Do you think our leaders should negotiate with terrorist?

[emiljoe]

British Lawmakers Say: Talk With Terrorists :roll:

http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=3569

The Foreign Affairs Committee in Britain’s House of Commons recently recommended that the British government formally engage in direct talks with Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Egyptian Brotherhood. The report recommending these actions, titled “Global Security: The Middle East (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmfaff/363/363.pdf),” was released Monday.

Admitting that Hezbollah’s influence is “malign,” that Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization, and that the Egyptian Brotherhood has known connections to Hamas, the Foreign Affairs Committee report states that the influence of these groups is too strong to be ignored any longer.

Concerning Hamas: “Hamas is part of the fabric of Palestinian society and engaging with the movement is the only way to prevent radical elements within the movement side-lining more pragmatic moderates.” Regarding Hezbollah: “We conclude that Hezbollah is undeniably an important element in Lebanon’s politics, although its influence, along with Iran’s and Syria’s, continues to be a malign one. … [T]he government should encourage Hezbollah to play a part in Lebanon’s mainstream politics. We recommend that the government should engage directly with moderate Hezbollah parliamentarians.”

This report emerges at a time when Western nations are reviewing and revamping their approach to Middle Eastern politics. The Quartet on the Middle East, led by recently appointed envoy Tony Blair and consisting of the U.S., the EU, the UN and Russia, has already laid down ground rules for directly dealing with these organizations. One of the main stipulations before sitting down at the negotiating table is that they must first recognize Israel’s right to exist, which none of them currently do. Another is some sort of commitment to non-violence. Given Hamas’s coup in Gaza and Hezbollah’s massive and continuing re-armament, along with their ongoing history of every-day violence, meeting this requirement seems even less likely.

Despite the obvious reluctance of these terrorist groups to repent of their violent ways, the Foreign Affairs Committee suggests that London enter talks in an effort to try to coerce these terrorist organizations into recognizing Israel, and try to exclude the militant wings of Hamas and Hezbollah.

The committee reasons that the influence of these groups is so strong that diplomatic silence is no longer a viable option; such groups are the reality of the Middle East. After all, Hamas did win the popular vote in its latest elections, and the report says, “[I]t is important the Palestinian people are not punished for exercising their rights as voters.”

The report also mentions the influence of Syria and offers an opinion concerning the war in Iraq: “We conclude that it is too early to provide a definitive assessment of the U.S. ‘surge’ but that it does not look likely to succeed.”

Throughout the report, one nation is given special attention: Iran. “We conclude that Iran is rapidly increasing its influence and power across the Middle East. It has demonstrated that it is able to generate or exploit crises in a range of countries, thus furthering its own interests.” The report recognizes that Iran is behind, and profiting from, much of the instability in the Middle East.

While this report is merely a 200-plus-page suggestion for British policy and not an imperative, it is still a product of the dangerous thinking pervading many British leaders. That these politicians want to conduct direct talks with unrepentant terrorist groups reveals just how much ground the West has lost already. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s willingness to accept Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood reveals the weakness of Britain and the real strength of these terrorist organizations.

How long before Western nations realize that engaging terrorists with direct talks (http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=3455) is not the solution to the crisis hitting the Middle East? http://thetrumpet.com/images/blip.gif

[a_very_ex_STAB]

If you think governments don't negotiate with terrorists then you are dangerously naive. :roll:

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

In terms of giving terrorists what they want no.

However there should be some form of dialog to establish clearly what they want. We have seen with Libya what can be achieved with dialog. Hell Libya admitted guilt, payed compensation and now has friendly relations. All at no cost of any lives, messy military occupations and destruction of WMD's.

[Xaito]

no .........

[ce267]

No ....
Never And Never No...

[martinexsquaddie]

if its some odd ball minority group of terrorists like the us militias or the Cornish lib front or badder meinhoff or the sla not a lot of point.
but ira eta iraqi groups then yes its got to be a multi front approach militarily and political unless you really think you can win by purely kinietic means (buzzword bingo time :))

[schwarz]

No.



To think you can in the first place is buffoonery.

[LMAV]

If you think governments don't negotiate with terrorists then you are dangerously naive. :roll:

We are all just ants compared to the disembodied brain that is Stab.


Please, tell us all the times you know of that we have negotiated with terrorists? :roll:

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

We are all just ants compared to the disembodied brain that is Stab.


Please, tell us all the times you know of that we have negotiated with terrorists? :roll:

British negotiated a settlement in 1776 after a terrorist campaign was waged against British rule.

:roll:

[LMAV]

What is this, a rolleyes contest?


....and I'm talking about MODERN examples of US negotiations.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

There is no difference between now and 1776.

What was relevant as far back as the Greek Persian is just as relevant today. Just because a few centuries ago we didn't have the internet means squat.

[futurepilot2004]

Well if you want a modern example. The US played an active roll in the Northern Ireland peace process which involved talking with the PIRA.

[LMAV]

There is no difference between now and 1776.

What was relevant as far back as the Greek Persian is just as relevant today. Just because a few centuries ago we didn't have the internet means squat.

Well, I'm talking about in the context of the WOT.

[AZRON]

Well if you want a modern example. The US played an active roll in the Northern Ireland peace process which involved talking with the PIRA.

Yes but the U.S. wasn't involved directly in the war and had large powerfull segments on both sides of the issue in it's population base.

[futurepilot2004]

Yes but the U.S. wasn't involved directly in the war and had large powerfull segments on both sides of the issue in it's population base.

True. I was just making the point that negotiations have and will continue to be an important part in ending most conflicts.

[Mu-Meson]

Of course there should be negotiations but only when there is actually reasonable hope for progress to be made. Taking to Sunni insurgents in Iraq can, and has, yielded results. Talking to AQI or Hamas won't because of the very nature of those groups. Comparisons to Northern Ireland are flawed because of the difference in the situations.
It seems like the British and others just want to negotiate for the sake of negotiation / want to be seen to be doing something / believe that negotiations can solve everything. Trying to assist the pragmatic moderates in Hamas is utter BS. The most pragmatic moderate Hamas member is easily the equivalent of a hardcore neo-Nazi anywhere else.
In an ideal world, the only negotiation betwwen us and the terrorists should be to ask "Where do you want the bullet?"

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

It seems like the British and others just want to negotiate for the sake of negotiationIt's good to talk.:)

[martinexsquaddie]

hamas won an election so have got more than just guns on there side

[Bia]

They already do.

Rummy prime example.

[LaPalice]

It depends on the base they have in the population/country. If the base is strong and if you can’t destroy it, you will have to negotiate with them one day or another to make peace. And if you negotiate with them, you will bring them to a more moderate behaviour.

[AZRON]

It depends on the base they have in the population/country. If the base is strong and if you can’t destroy it, you will have to negotiate with them one day or another to make peace. And if you negotiate with them, you will bring them to a more moderate behaviour.

You agree then with Neville Chamberlain ?

Didn't work againist Mussolini nor Imperial Japan either.

[Telmar]

It depends on the base they have in the population/country. If the base is strong and if you can’t destroy it, you will have to negotiate with them one day or another to make peace. And if you negotiate with them, you will bring them to a more moderate behaviour.

I do not think that you can discuss with the more radicals. But the larger the group, the wider the chance that there are people less radical that you want to talk to and eventually to help take leadership.

A channel of communication must remain open. As for Chamberlain and Daladier, their mistake was mostly about signing a treaty to please their pacifist populations.

You do not have to sign a treaty at the end of every discussion.

[LaPalice]

You agree then with Neville Chamberlain ?

Didn't work againist Mussolini nor Imperial Japan either.

Germany was a state, not a terror/insurgent group.

If you indefinitely fight a terror/insurgent group and if you are not able to destroy it, negotiation is an option.
One of the differences between terrorists and insurgents is the base they have in the country/population.

[LaPalice]

I do not think that you can discuss with the more radicals. But the larger the group, the wider the chance that there are people less radical that you want to talk to and eventually to help take leadership.

A channel of communication must remain open. As for Chamberlain and Daladier, their mistake was mostly about signing a treaty to please their pacifist populations.

You do not have to sign a treaty at the end of every discussion.

You are right, you cannot disccus with the more radicals. You cannot discuss with Al Qaeda for example.

[LMAV]

They already do.

Rummy prime example.

So, for the purposes of attacking Rumsfield Saddam was a terrorist. However in the context of the Iraq war he was just a bad guy trying to keep the country together. Is that about right?

[Teme]

Why the US granted 'protected' status to Iranian terrorists

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0729/p07s01-wome.html

[AZRON]

Germany was a state, not a terror/insurgent group.

If you indefinitely fight a terror/insurgent group and if you are not able to destroy it, negotiation is an option.
One of the differences between terrorists and insurgents is the base they have in the country/population.

Sorry I respectfully disagree.

For my $0.02 the objective of the Muslim extremists is to create a world caliphate much larger than existed in the 8th century.
What we are dealing with in many aspects is gov't inside of gov't pushing the agenda.
Hitler was basically a terrorist who took over a state. As is the desire of Hezbollah in Lebanon. AQ in Saudi Arabia. The ISI/Taliban in A-stan and so on. Hamas and the PLO also are/were terrorist org in power as gov'ts.

As to terrorist vs. insurgents it's not as clear cut definning line as in cut and dry. The Iraqi pot with Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkomen , Arab, AQ and Iranains defys a clear cut definition depending on who you are.

Israel in 1945-8 was heavily influenced by the Irgun a terrorist group.
Many Israeli post 1948 leaders were former Irgun.

[Bia]

So, for the purposes of attacking Rumsfield Saddam was a terrorist. However in the context of the Iraq war he was just a bad guy trying to keep the country together. Is that about right?
You're odd.

[Power_serj]

Absolutely. First of all, diplomacy with the terrorists in Tehran, the Taliban, Al Queda will show that we want peace. If it fails, it will show that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Diplomacy does work. Perhaps negotiation will work and we can slow the spread of Islamic fascism. For example, if Muslims in let's Iraq think we are there to steal their oil, we negotiate to spread oil wealth to these Muslims.

If it first does not succeed, kick their ass some more, and get back to the negotiation table. I do like some policies of the Bush Administration, however, the lack of diplomacy is something I'm against.

[Power_serj]

Absolutely, our leaders should negotiate with terrorists. First of all, diplomacy with the terrorists in Tehran, the Taliban, Al Queda will show that we want peace. If it fails, it will show that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Diplomacy does work. Perhaps negotiation will work and we can slow the spread of Islamic fascism. For example, if Muslims in let's Iraq think we are there to steal their oil, we negotiate to spread oil wealth to these Muslims.

If it first does not succeed, kick their ass some more, and get back to the negotiation table. I do like some policies of the Bush Administration, however, the lack of diplomacy is something I'm against.

[Hilbert]

I'm going to fall back on something Russian President Vladimir Putin said:

"Russia doesn't talk with terrorists. It destroys them."

I like that philosophy.

Regards,
Hildebert

[AZRON]

Absolutely. First of all, diplomacy with the terrorists in Tehran, the Taliban, Al Queda will show that we want peace. If it fails, it will show that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Diplomacy does work. Perhaps negotiation will work and we can slow the spread of Islamic fascism. For example, if Muslims in let's Iraq think we are there to steal their oil, we negotiate to spread oil wealth to these Muslims.

If it first does not succeed, kick their ass some more, and get back to the negotiation table. I do like some policies of the Bush Administration, however, the lack of diplomacy is something I'm against.

First of all negotiations are viewed differently by different cultures.
Some cultures take it as a severe lack of will or attempting to stave off defeat not as a sign of good faith. Such as now in A-stan with the Korean captives . Karzai previously negotiated a prisoner release for money so the Taliban is expecting a repeat. What is negotiations and what is ransom ?

We have been pushing internal negotiations in Iraq for two years on dividing the oil money but the Shia , Kurds and Sunni haven't finalized as the Shia believe they have overwhelming strenght to win it all and not share anything.

We in the U.S. haven't learned that if the enemy wants to negotiate it usually means they are weak and not for the sake of good intentions or faith. We didn't learn that in Korea nor in Viet Nam. When it came up in 1992 we were too easy going on Saddam allowing chopper flights to kill many Shia in south Iraq. We excluded fixed wing a/c but not rotor and many Shia died.

The Bush team has successfully negotiated with N. Korea and Libya but that seems to be ignored by many people for whatever reasons they choose. Both were done from weak positions on the other sides positions.
However one can make the case N. Korea is just playing blaclmail as usual.

[DB-ERAUPilot]

I'm going to fall back on something Russian President Vladimir Putin said:

"Russia doesn't talk with terrorists. It destroys them."

I like that philosophy.

Regards,
Hildebert


unfortunately this ISN'T working...not for Russia or us. I'm all for killing em all and letting allah sort them out but if that isn't working we need to be willing to try other methods right now it seems like we kill one terrorist and end up creating four more to replace him in the process.

[LaPalice]

Sorry I respectfully disagree.

For my $0.02 the objective of the Muslim extremists is to create a world caliphate much larger than existed in the 8th century.
What we are dealing with in many aspects is gov't inside of gov't pushing the agenda.
Hitler was basically a terrorist who took over a state. As is the desire of Hezbollah in Lebanon. AQ in Saudi Arabia. The ISI/Taliban in A-stan and so on. Hamas and the PLO also are/were terrorist org in power as gov'ts.

As to terrorist vs. insurgents it's not as clear cut definning line as in cut and dry. The Iraqi pot with Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkomen , Arab, AQ and Iranains defys a clear cut definition depending on who you are.

Israel in 1945-8 was heavily influenced by the Irgun a terrorist group.
Many Israeli post 1948 leaders were former Irgun.

Look at Hezbollah. It is clear that they cannot destroy Israel even if they would like to do it. At the same time, Israel was not able to destroy Hezbollah one year ago. Therefore, they could try to discuss.
I do not say that they will obtain a peace quickly or even that they will obtain something. As Telmar writes it in his post, you do not have to sign a treaty at the end of the discussion.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has an interesting idea : to exclude the armed wing of those organizations (Hezbollah and Hamas) and discuss with the political/moderate wing. I do not know if that can work.
The Committee is right when it says that Hezbollah is a reality of the Middle East, you have to live with that. Apparently, you cannot destroy it, so try other ways.
The Quartet itself is ready to discuss with Hamas if they recognize Israel’s right to exist.

[SOG]

general consensus is always no, though we all know there are exceptions to every rule.

[SHAM]

Speaking about my own leaders, I think we all know for a fact that Bertie and Tony negotiated with terrorists on both sides, so called loyalists and so called republicans.
When i think of bertie negotiating with the loyalists, i consider him a brave man who reached out and tried to understand, i couldnt.
When i think of him negotiating with the likes of gerry adams it makes my blood boil, but i understand why he did it for the sakes of people in the north.
Clearly the voters in the republic show little alignment to gerrys politics.