.

 

[Jagger69]

You're "technically" correct in that it was an act endorsed by the Iranian government, but the act was still carried out, by a group of islamic extremists in the name of Allah.

If a government endorses such an act, I would then consider it an act of war. Just because they call themselves a "country" doesn't mean they are any more civilized than their terrorist brothers.

My point is that is becomes a lot more dicey to address issues with sovereign nations from a diplomatic standpoint, no matter how extreme they might be, as compared to dealing with terrorist organizations. Iran is a member of the UN and its government is recognized by hundreds of nations, including ours. Al Qaeda is not and hence the difference.

 

[Facetious]

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, killing (among others) 270 American and British passengers. Those don't sound like the acts of a man living in silent submission.

Should western governments neg w/ terrorist though ?

Opine ?

 

[tiger1977]

By negotiate you mean insert pieces of lead into their brains at a very high velocity, then YES, by all means, negotiate with them.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

My point is that is becomes a lot more dicey to address issues with sovereign nations from a diplomatic standpoint, no matter how extreme they might be, as compared to dealing with terrorist organizations. Iran is a member of the UN and its government is recognized by hundreds of nations, including ours. Al Qaeda is not and hence the difference.

I can understand what you're saying Jagger69, but when they are committing acts like that, does it really need to be all that dicey? I mean, wouldn't we have a ton of support from most other UN nations in a situation like that?

I know what you meant, but it just seems like we should be able to treat nations like that almost like we do terrorist groups - at least until they shape up and start acting peacefully like the rest of the UN nations.

 

[tjones80]

That's why I love comming here. You never know what of thread is out there. From shemales to terrorist...football to quantum physics, its all here.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

5 years ago i would have answer "Hell, no !"
BUT, Irak is a disaster. Afghanistan seemed to be a victory but in fact the country was never freed from the Talibans and today, they are coming back very strong.

I prefer negiocating for peace with terrorists rather than an endless war against them, resulting into hundreds of civilians and military victims.

The problem is, terrorists are not reasonable people. It's pretty difficult to negotiate with people who are not rational. They think you are "the great Satan". They think you are an evil infidel, and if they die in a holy war against someone like you, they will instantly be transported to heaven where 72 virgins will be waiting for them. :dunno:

 

[marquis2]

The problem is, terrorists are not reasonable people. It's pretty difficult to negotiate with people who are not rational. They think you are "the great Satan". They think you are an evil infidel, and if they die in a holy war against someone like you, they will instantly be transported to heaven where 72 virgins will be waiting for them. :dunno:

The martyrs in a way are only the visible part of the problem.It's those who instruct , manipulate and finance them who are the real problem and who are also people it's possible to negotiate with.These are educated usually middle class people living comfortably who are using the weapons available to them.

 

[CunningStunts]

Of course they should! After all, many western governments are guilty of committing terrorism too since both parties already know how to speak and understand the same terrorist language very well

Another classic HR... If you think it's so bad here, I suggest you visit some places in the world that under Shaira Law. You Might just change your mind.