Jimmy Carter is a terrorist

[shuttlt]

Certainly not. I don't think, say, Indonesians have anything to negotiate with someone who thinks God ordered them to butcher every last Indonesian baby and wipe Indonesia off the face of the earth.

OK. I disagree with your position, but thankyou for clarifying it.

I'm sorry to give the usual cliched example, but pointing out that Hitler was hell-bent on war and genocide no matter what he were offered would have been a lot more realistic that attempts to placate him with the hope he'll moderate. If only people were hopeless then about negotiating with him, they might well have saved millions of lives.

Why does it have to be negotiation OR force? What ever happened to talk softly AND carry a big stick? Where would have been the harm in talking to Hitler if we had had a credible stick that he expected us to be willing to use? Also, you have the benifit of hindsight with Hitler.

I guess my niave, ignorant (genuinely, I'm way out of my comfort zone on this thread) opinion on this is that if you back a sewer rat into a corner and then aren't able or willing to kill him you are going to get bitten. Force is important in backing Hamas/Hitler/the IRA/whoever into a corner, but if you're not then in a position to destroy them entirely you need to give them a way out that allows them to save enough face that they'll at least consider it as an option. That last part surely involves some kind of process of negotiation.

Back to the original topic. Do you really think Jimmy Carter is a Hamas supporter?

 

[Darth Rotor]

There is a long history of negotiating with terrorist. Can anyone point to an example of a similar modern conflict that has ended in the absence of negotiation?

I almost logged on to apologize to you yesterday. To me, Wednesday night is Harris county seemed to have just a little flavor of Gaza. Many of my neighbors took the opportunity to lob several dozen 180 grain mortars into the air (Unlike the traditional Saturday night 10-20). Get the wife in, get the dog in, get the cars in the garage, its raining lead.

Daredelvis

New Year's Eve fireworks mortars, or 81 mm military surplus?

No apology needed. If Harris county is your home turf, standing up for it is righteous. No slight was intended.

Happy New Year.

DR

 

[daredelvis]

New Year's Eve fireworks mortars, or 81 mm military surplus?


DR

I'm guessing 9mm hand launched mortars.

Daredelvis

 

[UserGoogol]

We need to negotiate with people who believe stupid and hateful things.

We do not, however, need to negotiate with people who think (a) the holocaust is a Jewish hoax, (b) Jews are "nothing but human scum" and must be destroyed, (c) the protocols of the Elders of Zion are "history", (d) children need to be taught to become suicide bombers, and (e) the current financial crisis is due to a Jewish plot to control the world's banking system.

All if this -- and much more -- is claimed by Hamas with all seriousness, and repeatedly. This is not being merely being "stupid and hateful", but being genocidal maniacs.

Genocide is just another stupidity, with the only difference between it and believing in Bigfoot being that if Bigfoot believers get what they want they might waste money mucking around in the Pacific Northwest, whereas if genocidal maniacs get what they want, they make genocide happen. And obviously that's an important difference, which is why arrangements should be arranged so as to assure that genocide does not happen, but they aren't any more irrational than anyone else, they're just irrational in more dangerous ways.

 

[Texas]

I see what you were getting at now.

There is a long history of negotiating with terrorist. Can anyone point to an example of a similar modern conflict that has ended in the absence of negotiation?


Daredelvis

Yes WW2. After that we did negotiate and the results are Cambodia and South Vietnam with 5 million dead and another million boat people, North Korea with millions of poor peasants eating bark off of trees and an insane maniac with nukes.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes WW2. After that we did negotiate and the results are Cambodia and South Vietnam with 5 million dead and another million boat people, North Korea with millions of poor peasants eating bark off of trees and an insane maniac with nukes.

Instead maybe someone should have fought a war in those countries which would certainly have resolved the situation.

 

[shuttlt]

Look. I'm not suggesting we French kiss Kim Jong-Il, or buy him donuts. Mmmm donuts! The OP claimed the Jimmy Carter was a terrorist for talking to Hamas. Do we really believe that, or is this thread going for a random walk?

 

[Skeptic]

Look, folks, your mistake -- as I see it -- is that you think these people's desire to genocide every last Jew is due to stupidity. Therefore, you reason, if they are talked to enough, or educated enough, or helped enough, they will see it's a stupid thing to believe, and change their mind.

Nothing can be further from the truth. These guys want all the Jews dead (and all westerners dead, for that matter) not because they are "stupid", which they aren't, but because that's what they live for, the purpose of their life. This is how things are when one is an Islamist.

It is an entire philosophy, entire worldview, and it sees any attempt to prove to them they are "stupid" with about the same sort of contempt that you would see an attempt to "prove" to you the Earth is flat.

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. If only it did!

 

[UserGoogol]

Look, folks, your mistake -- as I see it -- is that you think these people's desire to genocide every last Jew is due to stupidity. Therefore, you reason, if they are talked to enough, or educated enough, or helped enough, they will see it's a stupid thing to believe, and change their mind.

Nothing can be further from the truth. These guys want all the Jews dead (and all westerners dead, for that matter) not because they are "stupid", which they aren't, but because that's what they live for, the purpose of their life. This is how things are when one is an Islamist.

It is an entire philosophy, entire worldview, and it sees any attempt to prove to them they are "stupid" with about the same sort of contempt that you would see an attempt to "prove" to you the Earth is flat.

All wrong beliefs are attributable to insufficient intelligence, that's the whole point of wrongness. However, I'm not arguing that they can be convinced otherwise in the short term. They're probably still going to want to murder Jews after any negotiation. But so? Lots of people want lots of things. As long as they are not able to do so, then we can just sit back and wait. The truth always wins out in the end. My point is that a person who wants to murder you is not necessarily someone you can't negotiate with, precisely because they aren't so profoundly stupid that they can't listen to reason in areas that aren't immediately concerned with killing you.

 

[shuttlt]

Skeptic,

OK, so you can't see any way that negotiation (I'd rather say dialog) could resolve things. Previously you've admitted that you don't know "how it will end", so you can't see how force will resolve things either (I hope I haven't misunderstood). If you can't see how force or negotiation will resolve things, why prefer one over the other? Why make it a case of either/or?

By the way, is Bush a terrorist as well? Many people claim that he has played into the Islamist cause.

 

[GreyICE]

All wrong beliefs are attributable to insufficient intelligence, that's the whole point of wrongness. However, I'm not arguing that they can be convinced otherwise in the short term. They're probably still going to want to murder Jews after any negotiation. But so? Lots of people want lots of things. As long as they are not able to do so, then we can just sit back and wait. The truth always wins out in the end. My point is that a person who wants to murder you is not necessarily someone you can't negotiate with, precisely because they aren't so profoundly stupid that they can't listen to reason in areas that aren't immediately concerned with killing you.

Oh, if only you were right. If only we could blame stupidity for all our problems, and the shining beacon of intelligence would solve them all.

History shows, time and again, this simply isn't the case. Stalin wasn't stupid. He wasn't anything resembling stupid. His intellect and ability to reason were staggering. Himmler? Certainly above average, if not straight up genius level. Robert E. Lee? An engineer, career army officer, and straight up brilliant general. Everyone was impressed by his intelligence. Osama? Do you really think Osama bin Laden is a stupid man?

Intelligence is a tool. Intelligence is not a solution. You can use intelligence to make the world a better place, or to plan actions that will send 10 million to their graves.

I remember someone in a history class I was in who believed similar, and slowly coming to the realization that some of the worst monsters in history, the people who burned, slaughtered, and turned their names into curses were in fact genius-level intelligences.

 

[shuttlt]

I quite agree. It is a mistake to assume that they are stupid. My belief in dialog certainly isn't predicated on that.

 

[Almo]

However, the latest round of rocket attacks is only just another in a long line of total failures on the part of the Palestinians to "police themselves." One has to wonder how these groups are still able to receive thousands and thousands of the ubiquitous 107mm "Katyusha" rockets that are continually launched into Israeli population centers.

How can they police themselves when a certain entity keeps destroying any remaining infrastructure they have? Also there's no comparison between those rocket attacks and a full mechanized air/ground assault.

I personally think the Israelis know full well that their military assaults have no chance of stopping the rockets. They know that if they continue to smash buildings and other infrastructure that it will continue to be impossible for the Palestinians to get their society functioning. The end result will be ownership of all of Gaza and the West Bank. That's just my opinion from reading their actions.

ETA: Just found this article from Robert Fisk. It addresses my point. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/29-9

 

[WildCat]

I love it when people use the IRA as an example of how to negotiate with Islamist terrorists. They're about as similar as a whale is to a herring.

 

[shuttlt]

How can they police themselves when a certain entity keeps destroying any remaining infrastructure they have? Also there's no comparison between those rocket attacks and a full mechanized air/ground assault.

I personally think the Israelis know full well that their military assaults have no chance of stopping the rockets. They know that if they continue to smash buildings and other infrastructure that it will continue to be impossible for the Palestinians to get their society functioning. The end result will be ownership of all of Gaza and the West Bank. That's just my opinion from reading their actions.

I disagree. As admitted previously, I am not in the least qualified to talk about this, but I'm not convinced that ownership of Gaza or the West Bank is the issue. I'd have said that the situation has stabilized in such a way that Hamas needs the threat of Israeli bombardment to survive (so they provoke it) and successive Israeli governments have felt it necessary to take tough, posturing positions in order to win elections (so they provoke Hamas in order to give themselves an excuse to act tough).

 

[BPSCG]

They know that if they continue to smash buildings and other infrastructure that it will continue to be impossible for the Palestinians to get their society functioning.

The Gaza Palestinians do have a functioning society, and it is the kind of society they want.

They had free elections in Gaza (well, as free as you're going to see in the Muslim middle east). Hamas ran on a platform of - among other things - the destruction of Israel. The voters decided that was what they wanted and voted Hamas in. Hamas lived up to its campaign promise and gave the people what they had promised them, and what the people had voted for. They voted for war with Israel, and they got it. It's a little disingenuous to complain that Israel is cooperating with their freely-expressed desires.

Making peace with Israel is easy. All you have to do is acknowledge that Israel has the right to live in peace and to stop shooting at it. Ask the Egyptians how it's done - they've been at peace with Israel for something like 30 years now.

 

[GreyICE]

I love it when people use the IRA as an example of how to negotiate with Islamist terrorists. They're about as similar as a whale is to a herring.

Was anyone suggesting that this, instead of using the IRA to refute the old canard that "you can't negotiate with terrorists?"

 

[WildCat]

The Israelis have had prisoners returned, presumably be negotiating with wanted terrorists...

Were any of those prisoners alive when they were returned?

 

[WildCat]

Was anyone suggesting that this, instead of using the IRA to refute the old canard that "you can't negotiate with terrorists?"

Any successful and lasting negotiations with Islamist terrorists that you know of?

 

[shuttlt]

Were any of those prisoners alive when they were returned?

I don't know. If you think it's important I'll look into it. I really don't believe that these people are just misunderstood freedom fighters. Equally, Israel seems quite willing to move heaven and Earth (and negotiate) to retrieve bodies.

Any successful and lasting negotiations with Islamist terrorists that you know of?

Again, I'm out of my depth, and perhaps you can educate me. I've got my honorable skeptic hat on, and I am willing to learn. At the moment my objections boil down to two things:

1. Why is the Islamist brand of terrorism different from others? The IRA took around 80 years to come to a negotiated settlement. Ian Paisley used to say "NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!" every time a reporter with a microphone rolled into his eye line, but all of a sudden he was involved in power sharing. The Islamist situation is worse in many ways, but is it fundamentally different?

2. I realize that you don't believe that any constructive dialog is possible, but can you explain to me why it is a hinderance to peace? I feel like I am being asked to prove that it is going to necessarily lead to peace (I can't), when you should be showing that it is making things worse.