We will not negotiate with terrorists

Lets subject this to some intelligent debate (god help it). What is this statement all about, what is it's reality and purpose. And as a policy is it ever workable?

I put it to the backroom that it's empty rhetoric for three reasons:

1) Practical - Negotiation is inevitable in any contest which cannot be fought out by force alone. It is desireable from a practical political and military standpoint to war with words sometimes. Treaties are the end result of all wars that aren't genocidal colonial.

2) Political - It is merely what the American people want/expect to hear and what the politicians want/expect to say. No one really wants to committ political suicide by going against the ingrained mantra.

3) Philosophical - Because all communication is in effect negotiation. Saying "we will not negotiate" is in itself a type of negotiation. Field agents, politicians and diplomats are continuously talking and negotiating this war on terror at the fringes.

I leave it open to the floor.

WWII was a non-negotiable surrender.

Surrender without prejudice or conditions. It was not negotiable at all.

Quote:

---

1. The German Command agrees to the surrender of all German armed forces in Holland, in northwest Germany including the Frisian Islands and Heligoland and all other islands, in Schleswig-Holstein, and in Denmark, to the C.-in-C. 21 Army Group. This to include all naval ships in these areas. These forces to lay down their arms and to surrender unconditionally.

---

Quote:

---

The White House. May 8, 1945. [5]

Nazi Germany has been defeated.

The Japanese people have felt the weight of our land, air, and naval attacks. So long as their leaders and the armed forces continue the war the striking power and intensity of our blows will steadily increase and will bring utter destruction to Japan's industrial war production, to its shipping, and to everything that supports its military activity.

The longer the war lasts, the greater will be the suffering and hardships which the people of Japan will undergo-all in vain. Our blows will not cease

[5] Department of State Bulletin, July 22, 1945.

Page 46

until the Japanese military and naval forces lay down their arms in unconditional surrender.

Just what does the unconditional surrender of the armed forces mean for the Japanese people?

It means the end of the war.

It means the termination of the influence of the military leaders who have brought Japan to the present brink of disaster.

It means provision for the return of soldiers and sailors to their families, their farms, their jobs.

It means not prolonging the present agony and suffering of the Japanese in the vain hope of victory.

Unconditional surrender does not mean the extermination or enslavement of the Japanese people.

---

Non-negotiable end to a war and not requiring genocide.

bin Laden and the terrorist are not a country. They can not be defeated through warfare. But they can not be negotiated with either. Bush approach is in my view incorrect, but he is right in not negotiating with bin Laden.
The only way to beat the terrorism is to bring all democracies together and police the occurance of terrorism. It's only you, me and our neighbours that can react to terrorism activity. The more open and transparant a society is, the more difficult is it to have secret sects and terrorist cells operating. Furthermore, people with success will be less interested in destruction.......

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

It's only you, me and our neighbours that can react to terrorism activity.

---

React, as in force?

Quote:

---

The more open and transparant a society is, the more difficult is it to have secret sects and terrorist cells operating.

---

:inquisitive: What's a transparent society, and what does it look like?

We should start using tactical nukes to take out where we think these terrorists are. That's our negotiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

:inquisitive: What's a transparent society, and what does it look like?

---

A nuddist colony and it makes it hard to smuggle bombs... also it would be extremely hard to vote for these old hardline politicians... The Democrats in Australia would probably do a lot better in the polls :laugh4: :

http://natashastottdespoja.democrats...phy/nsdtwo.jpg

Vs Labour

http://www.alp.org.au/images/people/beazleyk.jpg

Vs John Howard Prime Minister:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...johnhoward.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

A nuddist colony and it makes it hard to smuggle bombs... also it would be extremely hard to vote for these old hardline politicians... The Democrats in Australia would probably do a lot better in the polls :laugh4: :

http://natashastottdespoja.democrats...phy/nsdtwo.jpg

Vs Labour

http://www.alp.org.au/images/people/beazleyk.jpg

Vs John Howard Prime Minister:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...johnhoward.jpg

---

...yeah...

I still vote nukes.

Quote:

---

It's only you, me and our neighbours that can react to terrorism activity.

---

So your ready to join Bush in the war on terror then?

In 1993 I attended a seminar in Scotland, the speaker a Scottish SAS officer with the surname Sharkey spoke about terrorism. His experience came from Israel where he received his counter terrorist training in the 70-80's. He said; "This is how we respond to terrorists; we do not deal with terrorists, the only thing we can promise is that you will all die". He said further that any other reaction will increase the amount of terror many times over.
This was true back in the 90's...
I wish I could have asked the question back then; "What do you do with a terrorist that wants to die?"

Give him an adorable puppy

Terrorist: "Hey can I blow myself up when I the cute little puppy keeps licking my face?"

Saying "we will not negotiate" I agree is foolish. If the terrorists have valid claims which would hurt nobody to allow them to carry out, there's no reason why negotiation should be refused. Then it's state terrorism to deny it to them. Especially nowadays when the word "terrorist" is abused and given to anyone appropriate during a short moment, to use as a political tool much like the witch accusations during the period of witchhunt in Europe, it's important to make sure that not all methods of dealing with real terrorists without thinking it through are extend to include these new people who are incorporated in the terrorist concept.

However if the terrorists say "we'll blow up this plane unless you give us, personally, 10 million dollars" not negotiating can be a very good principle. Or if they say "you must all have a communist leadership in your country or we'll blow you all up", then not negotiating is also appropriate.

In all cases where the alleged terrorists don't openly state what their entire list of demands and political program and ultimate goals are, asking them to state them can only be a good thing. If it turns out their claims are impossible to meet, negotations can always be ended. But if you refuse to even negotiate as far as to finding out what they want, then you're only foolish IMO. If they answer they won't tell you what their demands and goals are, then they've made negotiations impossible. If you answer them you won't tell them what your demands and goals are, then you've made negotiations impossible. If only one of the sides refuse negotiations that side clearly puts the ethics and moral in the hands of the opponent.

The "refuse to negotiate" principle is most likely a derivate of the old historical prestige-vs-rebels principle employed by monarchs all over the world before the democratic systems started being incorporated in western countries. However emplying a total refusal of negotiation in these modern cases would be a clear misunderstanding of how that principle works. It's essential to never make rebels, freedom fighters or terrorists feel that their violence achieved an improvement for them. This means it's usually not appropriate to just after an act of terror negotiate, but the principle also encourages negotiation with people who are on the verge of becoming terrorists and haven't yet used violence or threatened with it. The things needed to minimize terrorism, rebellions or similar are:
1. make sure a for the people better life isn't given shortly after they used violence to protest against their life situations. This is to not encourage more rebellions because previous ones were successful
2. remove the incentive to rebellion by giving the violent people what they want, if the claims are fair and possible to meet. 3. still be prepared to fight defensively in the cases where the claims of the opponent aren't fair or possible to meet.
3. establish open and safe channels for the rebels, terrorists and freedom fighters so they can anonymously communicate their discontent peacefully. Encourage the usage of this medium over the use of violent protests as a means of expressing your opinion. This is to allow the leaders to in any way find out about discontent before it goes as far as to violence.
4. make sure treatment of terrorists, rebels and freedom fighters is just and fair, and not handled as a genocide terror killing spree, so that ordinary people don't feel they might be target to gestapo style raids.
5. make sure the leaders really listen to the communication channel carefully and try to adapt their politics, and don't abuse the communication channel for gestapo style actions. In cases when it seems impossible to meet the demands over the communication channel, the leaders should list what was impossible to carry out in practise and why, and ask the people to find a better solution to the problem. If they can't find a better solution one can avoid violence by making it clear that there are no better solutions to the problem, and that who holds the leadership therefore doesn't matter.

Well, the "We will not negotiate with terrorists" mantra tends to be used in two different contexts.

A) One is with a specific instance where the terrorists threaten to do something bad to you unless you give them something they want. Al Zarqawi's people seizing a US hostage in Iraq and demanding the release of all female prisoners might be a good example of this kind of situation.

B) The other is more general, where there is the possibility of sitting down more generally with terrorists and negotiating a political settlement to a conflict. An example of this might be the UK in the 1980s refusing to talk to the IRA or maybe today Israel and Hamas.

The latest Bin Laden video is interesting because it seems to straddle both (or neither) types of situation - he makes vague threats and also talks vaguely of a "truce".

Personally, I am very hard-line on negotiation in situation (A) and dove-ish on situation (B).

With regards to A, it just seems insane to give terrorists money, personnel, recognition, political concessions whatever in return for saving a few lives. Not only will what you give them directly fuel more hostage-taking etc, but it will also encourage other groups to pick on you. Can you imagine the prestige Bin Laden would get if he could say "Well, I talked to President Bush and in response to our campaign, he is now withdrawing his troops from Iraq and Afghanistan"? It seems far better to tough it out.

With regards to B, one only has to look at history to see that it is littered with instances of political negotiations between governments and "terrorists". The IRA in Northern Ireland is one such case. Others may be Nicaragua in the 1980s, Palestine in the 1940s, South Africa during apartheid etc. But with this case, you have to be dealing with a "terrorist" group that genuinely represents a large segment of a people and is really interested in a political settlement. I think Bin Laden fails both tests. He is no representative of any Iraqis or Afghans, nor does his "truce" sound very inviting. By contrast, sitting down and quietly talking with specific local Iraqi insurgents (definitely not the Al Zarqawi type Bin Laden clones though) might be sensible, but the problem seems to be that they have no discernible political wing that wants to talk - they seem more interested in blood on the streets than political goals.

Bin Laden's only political goal is to remove the infidels from the "holy land" and then take the fight directly to them thereafter. He will do whatever it takes to achieve those goals as well, and also has monetary, and some albeit a little support from Muslim Clergy, especially the Wahabists to make great gains in the political field if he were to force the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think he is beginning to realize that the US is doubting it's presence in Iraq, and wants to make some concessions so that if the allied forces are to leave that there will be no backlash for the time being.

The US and Allies have to realize that for the good of Iraq and Afghanistan we must stay, and as Simon pointed out, we should talk to the rabble and riff-raff 'terrorists' as they would be more easily deterred from commiting suicide/ Terrorist bombings, then say Al Zarqawi who has a clear and single minded agenda. Not only that, if we were to strike an accord with the rebels (who most certainly do not like Al Qaeda) they may give some clue as to where the man is. The Rebels hate Al Zarqawi but they rely on him for intelligence and munition support, if we were to leave, The Baathist Rebels would certainly turn on Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

We should start using tactical nukes to take out where we think these terrorists are. That's our negotiation.

---

Good plan.

Oh look - there's a few suspects in Kaiser's city!

*repeatedly presses launch button*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

[COLOR=black]In 1993 I attended a seminar in Scotland, the speaker a Scottish SAS officer with the surname Sharkey spoke about terrorism. His experience came from Israel where he received his counter terrorist training in the 70-80's. He said; "This is how we respond to terrorists; we do not deal with terrorists, the only thing we can promise is that you will all die".

---

At his level of operation this is probably true. However it's not the job of elite assault/special ops troops to ponder the merits or tactics of negotiation. It's like asking a hand grenade to go and make sandwiches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Saying "we will not negotiate" I agree is foolish. If the terrorists have valid claims which would hurt nobody to allow them to carry out, there's no reason why negotiation should be refused. Then it's state terrorism to deny it to them. Especially nowadays when the word "terrorist" is abused and given to anyone appropriate during a short moment, to use as a political tool much like the witch accusations during the period of witchhunt in Europe, it's important to make sure that not all methods of dealing with real terrorists without thinking it through are extend to include these new people who are incorporated in the terrorist concept.

However if the terrorists say "we'll blow up this plane unless you give us, personally, 10 million dollars" not negotiating can be a very good principle. Or if they say "you must all have a communist leadership in your country or we'll blow you all up", then not negotiating is also appropriate.

In all cases where the alleged terrorists don't openly state what their entire list of demands and political program and ultimate goals are, asking them to state them can only be a good thing. If it turns out their claims are impossible to meet, negotations can always be ended. But if you refuse to even negotiate as far as to finding out what they want, then you're only foolish IMO. If they answer they won't tell you what their demands and goals are, then they've made negotiations impossible. If you answer them you won't tell them what your demands and goals are, then you've made negotiations impossible. If only one of the sides refuse negotiations that side clearly puts the ethics and moral in the hands of the opponent.

The "refuse to negotiate" principle is most likely a derivate of the old historical prestige-vs-rebels principle employed by monarchs all over the world before the democratic systems started being incorporated in western countries. However emplying a total refusal of negotiation in these modern cases would be a clear misunderstanding of how that principle works. It's essential to never make rebels, freedom fighters or terrorists feel that their violence achieved an improvement for them. This means it's usually not appropriate to just after an act of terror negotiate, but the principle also encourages negotiation with people who are on the verge of becoming terrorists and haven't yet used violence or threatened with it. The things needed to minimize terrorism, rebellions or similar are:
1. make sure a for the people better life isn't given shortly after they used violence to protest against their life situations. This is to not encourage more rebellions because previous ones were successful
2. remove the incentive to rebellion by giving the violent people what they want, if the claims are fair and possible to meet. 3. still be prepared to fight defensively in the cases where the claims of the opponent aren't fair or possible to meet.
3. establish open and safe channels for the rebels, terrorists and freedom fighters so they can anonymously communicate their discontent peacefully. Encourage the usage of this medium over the use of violent protests as a means of expressing your opinion. This is to allow the leaders to in any way find out about discontent before it goes as far as to violence.
4. make sure treatment of terrorists, rebels and freedom fighters is just and fair, and not handled as a genocide terror killing spree, so that ordinary people don't feel they might be target to gestapo style raids.
5. make sure the leaders really listen to the communication channel carefully and try to adapt their politics, and don't abuse the communication channel for gestapo style actions. In cases when it seems impossible to meet the demands over the communication channel, the leaders should list what was impossible to carry out in practise and why, and ask the people to find a better solution to the problem. If they can't find a better solution one can avoid violence by making it clear that there are no better solutions to the problem, and that who holds the leadership therefore doesn't matter.

---

I like this. It saves me from writing a similar post.

On my own part, I have to say I'm tired of Bush's absolutes and ultimatums ("You're either with us or against us", etc.). What a child.

There is one simple reason why we do not negotiate with terrorists:

If you accede to their demands at all, then it will encourage more terrorism.

That's pretty much the end of the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

There is one simple reason why we do not negotiate with terrorists:

If you accede to their demands at all, then it will encourage more terrorism.

That's pretty much the end of the discussion.

---

This is the one and main argument that is always brought forward in this context.

Mind you, I do not believe that AQ currently is a partner for negotiations - but is there actually any empirical evidence that supports the point that negotiations lead to more terrorism compared to refusing to negotiate?

I highly doubt that this is the case and think that broad statements like this have any merit - I think decisions whether to start negotiations with terrorist groups or not should be made on an individual case basis and should not be approached dogmatically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

This is the one and main argument that is always brought forward in this context.

Mind you, I do not believe that AQ currently is a partner for negotiations - but is there actually any empirical evidence that supports the point that negotiations lead to more terrorism compared to refusing to negotiate?

---

Sure. Hostage taking in 3rd World countries and in Iraq. It's a regular business and people regularly pay up. So they continue to take hostages to get ransom.

Article 1 (CNN) (Hostage taking in Iraq)


Department of State: Policy

Quote:

---

US Government Responsibilities When Private US Citizens Are Taken Hostage
On the basis of past experience, the US Government concluded that making concessions that benefit hostage takers in exchange for the release of hostages increased the danger that others will be taken hostage. US Government policy is, therefore, to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession. At the same time, the US Government will make every effort—including contact with representatives of the captors—to obtain the release of hostages without making concessions to the hostage takers.

---

The Heritage Foundation Discussion on Phillipnes decision to give in to terrorist demands.

Edit: BTW, this has been American Policy ever since the retarded Carter Administartion: Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton, and Bush #2 all agree.

Regarding the taking of hostages, I think that Iraq shows pretty clearly that it does not make any difference whether individual countries negotiate the release of their citizens or not.

In addition I think you have to differentiate between terrorists and "simple" criminals.

Also, I believe the issue of this topic is not the negotiation about the release of individual hostages - but negotiations on a much higher level, i.e., negotiating a complete end of hostilities.

The Heritage article is no "evidence", BTW - it's an opinion.

More:

Australia Defence Association. Discussion on negotiations.

UK: Black September. PLFP - the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine succeeds in getting the UK to negotiate and give in. Leila Khaled was a member of the PLFP. These are the results:

Quote:

---

Speaking to UK Confidential, Leila Khaled, now a middle-aged housewife, admitted that the PFLP was encouraged by the UK's capitulation to its demands.

"It was a good step for us that we saw governments could be negotiated with. We could impose our demands.

"The success in the tactics of the hijacking and imposing our demands and succeeding in having our demands implemented gave us the courage and the confidence to go ahead with our struggle."

---

Background By John Deutch, former director of the CIA)


It is irrational to think that negotiating with terrorists will somehow not lead to more terrorism.

edit: I said the Heritage Foundation Article was a discussion, not evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

It is irrational to think that negotiating with terrorists will somehow not lead to more terrorism.

---

Indeed. I can't believe this isn't common sense to most people. Someone commits an act of terrorism against you.... you negotiate and make concessions to terrorists. What's the message this sends? Terrorism is a viable means to an end.

If you dont negotiate for the release of hostages then the hostages die, so it leaves very little choice....

What possible negotiating position do we even have?

Osama: "We're going to destroy you all"

Us: "No, we're going to destroy YOU all."

Where do you go from there? Talk him down to only destroying a few major cities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

What's a transparent society, and what does it look like?

---

Nothing. It's transparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

If you dont negotiate for the release of hostages then the hostages die, so it leaves very little choice....

---

True.

However, the larger question actually centers on who makes policy. Do you want your duly elected leaders to do so for your country, or would you prefer that their actions be dictated by the designs of some terrorist group.

A state must be willing to write off the individuals in question rather than alter its policies in response to the threat -- however horrible that may be on an individual level. At its logical extreme, the state would be better served by locating the hostages and then wiping out the entire area (with minimum collateral damage), thus demonstrating that the lives of the individuals involved will never alter the state's policies.

This is a bit harsh, so I'm willing to support the "we'll talk, but there will be no concessions" approach.

As to the larger theme in this thread, I am all for negotiations -- right up to the [oint where I'm being treated with violence. At that point, we will negotiate only when my opponent has quit, preferably because they can no longer stand. People make the mistake of thinking that this concept is inappropriate because it's too simplistic for the socio-political context of the real world. Poppycock. Bullys cannot be negotiated with until they're down and bleeding. Once you have their attention by such means, then and only then will the discussion prove worthwhile. Otherwise, you're simply negotiating about how often you'd like to be kicked in the cojones, abused, and just how much of your own lunch money you get to keep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

There is one simple reason why we do not negotiate with terrorists:

If you accede to their demands at all, then it will encourage more terrorism.

That's pretty much the end of the discussion.

---

No, it isn't the end of the discussion. You could say the same about war. So, I guess negotiations are out in all cases.

Terrorism is not the same as traditional state warfare.

In previous discussions on this board, I have mentioned that terrorism might be a brand of 4th generation warfare. Eitherway, the principle tactics of terrorism are based on simple means and ends. If, through terrorist tactics, a political extra-national entity achieves its aims, then it will continue to engage in terror tactics.

So, in order to avert further terror tactics, we can only respond in kind with overwhelming force. The lesson learned will be "terror tactics fail". And thus they will diminish.


It's simple conditioning my friend. When you want a dog to sit, you make him sit and give him a treat. When he does not sit, you give him pain until he sits.


The same is true for muslim extremists. When the jihadist does not sit, he shall recieve pain until he sits. In this case, "sitting" is peaceful politics. We want them to lay down their arms and discuss the future. Are we negotiating? Maybe. But not until they sit. Then we may give them a treat or two.


We must make the jihadist conform to civilized society, not the other way around.

So your ready to join Bush in the war on terror then?
Nah Gawain ,we need someone is actually up to the job , not someone with half baked ideas who is creating more terrorists and fragmenting alliances .

An example of this might be the UK in the 1980s refusing to talk to the IRA or maybe today Israel and Hamas.

What example Simon , the UK was in negotiation in the '80s just as it was in the previous and following decades , just as it had been for most of the past century .
And just as Isreal is today , or do you think that the concessions on voting and the amendments to Hamas' constitution were both unilateral descisions without negotiating .

On the basis of past experience, the US Government concluded that making concessions that benefit hostage takers in exchange for the release of hostages increased the danger that others will be taken hostage. US Government policy is, therefore, to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession. At the same time, the US Government will make every effort—including contact with representatives of the captors—to obtain the release of hostages without making concessions to the hostage takers.
Divinus , you know that is rubbish , the government has and does negotiate , make payments and concessions in its it dealings with terrorists .

So . 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 .

eit double post

edit triple post

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 .

Quote:

---

This is a bit harsh, so I'm willing to support the "we'll talk, but there will be no concessions" approach.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

If you accede to their demands at all, then it will encourage more terrorism.

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

the US had no problem running up the truce flag and talking to the Iraqi "insurgents/terrorists" last summer.

---

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:

---

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:

---

weapon of mass destruction

Quote:

---

n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)

---

dictionary.com

Quote:

---

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.

---

Wikipedia

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

A total of 16,000 AUC members have now taken advantage of the offer and only about 3,000 remain.

---