should "western" governments negotiate with terrorists?

[ed007]

i’m asking this question after the Afgan summit that was held in London yesterday where the Afgan government was urged to negotiate with known Taliban fighters that i believe western governments call terrorists. however, they say this offer is only available to non-extremist Taliban fighters who could renounce violence. how do you identify a non-extremist Taliban fighter from the extremist type?

to illustrate this point only a few weeks ago an Ex-Jordanian militant had agreed to help the CIA find al-Qaida chief before turning against US spy agency and killing eight people including seven CIA employees.

“we don’t negotiate with terrorists.” that’s what our governments always keep telling us.

my view, in general, is we should try to negotiate with people that are willing to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people to bring attention to their “issue”. it is clearly far too late to negotiate with Osama Bin Laden but i think western governments should have tried to negotiate with him many many years before 9/11. around the time i believe members of George W. Bush’s administration were supporting Bin Laden when the Afghans were fighting the Soviets. History says nobody has managed to defeat the Afgans. am i wrong about this? i’m sure those here who know more about these things will supply more details.

better to do all you can to resolve a problem early than wait until after a 9/11 type scenario.

sometimes it seems to me western governments can't make up their mind who or what idea to get into bed with:

politicians tell us we shouldn’t take illegal drugs but i’m sure many of the top officials in government take the best illegal drugs money can buy.

politicians tell us to pay our taxes on time but they pull every dirty trick in the book and then some to get out of paying their taxes.

and one more important point to take into account before you answer it’s your brothers, sisters or children that these politicians send to fight a war legal or illegal. their children will not be going anywhere near the battlefield. i’m pretty sure of that. i’ll only consider picking up a gun to fight alongside the children of the prime minister and the cabinet of England but only if i believe the war is legitimate and worth fighting.

today Tony Blair gave evidence at the Iraq Inquiry. No apology. No surprise.

the funny thing is some nations around the world would say many western leaders/politicians are terrorists. one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. :dunno:

so what’s your opinion, should western governments negotiate with terrorists?

 

[jod0565]

Should “western” governments negotiate with terrorists?


No!

 

[GregCentauro]

Why not? Karzai was in London this week to give Gordon some bitching advice on how to win a hopeless election.

As long as we don't converse with the Tory Talebans .... aka Blue Rinse Brigade, Essex Division

 

[jdb67]

Ummm.... No!

 

[BlueBalls]

I'm sure many probably have in the past and will do in the future.

The "we do not negotiate with terrorists" line is always good PR, but it's just not applicable in the modern world.

 

[Facetious]

Never make concessions with those who insist on imposing their 7th century women oppressing despotic religious extremism upon the western world !

Hellz NO ! Progressives shouldn't regress !!

 

[Sicario]

Hey this is a fucking crazy idea . . . why don't we enlist extreme Christian Pro-Western Democracy suicide bombers [who are willing to die for GOD] and have them blow themselves up in the streets of the Muslim world? How would the Muslim Jihads handle this mind fuck?

 

[Friday on my mind]

Should the the IRA been negotiated with,should the west have talked to communist russia and china?

Of course they should have and thats an opinion from a decendant of protestant northern Irish who think the catholic south is a bunch of backward religious narrow minded types.If you only talk to those who agree with you nothing really ever gets resolved.

 

[Doc Scurlock]

Hey this is a fucking crazy idea . . . why don't we enlist extreme Christian Pro-Western Democracy suicide bombers [who are willing to die for GOD] and have them blow themselves up in the streets of the Muslim world? How would the Muslim Jihads handle this mind fuck?

Actually, I've thought about this except I don't think you'd get any Westerner to blow themselves up, I do think you could get several that would have no problems building bombs and blowing shit up sort of what the IRA did. You do that in their home turf and see how they like it and by home turf I don't mean Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm talking Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Like you said, that would be a mind fuck.

 

[meesterperfect]

i say yes, meet with them, exchange words, why not.
just make sure they are thoroughly searched at the door.
"ok habeeb now I'm gonna have to frisk you now turn around".
"ok he's clean, ive frisked a thousand young punks".
And if they say they have to go to the bathroom during the meeting
better send Lou in there with him.

 

[marquis2]

The only way to bring an end to any conflict is through dialogue and eventual agreement.

 

[tartanterrier]

No way!! Kill the fuckers :ak47:

We have to stop the unemployment rate rising somehow

 

[georges]

no, kill them, terrorists like criminals never deserve second chances.

 

[turtle825]

No.

 

[No_Man]

My gut tells me no. However, I can't help remembering how many times the U.S. has engaged in terrorism through our own history. I mean, throughout virtually the entire Cold War we were either blowing shit up ourselves, or handing weapons to men we now call terrorists so that they could blow shit up for us. And through it all, we still expected the world to negotiate with us. So, honestly, if a terrorist organization asked to negotiate with us and made a good faith effort to demonstrate trustworthiness and peaceful goals, I'd have to say yes, we should give it a shot.

 

[titsrock]

Yes, of course we should DIALOGUE openly with people--Friends AND enemies alike.

Dialogue is merely communication. Negotiation is something else. It's amazing how the Tough-Talkin' Western Cowboys (err NeoCons and Conservatives) think Negotiation ALWAYS means Surrender or Appeasement. Negotiation can also mean success or an agreement to walk away without any conclusion.

We should never be afraid to talk to anyone.

 

[ed007]

thanks for your replies. :glugglug:

however, for those that don't agree it would be very interesting to
know why. no! is a straight to the point answer but more details
would be very welcome. :2 cents:

where's Will E Worm when you need him.

 

[Supafly]

Well if you look at what western states do through their agencies etc, they are on a level with those Taliban.

So why not negotiate?

 

[Red Spyder]

No, but we should facilitate their meeting with Allah.

 

[mrtrebus]

no, kill them, terrorists like criminals never deserve second chances.

Criminals like shoplifters?
Criminals like speeding motorists?

What a laughably simplistic point of view that will only perpetuate violence 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.