Be a Supporter!

Negotiations with al-Qaeda

  • 1,615 Views
  • 45 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Dogbert581
Dogbert581
  • Member since: Nov. 4, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 17th, 2012 @ 04:25 PM Reply

At 1/17/12 03:41 PM, adrshepard wrote:
Bullshit. You simultaneously humanize the enemy by saying they live normal lives yet reduce them into mindless reactionary zealots. Pick one and stick with it.

How did I reduce them to mindless reactionary zealots? All I did was mention the (completely true) fact that Afghan culture is very much based on honour. Out there, they take killing of friends and family very seriously and feel it is their duty to avenge any deaths. How is that mindless and reactionary?

Just because someone has a different culture and a different honour system to you, doesn't mean they are mindless and reactionary

camobch0
camobch0
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Gamer
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 17th, 2012 @ 06:35 PM Reply

We're all human beings, regardless of the stupid shit we believe. There are just as many extremely dangerous and awful christians in America that would easily do exactly the same thing to any country that was invading ours.


A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.

BBS Signature
SouthAsian
SouthAsian
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 17th, 2012 @ 11:10 PM Reply

We will not win through military force in Afghanistan.We just cant.Afghans are like no other people.They are vindictive, hardened,resilient mountainous tribal folk. Its been like this for thousands of years.Some foreign army thinks they can pacify these people, and the next thing they know, their supply caravans, and demoralized troops, and surmounting public opposition is at their door steps.We have to negotiate, perhaps the Taliban etc. are themselves a little weary from all the fighting and are willing to make concessions.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 17th, 2012 @ 11:32 PM Reply

At 1/17/12 03:41 PM, adrshepard wrote: The difference is that a successful negotiation always results in the criminal or terrorist turning himself in to the higher authority. In diplomacy, there is no higher authority; the two groups are meeting as equals.

You have a funny idea of how diplomacy works.

Having a family and knowing normal people is not a normal life. Getting a job, settling down, sending your kids to school, that is a normal life.

You have a funny idea of what "normal" means.

Bullshit. You simultaneously humanize the enemy by saying they live normal lives yet reduce them into mindless reactionary zealots. Pick one and stick with it.

You have a funny way of completely misreading what is written.

Look, stop calling it "military revenge." There were more than enough practical reasons to justify the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, stop blaming the US for the victims of terrorists. They are human, they chose to attack civilians, the responsibility lies with them exclusively.

A) Bullshit.
B) I have never blamed America for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists.

As though out of all the members of Al-Qaida, they were the only ones willing to do such a horrible thing. As if the suicide bombings of mosques and markets aren't reprehensible enough to merit any action.

Right, so we're thought police now. If you have any animosity toward the US, whether or not you have performed any offensive action, you should die. Gotcha.

Because Iraq and Afghanistan are such safe havens for Al-Qaida now? The group is almost universally despised in Iraq, and has only a token presence in Afghanistan. The places where it thrives, like Yemen and Somalia, have the lightest US military footprint.

Indeed it thrives in places where we are not. This is the problem. Do you want us to occupy every country that might harbor Al-Qaida? That's sure to reduce their numbers and curry us favor in the region. And it won't stretch our forces too thin to be effective anywhere at all. Brilliant idea!

The only diplomacy that will ever work is the kind in which Al-Qaida renounces terrorism and violence, forfeits its goals, or disbands entirely.

Ah, to see things in such simple black-and-white terms as you again. Ignorance really is bliss. Like I said before, if you want to believe that we should (and are able) to just kill them all and everything will be okay and no repercussions will ever happen from doing (or, rather, trying) so, then that's your right. However, if it were actually that simple, don't you think it would have been accomplished already? We've been there for a decade. How long do we need? Infinite occupation? Just turn Iraq and Afghanistan into the 51st and 52nd States? You have no end game, no ultimate goal, other than killing people. That is merely a tool in the strategy to gain a greater goal, not the goal itself.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Bolo
Bolo
  • Member since: Nov. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 48
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 17th, 2012 @ 11:58 PM Reply

At 1/13/12 12:24 AM, WallofYawn wrote: Before 1970s, the middle east didn't have much of a beef with us, I am sure.

The intervention of the CIA in Iran in the 1950s was really the starting point of US self-insertion into Middle Eastern politics. We backed the Shah over the popular Mohammad Mossadegh and won that battle, but it was all secret until the 1970s and 80s. Had that secret ever caught fire and become commonly accepted in the Middle East, in conjunction with our continuous support of Israel from the 1950s onwards, I think there would have been a much earlier popular backlash against the United States. Indeed, some of the Arab states might have drifted even closer to the Soviet Union had that been widely known.


BBS Signature
Halberd
Halberd
  • Member since: Aug. 22, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Movie Buff
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 18th, 2012 @ 04:13 AM Reply

This seems pointless to me. The Taliban and Al Qaeda's beliefs and hatred are pretty deep rooted.

There are some in the Taliban and Al Qaeda who are only fighting for their countries and just want people to stop interfering with their beliefs and customs and homelands, but many of them are just unprovoked mass murderers.

I'm not gonna shoot this down completely though, maybe it will be worthwhile but I doubt it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NguTypiXqqY
ILLEGAL MARIJUANA RELATED ACTIVITIES
The hand I killed your children with masturbates to the memory of it

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 18th, 2012 @ 07:59 PM Reply

At 1/18/12 04:13 AM, Halberd wrote: This seems pointless to me. The Taliban and Al Qaeda's beliefs and hatred are pretty deep rooted.

They are, but both groups have been getting hunted down, shot at, and reduced to living on the run for 11 years. Now, let's again be clear that these negotiations are with THE TALIBAN and Al-Qaeda have NO PART in them. I've pointed this out before and apparently people aren't reading the post and the article I linked (fuck it was AP from FOX News even! Even FOX News admits Al-Qaeda isn't coming this clam bake!). The Taliban backed the wrong horse nearly 11 years ago. Perhaps they won't admit that deep down where it matters, perhaps they still agree with everything Al-Qaeda believes...but I wholeheartedly believe they're willing to sit down and make nice for a shot at being able to come back into some sort of influential position in Afghan life. The strategy of shooting and waiting for the US to take off and they can just come back in doesn't seem to have worked for them, so I totally believe their willing to at least consider a new tact. Will they though? That remains to be seen. But clearly the intelligence community must have some idea that this could work or else why go forward and public with it?

There are some in the Taliban and Al Qaeda who are only fighting for their countries and just want people to stop interfering with their beliefs and customs and homelands, but many of them are just unprovoked mass murderers.

This is probably true. It's always going to be impossible to judge the motivations and mentalities of groups like this that are so large and disparate.

I'm not gonna shoot this down completely though, maybe it will be worthwhile but I doubt it.

I doubt it will be any magical miracle cure myself, but it couldn't hurt to see if this might eventually get us out of Afghanistan and put the maintenance and security of the country back into it's own hands.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
camobch0
camobch0
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Gamer
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 18th, 2012 @ 10:27 PM Reply

The problem you guys might be missing is that we have created all of the new Al Qaeda/Taliban/other"insurgents" through our reckless murder campaigns. Really, if you lived in a poor little village for your entire life, with pretty much not education whatsoever,wouldn't you try to fight back against invading people of a different color who bomb and kill innocent people you knew?


A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.

BBS Signature
captainlolz
captainlolz
  • Member since: Feb. 9, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Movie Buff
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 18th, 2012 @ 11:16 PM Reply

we don't negotate with terrorist in america


if it is a gigantic horrible typo mah bad

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 19th, 2012 @ 03:07 PM Reply

At 1/17/12 11:32 PM, Ravariel wrote: You have a funny idea of how diplomacy works.
You have a funny idea of what "normal" means.

Enlighten me, then.

Bullshit. You simultaneously humanize the enemy by saying they live normal lives yet reduce them into mindless reactionary zealots. Pick one and stick with it.
You have a funny way of completely misreading what is written.

I had a lot of choices of how to attack his argument. I chose to point out that he humanizes people yet maintains they abide by an unbreakable honor system that mandates they abandon their current lives and take up arms against the US anytime there's a civilian casualty.

Look, stop calling it "military revenge." There were more than enough practical reasons to justify the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, stop blaming the US for the victims of terrorists. They are human, they chose to attack civilians, the responsibility lies with them exclusively.
A) Bullshit.
B) I have never blamed America for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists.

A. According to you.
B. No, but you're implying that all the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are direct results of US policies, even though our enemies, through their tactics and attacks, are responsible for the majority of them.

Right, so we're thought police now. If you have any animosity toward the US, whether or not you have performed any offensive action, you should die. Gotcha.

Actively supporting or joining a terrorist group dedicated to killing Americans and other innocent Westerners IS an offensive action.

Indeed it thrives in places where we are not. This is the problem. Do you want us to occupy every country that might harbor Al-Qaida? That's sure to reduce their numbers and curry us favor in the region. And it won't stretch our forces too thin to be effective anywhere at all. Brilliant idea!

You can say that, but it doesn't mask your earlier claim that our military presence only makes things worse in every respect.

The only diplomacy that will ever work is the kind in which Al-Qaida renounces terrorism and violence, forfeits its goals, or disbands entirely.
Ah, to see things in such simple black-and-white terms as you again.

Where are you getting that from? Look. Al-Qaida HAS to lose completely. Either they give up and abandon their goals (or at least their violent methods), or they are hunted down to the point where they are little more than isolated bands making fanastic plans in caves. We don't have to get every last one of them. John Kerry was right when he talked about reducing terrorism to a nuisance, despite all the flak he took. Continuous pressure and monitoring is enough to ensure people with aims like Al-Qaida's never gather enough power or influence to accomplish anything.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 19th, 2012 @ 09:30 PM Reply

At 1/17/12 11:10 PM, SouthAsian wrote: We will not win through military force in Afghanistan.

Right

We just cant.Afghans are like no other people.They are vindictive, hardened,resilient mountainous tribal folk.

Not really.

We have to negotiate, perhaps the Taliban etc. are themselves a little weary from all the fighting and are willing to make concessions.

This is a good point however the reasoning behind it is horribly wrong. The Afghans aren't inherently dangerous people. They just have a very different culture with regard to war, defeat, and victory. Their military culture is more akin to Vietnam. they don't believe in widespread surrender. They aren't ready, nor are they willing, to adopt someone else as their leader. We need to be very conscious of this when we negotiate as we may end up just creating more problems than existed when we started if we do it wrong.

SouthAsian
SouthAsian
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 19th, 2012 @ 10:24 PM Reply

At 1/19/12 09:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
We just cant.Afghans are like no other people.They are vindictive, hardened,resilient mountainous tribal folk.
Not really.

Please explain.I have ancestry from this region, and from what I've always known, is that Pashtuns the majority ethnic group in this conflict) are fierce, and are fanatical when it comes to family honor,pride, etc. and also they have traditionally lived hardened, spartan lives, up in the mountains.The perception people have of the terrain there is that its just hilly, but the terrain is so volatile, there's a reason why modern conveniences like roads haven't been established there.

couple the endearing resilience of the people in the face of combat, and un forgivable, dangerous environment, and it only spells doom for invaders and occupiers of the land.

Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 20th, 2012 @ 01:07 AM Reply

At 1/14/12 04:01 PM, The-Last-Guardian wrote:
Yes, I agree to this. We can negotiate with communists, Nazis, capitalists or liberals.

We DIDN'T negotiate with Hitler or Mussolini.

Dogbert581
Dogbert581
  • Member since: Nov. 4, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 20th, 2012 @ 02:39 AM Reply

At 1/20/12 01:07 AM, Ranger2 wrote:
At 1/14/12 04:01 PM, The-Last-Guardian wrote:
Yes, I agree to this. We can negotiate with communists, Nazis, capitalists or liberals.
We DIDN'T negotiate with Hitler or Mussolini.

But we did negotiate with Himmler to allow some Jews to be released into Allied hands. Furthermore, a lot of the original government of West Germany was actually composed of people who had had links with the Nazi party during the war.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 20th, 2012 @ 10:28 PM Reply

At 1/20/12 01:07 AM, Ranger2 wrote: We DIDN'T negotiate with Hitler or Mussolini.

But we DID make an ally of Josef Stalin. Stalin easily killed more then Mussolini, and potentially more then Hitler (we don't have all his numbers to be honest). We've also supported, and continue to support various dictators and mass murderers over the decades since. Stop sticking your head in the fucking sand and buying the jingoist bullshit and acting like America won't make nice with murderers if it doesn't suit them or some aim they have in the here and now. That's actually been part of America's problem when it comes to foreign policy and helps lead us into these bad situations, because we seem to only look at what works today, and not "well if we take action A what about consequence B, or C, or so on?" Seems to be a side effect of always believing we're the good guys and thus whatever action we take is the right and correct action.

And, I will keep stressing this until I am quite sure everyone responding here is clear on and understands it:

WE ARE NOT NEGOTIATING WITH AL QAEDA!!! THEY ARE STILL HIDING IN WHATEVER HOLE THEIR HIDING IN AND THE TALIBAN MUST RENOUNCE THEM AS A TERM OF EVEN HAVING THE TALKS!!!


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Negotiations with al-Qaeda Jan. 22nd, 2012 @ 09:28 AM Reply

Firstly it is possible to have a negotiated settlement with insurgents as the British experience with the IRA shows; at first the kind of tactics the US is currently using were tried such as internment without trial which turned out to be some of the biggest terrorist recruitment centres going. After that negotiated settlement was attempted and succeeded so the claim that its impossible is largely bs.
Additionally nobody has ever been able to manage to hold Afghanistan without unbearable cost.