Okay "negotiators," here's a list of demands--

[John BigBootay]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9005784%255E7583,00.html

They include: (snip)
Pull out of the UN;

Pull out of the US alliance;

Return East Timor to Islamic rule;

Support the return of the extreme form of Islamic rule to the following: Afghanistan, Southern Spain, southern Philippines, southern Thailand, Malaysia, significant parts of China, many of the republics created from the former Soviet Union and, of course, all of North Africa and the Middle East;

Drive the Jews of Israel into the sea;

Persecute homosexuals;

Ban alcohol;

Prevent women working or being educated, or appearing in public without full covering dress;

Require women to obey men.

(end of snip)


Still care to negotiate???

[sangh0]

1. 3,2,1

.

[tkmorris]

2. Strawman

NO ONE supports a policy of negotiation.

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. Dumb....

No one supports negotiating with terrorists.

Believe it or not people actually vote out incumbent parties because they are corrupt and lying, imagine that!

[absyntheNsugar]

5. Or when they play the bait and swich game

Oh my god we're being attacked by that wolf! Quick, shoot that rabbit!

[John BigBootay]

6. Then who were the 45% of DUers who said--

they would negotiate?

They must be dumb. And I agree.

[KissMyAsscroft]

8. Who said that?

Where did 45% percent of DUers say that? If they did, they are morons.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists, but you also shouldn't puruse policies designed to simply antagonize people into sympatizing with them either.

Spain's PM got voted out for LYING. Can we all get that through our thick skulls?

[John BigBootay]

9. It's in the poll and hot thread right here on page 1 GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1247738

[BillZBubb]

30. I said negotiate--does that make me a moron?

I think people who have rigid, faith based positions like "you cannot negotiate with terrorists" to be the true morons.

Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence.

[John BigBootay]

37. "Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence."

That's catchy.

Tell it to the dead.

[BillZBubb]

43. What a bizarre comment. OK, tell what to what dead?

There are far more dead from terrorists attacks where no one would talk to the terrorists than from situations where people did talk to the terrorists.

To claim that talking only encourages more terrorism is faith based speculation. That suggestion is almost as ridiculous as the foolish belief that tax cuts cure all economic ills. There is no supporting data for the contention, it just sounds so certain.

[BillZBubb]

28. I said yes--negotiate

You post an absurd list, a classic, straw-man, bullshit argument, and try to make some moronic point. How dumb is that?

There is nothing wrong with negotiation, per se. In fact, it can be very helpful in the battle for hearts and minds. The real issue, when negotiating, is what points do you yield on.

[Redleg]

44. Absolutely correct.

Attempting to impose our will over other people and nations doesn't provide us with better "results" than negotiation. Negotiation doesn't mean we have to give away the farm or compromise our principles. It does mean that we look for opportunities for mutual gain and show good faith and concern for the other party's welfare. Of course we back that up with cold, hard steel.

[John BigBootay]

45. Okay-- what points are you willing to concede? n/t

[Aidoneus]

7. some "terrorists" have better advertising firms working for them

Therefore they are referred to in different terms.. the question thus becomes a variation of the Golden Rule. The far more outrageous demands of these other "terrorists" are treated in different manners.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Did you look at the other poll

A good number of DU voters think you should negotiate with terrorists.

[Aidoneus]

4. re-alignment of the world in some ways is something I do favour

The ideas on certain social matters are irreconciliably opposed to my own, however.

Note that the wording here is not a reproduction of the original, but paraphrased and spun to the writers' particular preference.

[leftistagitator]

10. Stupid

Yes, the Iraq war did nothing to increase the recruiting power of al queda. Just because this pointless, frivolous war united the previously fractured Muslim peoples against us obviously hasn't made our situation worse. I know, we should just start randomly killing Arabs, since they ALL hate us anyway it won't matter and it might be pretty fun. To do less would be appeasing the terra-ists.

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. ........

:toast:

[sweetheart]

12. Our neocon demands

It reads like the neocon demands with a slight tweak:


Pull out of the UN.

Pull out of the Al Queda alliance.

Return Cuba to Christian rule.

Support the return of the extreme form of Western rule to the following: Afghanistan, Southern Spain, southern Philippines, southern Thailand, Malaysia, significant parts of China, many of the republics created from the former Soviet Union and, of course, all of North Africa and the Middle East;

Drive the Palestineans of Israel into the sea;

Persecute homosexuals;

Ban alcohol and drugs;

Prevent women working or being educated, or appearing in public without proper covering dress, unshaved arm pits, unshaved legs
or without makeup;

Require women to obey men


Negotiators understand that all statements and absolutes are
placemarkers, "areas of concern" no matter what the words say,
look to the area.

We can't help them with any limitations of civil liberties, womens
equality and such, even though the neocons share the same concerns
with the A.Q.

They presume we won't negotiate, as they are ready to fight a war.
They want us to think this.

I don't know how we engage them point by point, but in engaging
them and hearing their voice tones and expressions on these points
we would come to see.

[sangh0]

13. Wow! The terrorists are demanding what the Repukes want!!

I wonder what BigJohn has to say about that

[John BigBootay]

15. "I wonder what BigJohn has to say about that?"

Not much.

[John BigBootay]

14. HA HA HA!!!!

"I don't know how we engage them point by point, but in engaging them and hearing their voice tones and expressions on these points we would come to see. "

So damn sweet, but so damn naive...

[sweetheart]

16. thats my job

sweetheart is not "always-right-heart" or "stalin-heart". I'm a
civilian. I hire a general to advise. In my presidency, i would
take advise from General Clark my VP. Always listen to your
opponent, know him very well. This is the advise of military
wisdom for thousands of years. This is true today. I would
love to discuss all points with AQ. Talking opens the way to
end hostilities.

They are like an angry dog. It will bite you if you corner it.
They will bite you if you don't. I am not so naive on ending this
conflict. But I have learned from northern ireland. British actions
to engage terrorism have ended terrorism in NI. Is that naive?

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Who are the Palestinians of Israel?

I think you mixed up your terms.

[sweetheart]

41. They are the people in the west bank

and gaza. I reversed the words from the other list that said "jews of israel"... and it would be probably better to say palestineans
of palestine, but then that pisses off israeli's who read the
sentence as denying their right to exist.

So Palestineans of Isarael it is! :-)

[bemildred]

17. The thing is that, as I am free to ignore

your demand that I refute this straw man,
I am also free to ignore the demands of these
fundy idiots. The choice is not whether to
carry on all out global war on these fools or
to give in, appease, and "negotiate"; one has
the third choice of ignoring these fools and
taking appropriate defensive measures, combined
perhaps with appropriate police pursuit of the
perps.

[John BigBootay]

18. "police pursuit" only-- no military response? n/t

[bemildred]

20. Right, military is not the right tool.

Take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

[bemildred]

19. What is the bad thing that you think will happen if someone negotiates?

I don't get it.

[ret5hd]

21. It gives credence to the idea...

that WE are not the great, just, benevolent, power of the world, from whom flows all goodness and righteousness, wisdom incarnate, infallable
gift of the one true creator, GOD. not Allah, dammit...GOD!

It gives credence to the idea that those that oppose us may, just MAY, have a point when they tell us to "butt out".

It gives credence to the idea that might doesn't necessarily make right, and that's a loser of an idea when you've got the might.

In other words, it will undermine all the propaganda that we here in the u.s. have been brainwashed with since kindergarten (if not before), thereby wasting at least part of the valuable government funds that have been spent on making us mindless unthinking sheep.

[bemildred]

24. You know the answer.

I will leave it at that.

(I tend towards your fourth, it's an attempt to prevent any
thinking or consideration of alternatives to current policy
and leadership.)

[John BigBootay]

25. Good faith negotiation cannot work

with terrorists. When cops negotiate with perps, everyone knows that it's a pretense to get the perp to surrender.

Terrorists are criminals-- they're not legitimate, recognized agents of governments or even of a 'people.'

They have no negotiating authority at all since they are not representatives of anyone but themselves.

Furthermore, they're demands are preposterous and impossible to allow.

Furthermore, when there have been attempts to negotiate, as in the Oslo Accords, vigorous, strenuous, attempts and massives concessions on the part of the "western" interests were useless as the PA ultimately refused to honor the agreements and the accords failed utterly.

[bemildred]

31. Who said Good Faith?

Cannot work for who? Cannot work for what?
I didn't say anything about Good Faith or concessions.
I said what is bad that happens when you talk?
If you are talking you are not killing and being killed.
A day without any killing is a good day.
You put a whole bunch of those together and you have a good life.

[John BigBootay]

33. I see your point--

If you just "keep talking," maybe, maybe, maybe the terrorists will be distracted into not killing innocent people.

That might work for.......... oh, I don't know.... a few minutes?

[bemildred]

34. Then again, it can work for years, who can say?

Again, what do you have to lose by being willing to talk?
Nothing.

Your argument is flawed, if they were as irrational as you
pretend they would not be near so good at killing and much
easier to find and kill.

The failure to respect one's enemy is a great weakness.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. That is not so

Being rational and being good at killing are two entirely different skill sets.

For a second, imagine discussing a peace with Charles Manson. He's nuts and you won't get a true agreement.

That is what it is like dealing with terrorists. All you do is strengthen them by showing that you consider them important enough to negotiate with.

[bemildred]

In order:

1.) Stupid and/or crazy killers don't last long.
Why do you think troops get all that training?
Do you think these people are not trained and disciplined?
Then I'm glad you are not my commander in a fight with them.

2.) See #1. Whatever these fellows are, they are not
Charley Manson.

3.) So it's the illusion of legitimacy that bothers you.
You think the propaganda point is worth more than a few
dead?

[John BigBootay]

36. I absolutely respect --

their ability to kill.

however, the temperature on Pluto is not low enough to represent my respect for their "ability" to conduct peaceful, cogent, reasonable negotiations-- and then honor them in perpetuity.

Simply stated, I'd rather kill them than talk to them.

Sounds harsh and inflexible, I know, but that is EXACTLY what they think of YOU. Despite your good and noble intentions to give them some kind of a chance, they would still kill you if it suited their purpose.

[bemildred]

38. Hey, if they won't talk to you, there is no issue.

The question was why should you refuse to talk to them.

I see you share Muddle's concern about legitimizing them
by talk. We disagree about values then, I could care less
about that.

[John BigBootay]

40. That's actually an interesting point--

Would OBL be "willing" to sit down and talk?

My intuition says no. He has put forth his demands, they are known to us. Would he be willing to play our little game of "this for that?"

I just can't imagine it.

[bemildred]

42. I don't expect he would put himself in our hands.

With public key encryption and the internet I expect
it would not be too difficult to set up a channel though,
were both sides willing.

Putting forth a list of "demands" IS the start of a
negotiation.

[rdfi-defi]

26. is a list of demands from all terrorists,

or just one group of terrorists? can you define terrorist? i need to know with whom my potential negotiations will take place.

[John BigBootay]

27. I believe these demands came from OBL

For the sake of definition we will call the Al Qaeda network the "terrorists."

[Az]

29. Not with them

Talk to the people. Take the wind out of their sails. Deal with the people. The ones willing to talk.

Also look to ourselves to see if maybe we are in some way to blame. Look for where we may have stepped on their culture and tried to force ours into their nation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Or you could call a meeting

and any of theirs that show up, you get rid of.

Nah, we're supposed to be honest when we deal with inhuman child-killing scum.

[fob]

39. How did you get an advance copy of the

republican party platform?