Why is diplomacy crucial in the fight against terrorism?

[Anttech]

Well, this is interesting, and shows how little Bush knows about dealing with "terrorism"

The UK tried this tactic with the IRA for years, and quiet frankly it had the opposite effect than was needed. War will not beat al-queda, deplomacy is needed now, if peace is actually what is wanted.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060120.wxosama20/BNStory/International/

http://news.google.co.uk/?ncl=http:...?AID=/20060120/WIRE/201200352/1117/news&hl=en

 

[russ_watters]

Are you saying you do think Al Qaeda actually wants peace?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You don't negotiate with terrorists. When they stop the killing and show themselves to be more than wild animals and two-bit thugs, then we can talk.

 

[Anttech]

Are you saying you do think Al Qaeda actually wants peace?

Yes they do, but on there terms, this is where deplomacy comes in. The IRA were terrorist you know, and the Brittish goverment/ and Irish goverments sat round a table with them, and look what happened. We have Peace!

 

[Treadstone 71]

Are you saying you do think Al Qaeda actually wants peace?

Of course they do. What are they, Klingons?

 

[Art]

You don't negotiate with terrorists. When they stop the killing and show themselves to be more than wild animals and two-bit thugs, then we can talk.

As a general principle I would agree, however if all attempts to annihilate them fails and they maintain the capacity to inflict damage then eventually there's no other option.
It would be nice if we only had to negotiate peace with our friends but unfortunately that is never the case. Anttechs example citing the IRA is a good case in point.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm pretty sure that he realized the offer would be turned down. I can't imagine him being trusting enough to actually meet up with diplomats from the US to discuss anything anywhere.

 

[ComputerGeek]

You don't negotiate with terrorists. When they stop the killing and show themselves to be more than wild animals and two-bit thugs, then we can talk.

That could be said about us as well. Our corporations have been in these regions exploiting the population and killing people for over 50 years.

Calling a truce doe snot mean making a deal, it just means stop fighting, leave things as they are, we will not attack if you don't.

no one says you have to stop being vigilant against attack.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I'm pretty sure that he realized the offer would be turned down. I can't imagine him being trusting enough to actually meet up with diplomats from the US to discuss anything anywhere.

His plan was brilliant. He offers it, the US can reject it out of had, as we did and t bolsters his image.

He shows up for the truce talks and is assassinated/arrested... it bolsters his cause and makes him a martyr

He succeeds in peace, he becomes a mythological entity in the muslim world.

There was no downside to him NOT genuinely offering peace tot he US. no matter what the US did (even rejecting him without talks) made him look stronger.

To bad the Bush admin is too stupid to get that, because we might have actually had a chance to live life as we did before Bush got all high on his ego.

 

[BobG]

His plan was brilliant. He offers it, the US can reject it out of had, as we did and t bolsters his image.
He shows up for the truce talks and is assassinated/arrested... it bolsters his cause and makes him a martyr
He succeeds in peace, he becomes a mythological entity in the muslim world.
There was no downside to him NOT genuinely offering peace tot he US. no matter what the US did (even rejecting him without talks) made him look stronger.
To bad the Bush admin is too stupid to get that, because we might have actually had a chance to live life as we did before Bush got all high on his ego.

I partially agree. I don't think being assasinated or captured would be a positive for him. Other than that, the offer has no downside.

Realistically, there is no upside to the US responding to his comments at all. At this point, the desire to capture or kill bin Laden is more emotionally driven than functionally driven. He's not all that relevant to current events except as a celebrity.

If you can prevent nations from providing a stable base of operations, terrorist groups aren't that big a threat - not even al Qaeda. Ducking from cave to cave, probably in the Hindu Kush, doesn't provide a very stable operating base.

 

[Anttech]

can't imagine him being trusting enough to actually meet up with diplomats from the US to discuss anything anywhere.

Of course he wouldn't turn up to a meeting, just the same as Bush wouldnt. They would both send people to represent them...

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Anntech et al., you obviously know very little about Islam or its history. Truces in Islam exist for one purpose: to buy time in order to gather strength to attack in the future with guaranteed success. Thus, OBL's truce offer is a sign of his weakness, and it shows the success of our current strategy.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Anntech et al., you obviously know very little about Islam or its history. Truces in Islam exist for one purpose: to buy time in order to gather strength to attack in the future with guaranteed success. Thus, OBL's truce offer is a sign of his weakness, and it shows the success of our current strategy.

an article from Mark LeVine
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH06Ak02.html

His credentials from the bottom of the article:

Mark LeVine is associate professor of modern Middle Eastern history, culture and Islamic studies at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of the upcoming book Why They Don't Hate Us (Forthcoming: Oxford: Oneworld Publications) and a contributing editor at Tikkun magazine

Warren, This guy knows what he is talking about, so what do you have to say?

 

[Evo]

His plan was brilliant. He offers it, the US can reject it out of had, as we did and t bolsters his image.

I don't see it bolstering his image. This "offer" is the same as the playground bully telling another kid, I'll stop beating you up if you agree to whatever I tell you to do. Is there really anyone that doesn't see this bogus "offer" for what it really is?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes they do, but on there terms, this is where deplomacy comes in.

Follow-up: do you think they would actually be willing to negitiate in good faith? Remember, Bin Laden's demands essentially start with 'convert to Islam or die'. Do you think he's willing to back off from that in a negotiation? Do you think he's willing to stop changing his demands with the blowing of the wind?

The IRA were terrorist you know, and the Brittish goverment/ and Irish goverments sat round a table with them, and look what happened. We have Peace!

The IRA isn't Al Qaeda: the IRA had specific, workable goals and demands that were of the sort that were physically possible to achieve and able to be negotiated. The IRA then negotiated them in good-faith.

This isn't even Hamas or the PA that we're talking about here - they also had specific goals that are the type you can negotiate (borders on a map, etc). The demands we have from Al Qaeda are the whimsical ramblings of a homicidal maniac. What will end that is killing Bin Laden himself.

I agree with the others: this message is a show of weakness and fear.

 

[Treadstone 71]

OBL can hardly be likened to a "playground bully".

 

[russ_watters]

I partially agree. I don't think being assasinated or captured would be a positive for him. Other than that, the offer has no downside.

Well, except if his followers see it as a sign of weakness and scatter.

At this point, the desire to capture or kill bin Laden is more emotionally driven than functionally driven. He's not all that relevant to current events except as a celebrity.

I'm not really sure that's true and even if it is, his celebrity matters to other terrorist groups that look to Al Qaeda for brotherhood. The marginalization - or death - of Bin Laden would resonate through the Islamic world and weaken the general terroristic undercurrents that exist in it. As far as cult-of-personality goes, he's their MLK.

If you can prevent nations from providing a stable base of operations, terrorist groups aren't that big a threat - not even al Qaeda. Ducking from cave to cave, probably in the Hindu Kush, doesn't provide a very stable operating base.

While that's true and that's likely why we haven't had a major attack in some time, it requires constant attention. Take out the queen B and the hive will be lost.

 

[russ_watters]

OBL can hardly be likened to a "playground bully".

Elaborate, please - these one-liners aren't saying a whole lot...

 

[daveb]

I don't think Bin Laden is as concerned with spreading Islam as he is with eliminating foreign influences from what he perceives as historically Muslim lands, especially Saudi Arabia and Israel.

http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp"
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html
http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/binladen.html"

While it's true that he has called for the death of all Jews and Americans, I suspect it has more to do with rallying support in the Muslim world than an actual desire to kill all Americans. By calling for these deaths, he attracts more support. The main thrust, however, is whether his calls for a truce are legitimate. I'm sure he is completely aware he would never get what he wants, i.e., all non-Muslims expelled from Muslim lands. Knowing this, my guess is he has called for a truce because either 1) he's getting scared because we may be getting close to finding him, or 2) for some reason he believes it will rally more support for his cause when the U.S. rejects his call.

 

[Evo]

OBL can hardly be likened to a "playground bully".

Well, he's more cowardly than a bully, but the same mentality, using violence against innocent targets to gain what he wants.

 

[Astronuc]

OBL can hardly be likened to a "playground bully".

Well, a "playground bully" uses violence or the threat of violence to intimidate the weaker children. OBL uses violence or the threat of violence to intimidate his perceived adversaries.

Granted, playground bullies do not have access to aircraft with which to crash into buildings, and usually the act alone or with a buddy, rather than with an extensive international terror network.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

an article from Mark LeVine
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH06Ak02.html
His credentials from the bottom of the article:
Warren, This guy knows what he is talking about, so what do you have to say?

Levine. . . . What a loser. Why don't you read what some actual Muslims have to say:

What Muslims Have Said:

Acquiring nuclear weapons for the defense of Moslems is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank Allah for enabling me to do so.
-Osama bin Laden, in an 1998 interview with Time magazine

We have the right to kill 4 million Americans, two million of them children.
-Abu Gheith, Al-Qaeda spokesman

If a bomb was dropped on them that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands…this is permissible.
-Sheikh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd, prominent Saudi cleric close to Al-Qaeda

The real matter is the extinction of America. And, Allah willing, it will fall to the ground…keep in mind this prediction.
-Mullah Omar, Taliban leader and ally of Osama bin Laden

Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam--begging to have their blood shed for Islam.
-Ayatollah Khomeini

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.
-Omar Ahmad, Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

And there's plenty more where that came from "thetruthproject.blogspot.com/"[/URL]

 

[ComputerGeek]

Well, he's more cowardly than a bully, but the same mentality, using violence against innocent targets to gain what he wants.

Doesn't the US use violence against innocents to get what we want?

We want to kill a terrorist leader... so we blow up three buildings full of people.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I'm not really sure that's true and even if it is, his celebrity matters to other terrorist groups that look to Al Qaeda for brotherhood.

You better hope it is true... otherwise, how can you say Bush is dong a good job on the "War on terror" when he said live on TV in 2002 that he does not know where OBL is, nor does he give it much thought.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Levine. . . . What a loser. Why don't you read what some actual Muslims have to say:
What Muslims Have Said:

Blah blah blah blah blah

Do you want me to go and find all the Pat Robertson quotes? or start quoting people I know who have said we should turn the middle east into a glass parking lot?

Come on.

 

[Cyrus]

Follow-up: do you think they would actually be willing to negitiate in good faith? Remember, Bin Laden's demands essentially start with 'convert to Islam or die'. Do you think he's willing to back off from that in a negotiation? Do you think he's willing to stop changing his demands with the blowing of the wind?

Actually, no, he's never said that. He has said kill the people who are infadels in the holly land. He said he would stop his jihad if the US government left the middle east and did not have any affairs with Israel.

The IRA isn't Al Qaeda: the IRA had specific, workable goals and demands that were of the sort that were physically possible to achieve and able to be negotiated. The IRA then negotiated them in good-faith.

Bin Laden has very specific workable goals as per stated above.

 

[daveb]

What Muslims Have Said:

Those who are quoted do not speak for all of Islam, so to say that

Truces in Islam exist for one purpose: to buy time in order to gather strength to attack in the future with guaranteed success.

is like saying that Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians, or Bush speaks for all Americans, or the Dalai Lama speaks for all Buddhists, or...well, you get the idea. No one person speaks for the entirety of a group that large, whether what they say condones violence or peace.

 

[BobG]

While that's true and that's likely why we haven't had a major attack in some time, it requires constant attention. Take out the queen B and the hive will be lost.

How do you define major. Casualties due to suspected al-Qaeda terrorist acts:

1993: 6 dead in first World Trade Center attack.
1996: 19 dead in Khobar Towers attack.
1998: 224 dead in Kenya/Tanzania embassy attacks (19 Americans).
2000: 17 dead in USS Cole attack.
2001: 2,992 dead in 9/11 attacks.
2002: 266 dead in 6 different attacks.
2003: 137 dead in 6 different attacks.
2004: 242 dead in 5 different attacks.
2005: 131 dead in 3 different attacks.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

9/11 was definitely a major attack. Either it was al-Qaeda's only "major" attack or the number of major attacks have increased instead of decreased. While there has been an increase in terrorist attacks inspired by al-Qaeda's "successful" 9/11 attack, only 3 have have required coordinated planning (Madrid train attacks, London train attacks, and Jordan hotel attacks) and I don't really think al-Qaeda leadership was able to contribute much more than inspirational support to any of the three.

The marginalization of bin Laden would weaken the al-Qaeda terrorist movement, but his death probably wouldn't affect terrorism overall. Al-Qaeda isn't the first Middle East terrorist group to come along. The PLO has been around since 1964 and were always able to mount many more attacks per year than al-Qaeda. If al-Qaeda falls out fashion, the next group to accomplish a captivating attack will take their place (PLA had the Munich Olympics attacks; al-Qaeda had 9/11).

Edit: Should probably put the attacks above in perspective. US Dept of State/RAND statistics on terrorism. Normally there are over 200 terrorist incidents a year. Looking at the DOS and the RAND stats, al-Qaeda attacks have been more deadly than most terrorist attacks, meaning world-wide fatalities the last few years have been above average in spite of fewer world-wide terrorist attacks per year.

Edit: In fact, looking at their stats, I'd have to say the war on terrorism world-wide hasn't been very successful. The other strange thing about the stats is that the Dept of State has consistently listed higher numbers than RAND until the US declared a war on terror. After that, their numbers suddenly dropped lower than RAND's.

 

[phcatlantis]

Remember, Bin Laden's demands essentially start with 'convert to Islam or die'.

"Convert or die" is a helluva an olive branch.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Do you want me to go and find all the Pat Robertson quotes? or start quoting people I know who have said we should turn the middle east into a glass parking lot? is like saying that Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians, or Bush speaks for all Americans, or the Dalai Lama speaks for all Buddhists, or...well, you get the idea. No one person speaks for the entirety of a group that large, whether what they say condones violence or peace.

Pat Robertson is not the leader of a terrorist organization or a state sponsor of terrorism with a proven track record.

Moreover, UBL and the Ayatollah have spent their lives studying Islamic scripture. They know what they're talking about. But if you won't take their word for it, then how about Muhammad himself:

Qur’an 2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”

Qur’an 4:77 “Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?”

Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption, making mischief in the land [those who refuse to surrender to Islam] is murder, execution, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. That is their degradation and disgrace in this world. And a great torment of an awful doom awaits them in the hereafter. Except for those who repent (and become Muslims) before you overpower them and they fall into your control.”

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you. I will terrorize the unbelievers.' Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”

Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

-------
Well, you get the idea. . . .

No, I guess you didn't. . . .

 

[edward]

I percieve Osama's little tape as a way of keeping the USA doing what it does best, throwing money at the situation and declaring victory because there have been no attacks on the U.S. soil since 9/11.

He says a few words and we spend billions. And we spend those billions on something that's effectiveness has no real way of being measured. We need to get more bang for our buck or we will run out of money before he runs out of words.

 

[BobG]

I percieve Osama's little tape as a way of keeping the USA doing what it does best, throwing money at the situation and declaring victory because there have been no attacks on the U.S. soil since 9/11.
He says a few words and we spend billions. And we spend those billions on something that's effectiveness has no real way of being measured. We need to get more bang for our buck or we will run out of money before he runs out of words.

You forget how many terrorism related arrests the US has made since 9/11. Surely, that's a success. Just in Iowa alone, 35 terrorism related arrests were made in the two years following 9/11 - including 5 Mexicans that shoplifted cans of baby formula and sold them to a man of Arab descent and two Pakistanis that entered into sham marriages in order to remain in the country. http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040718/NEWS01/407180386/1001/NEWS&lead=1 .

Maybe it is hard to measure.

April 2003, the State Department reported terrorism as down overall (fatalities decreased from 3295 in 2001 to only 725 in 2002).Terror report.

In May, 2005, the State Department stripped the numbers from their report, saying they were unreliable (2004 turned out to be a record high). Global Terrorism Statistics Debated.

It's also hard to measure how much progress we're making in preventing terrorism attacks just within the US. There's only been 4 years in recent history where the number was higher than 1 (the two WTC attacks in '93 and '01, the OK City bombing, and 1982).

 

[Cyrus]

Pat Robertson is not the leader of a terrorist organization or a state sponsor of terrorism with a proven track record.
Moreover, UBL and the Ayatollah have spent their lives studying Islamic scripture. They know what they're talking about. But if you won't take their word for it, then how about Muhammad himself:
Qur’an 2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”
Qur’an 4:77 “Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?”
Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption, making mischief in the land [those who refuse to surrender to Islam] is murder, execution, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. That is their degradation and disgrace in this world. And a great torment of an awful doom awaits them in the hereafter. Except for those who repent (and become Muslims) before you overpower them and they fall into your control.”
Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you. I will terrorize the unbelievers.' Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”
Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”
Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.
-------
Well, you get the idea. . . .
No, I guess you didn't. . . .

Congratulations, you just took the Quran out of context more than anyone I have ever seen on PF. You should get a medal for it. Why don't you go read the thread about the old testament and quotes in there...give me a break with your nonsense. You quote the Quran but have zero understanding about it, pathetic.


Read what your own quote says,

Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption, making mischief in the land

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the quotes and not spamming any quote you find, thus making yourself look foolish. Its saying you have to protect and defend your land if it is under invation by force or by corruption, and punish those who try to do so to you. No where does that quote say to go out and kill people.

P.S. Keep your comments about the quote outside of the quote itself, because you make it very baised. [those who refuse to surrender to Islam] - is that your personal opinion, or is it part of the quote itself? If its part of the quote itself, then disregard my comment about personal opinion.

 

[Cyrus]

Hey, why not straight from jesus mouth as well?

EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly.

DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and shown "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat.

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

Misquoting sure is fun, aint it?

 

[BobG]

Hey, why not straight from jesus mouth as well?
Misquoting sure is fun, aint it?

I almost hesitate to bring this up since I agree with your sentiment, but your quotes are from the Old Testament and Jesus didn't come along until the New Testament.

Fundamentalists from both the Christian and the Muslim religions face a pretty daunting task bringing quotes from a collective work into some kind of coherence that doesn't keep contradicting itself.