Printable View
Wow Tribesman. A triple post. How did you manage that? Might as well delete 2 of 'em, eh?
And re: your response: How is that Rubbish? What negotiations took place over Nick Burg and every poor example after that?
Seriously man. We cant negotiate with 'em. We gotta blast all these suckas and you knows it baby.
to go a slightly off-topic the Democrats are saying "there were no wepons of mass destruction in Iraq" right?
WRONG
you can make a Molotov Cocktail a weapon of mass destruction if you put it in the right place, it can burn down an entire city, and all you need to make one can be found at a Gas station:
Paper towels- Easily found for car maintenance
Gasoline- the whole point of the gas station
Glass Bottles- found in the drinks section
Cig Lighter- for those smokers out there
if you put it in the right place it can start a cain reaction and burn down an entire city
I dont get it. Why are we diverting from a perfectly good topic?
:focus: :whip:
How is that Rubbish? What negotiations took place over Nick Burg and every poor example after that?
What a wierd example to use Divinus , but OK , leaving aside the claims by your government over that individual that have been shown to be false from its own paperwork , negotiations . hmmmm.......we are executing this person as retaliation for the prisoner abuse .......no demands , no leeway , no room for negotiations was there ?
As for other examples , the details of any negotiations will only come to light when they are either leaked , admitted by those involved , or are declassified after many years . That is always the way it works .
Seriously man. We cant negotiate with 'em. We gotta blast all these suckas and you knows it baby.
Negotiate with whom?
Here , you may have read this three times already , but let me remind you anyway:oops: :laugh4:
Can we negotiate with Al-Qaida ? nah **** em .
Can we negotiate with all the various so called "al-qaida linked" groups ? yes possibly , depending on how crazy they are .
So your use of the word all is wrong , you can and do negotiate with terrorists . The problem is to sort out those that you can negotiate with from those which you cannot .
Which then leads to the problem of finding and killing those that you cannot negotiate with .
Therefore the opening statement We will not negotiate with terrorists
is not just empty rhetoric and public bravado , it is patently false .
Exactly. The "we do not negotiate with terrorists" seems to confuse negotiation with appeasement. Negotiating with terrorists will not encourage others. Indeed by talking to them you will gain a greater understanding of their strengths, weaknesses and motivations. You may be able to divide and overcome them. Appeasing terrorists will encourage others, and therefore, should be avoided.Quote:
This is a bit harsh, so I'm willing to support the "we'll talk, but there will be no concessions" approach.
Question: are we sure of what is meant by the statement 'We will not negotiate with terrorists' ?
It seems many responses indicate an opinion that communication is okay, but concessions to terrorist violence are not.
Perhaps this is what is intended by the statement in the first place? Do we have any definite confirmation that zero communication is the intended meaning of 'no negotiation'?
Ajax
Yes. We're talking about the Bush Administration, here. He's a "war president", not a "communication president".Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Seriousness aside, what is the point of communication if no negotiations or compromise is possible?
We don’t negotiate with terrorist until they are no more terrorists: Recent example: the KLA, Kosovo Liberation Army, Serbia and Montenegro. Less recent examples: Haganah, Irgoun, Israel, FLN in Algeria, ehr, do you want more? (Vietminh, Vietcong, PLO etc).
This transformation from terrorists to honourable but unfriendly diplomat can be either: they won the war, they are a good tool for some good foreign policy, there is no other solution…
Statements about not negotiating with terrorists, or even waging a war on them, are ambiguous at best when it's never even totally clear what exactly a terrorist is, or what the line is between a terrorist or a freedom fighter.
the US had no problem running up the truce flag and talking to the Iraqi "insurgents/terrorists" last summer.
I don't think so Divinus. Terrorism is occasioned by an original cause, that still exists (like for example looking for independence) and as long as this root exists you'll have terrorism. If you accede to their demands it will not exactly encourage terrorism it will only sustain the status quo. As I see it the only occasion in wich that logic might work out is when the terrorists in question only do terrorism for money, a la mercenary, or when they do it for simple pleasure wich is rather improbable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I think that negotiation is unavoidable, both, before the terroist group is destroyed, and after (if destroyed). The expression "we will not negotiate with terrorists" might sound brave and attract the public attention, but it really is foolish and futile.
I dont really think negotiate is the right word. You woll always have to do that. I think the policy is more along the lines of No appeasement.Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
weapon of mass destructionQuote:
you can make a Molotov Cocktail a weapon of mass destruction if you put it in the right place, it can burn down an entire city, and all you need to make one can be found at a Gas station:
dictionary.comQuote:
n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)
WikipediaQuote:
Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq.
WMDs as they are refered to in this context mean nuclear, biological, radiological, and chemical weapons. Besides, I'd like to see you burn a city down with molotov cocktails, the logistics are next to impossible.
Back to the topic at hand:
Colombian Militants Disarm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC