Jimmy Carter is a terrorist

[GreyICE]

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

We did pretty well interacting with the Kurds in Iraq.

I notice you didn't address the fact that you built a complete strawman. Was building it really necessary?

 

[BPSCG]

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.

A constructive dialogue is possible only when both parties to the dialogue are negotiating in good faith. Good faith begins with the acknowledgment that both parties to the discussion have the right to live. Hamas does not acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist, and they say that's non-negotiable. So where should the negotiations begin? If A says B must die, what is there to negotiate between the two of them? The method by which B shall die? What possible reason could B have to enter such a discussion?

I have the right to exist. All else depends on that premise and your acceptance of it. If you do not accept it, then there is nothing for us to talk about. You might as well discuss what I'm going to have for dinner next week when I'm scheduled to be hanged this morning.

 

[shuttlt]

BPSCG,

If your analysis was correct then I don't see that the conflict in Northern Ireland would have ended. The Republicans and Loyalists stated aims for most of the century have been mutually exclusive.

 

[varwoche]

Meaning you don't know me very well.

All s/he has to go on are the gross distortions you posted. How about retracting them rather than this empty reply?

 

[WildCat]

We did pretty well interacting with the Kurds in Iraq.

We didn't "interact" with Islamist terrorist Kurds. In fact, we attacked Ansar al-Islam early in the Iraq war and didn't negotiate with them at all. The Peshmerga are not Islamists.

I notice you didn't address the fact that you built a complete strawman. Was building it really necessary?

What strawman was that? That Israel is being asked to negotiate with a group that calls for their genocide?

I didn't make a false claim such as that the Peshmerga are an Islamic terrorist group as you did.

 

[WildCat]

BPSCG,

If your analysis was correct then I don't see that the conflict in Northern Ireland would have ended. The Republicans and Loyalists stated aims for most of the century have been mutually exclusive.

The IRA simply lost interest in the whole fight for independence thing after it evolved into a mafia-style organization making money off protection rackets, drug dealing, and smuggling. The whole "fight the British" thing was simply attracting too much attention from the military and law enforcement and was bad for business.

The IRA is alive and well in its current crime syndicate incarnation.

Hamas is still very much a group dedicated to killing Jews and destroying Israel. Not much to negotiate with there.

 

[shuttlt]

Wildcat, there is a lot of truth in what you say. Natural organic change in the participants can do a lot. The most important question for me is:

"can you explain to me why [dialog] is a hinderance to peace"?

 

[GreyICE]

We didn't "interact" with Islamist terrorist Kurds. In fact, we attacked Ansar al-Islam early in the Iraq war and didn't negotiate with them at all. The Peshmerga are not Islamists.

I'm confused. Please define Islamists. So far it seems to be defined as "groups we do not negotiate with."

What strawman was that? That Israel is being asked to negotiate with a group that calls for their genocide?

I didn't make a false claim such as that the Peshmerga are an Islamic terrorist group as you did.

I love it when people use the IRA as an example of how to negotiate with Islamist terrorists.

Since no one was in fact using it that way, you attacked an argument that no one had in fact made, and did it in such a way that it appeared to address something that someone had actually said.

Can I have "What is a strawman?" for $500?

 

[Earthborn]

A constructive dialogue is possible only when both parties to the dialogue are negotiating in good faith.

If that were true, most diplomacy would be futile. Gorbachov and Reagan would never have had any constructive dialogue. Kennedy would never have phoned with Krushov and the Cuban Missile Crisis would have inevitably ended in nuclear war.

Someone wiser than me once said that "diplomacy is war carried on with other means". I would add "nicer means". But it is a form of war all the same. As soon as both parties are able to negotiate in good faith, there is peace and negotiations have become unnecessary.

 

[WildCat]

I'm confused. Please define Islamists. So far it seems to be defined as "groups we do not negotiate with."

It's the more PC term for "Islamofascist", which seems to get certain elements all riled up here so we use "Islamist" instead.

It does not refer to any group that also happens to be Muslim. I had no idea there were actually people here who didn't know the difference.

Since no one was in fact using it that way, you attacked an argument that no one had in fact made, and did it in such a way that it appeared to address something that someone had actually said.

Can I have "What is a strawman?" for $500?

An argument "no one has made"?

1. Why is the Islamist brand of terrorism different from others? The IRA took around 80 years to come to a negotiated settlement.

The negotiated settlements in Northern Ireland seem to have worked.

Strawman claim rejected.

 

[BPSCG]

If that were true, most diplomacy would be futile. Gorbachov and Reagan would never have had any constructive dialogue.

What constructive dialogue did Reagan and Gorbachev have?

Kennedy would never have phoned with Krushov and the Cuban Missile Crisis would have inevitably ended in nuclear war.

Not so. Both sides during the Cuban missile crisis were sincere in their desire to avoid a nuclear war.

And in any case, neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S. denied the right of the other to exist.

Someone wiser than me once said that "diplomacy is war carried on with other means".

The quote I think you're looking for goes the other way around: "War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means." (Carl von Clausewitz)

As soon as both parties are able to negotiate in good faith ... negotiations have become unnecessary.

I put the ellipsis in there, taking out the parenthetical phrase, to throw into relief what you're saying. Negotiations are unnecessary when both parties are willing to negotiate in good faith?

So, conversely, negotiations are necessary when at least one party intends to negotiate in bad faith?

Sorry, but that makes no sense. If I want a pay raise, I'm not going to bother negotiating with my boss for it if I know he has no intention of keeping any promise to give me one. If, OTOH, I know my boss is trustworthy and honorable, I'll negotiate with him, because I know that he will keep his word regarding whatever he has agreed to.

There is no earthly reason for Israel to negotiate with Hamas until Hamas acknowledges Israel has a basic right to live in peace. If you won't even acknowledge my right to be alive, why should I believe any promise you might make to me?

 

[GreyICE]

It's the more PC term for "Islamofascist", which seems to get certain elements all riled up here so we use "Islamist" instead.

It does not refer to any group that also happens to be Muslim. I had no idea there were actually people here who didn't know the difference.

This is a total non-answer. You got nowhere. You claim a group is not Islamist. They are Muslim. Very well, there must be a way to tell the difference.

So far the only definition of Islamist I see is "Group we cannot negotiate with."

An argument "no one has made"?

Strawman claim rejected.

They both stated that the IRA was negotiated with (true) which shows that terrorists can be negotiated with successfully (true). No one was claiming that exactly the same procedure would work with every other terrorist group. The IRA example is not telling us HOW to interact with a terrorist group, it's showing us it can be done.

 

[shuttlt]

I just don't see diplomacy as being two groups sharing two sets of axioms and deducing a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Should diplomacy only be done when both sides already more or less agree? Or am I attacking a straw man?

By the way BPSCG, do you think in this case deplomacy is actively harmfull as in the OP?

 

[shuttlt]

I'd always taken Islamism to be a political movement advocating the setting up of fundamentalist Muslim states and an agressive expansionist foreign policy. It's related to Wahhabism in some way, no?

 

[BPSCG]

I just don't see diplomacy as being two groups sharing two sets of axioms and deducing a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

It isn't, and I don't believe anyone made that claim.

Should diplomacy only be done when both sides already more or less agree?

They must agree on certain ground rules surrounding the negotiations. They can be seemingly arcane (during the Vietnam war, the negotiations among the U.S., North Vietnam, and South Vietnam included resolving the shape of the negotiating table). They can be common-sensical, such as all parties acknowledge beforehand that any agreement will be binding on all the parties. But the ground rules have to be agreed on before any negotiations on differences in substantive issues can begin. And the very first ground rule is that both parties respect the other party's right to exist.

No, they don't have to agree on the issues that they're negotiating about. If the U.S. and Mexico don't agree on how to distribute the water in the Rio Grande (the river that divides the two countries), that's a subject for negotiation. If there were no disagreement to begin with, there would be no need for negotiation. But how far would such negotiations get if the U.S. disputed Mexico's right to exist as a sovereign country, if the U.S. asserted that all the land known as Mexico was properly the U.S., and that everyone living in Mexico today should be killed?

Or am I attacking a straw man?

Yes.

By the way BPSCG, do you think in this case deplomacy is actively harmfull as in the OP?

Giving aid and comfort to terrorists is always actively harmful, except in that rare case where one terrorist is fighting an even worse one (e.g., Stalin and Hitler).

 

[WildCat]

This is a total non-answer. You got nowhere. You claim a group is not Islamist. They are Muslim. Very well, there must be a way to tell the difference.

So far the only definition of Islamist I see is "Group we cannot negotiate with."

Have fun with your own personal definition of "Islamist", I'll discuss it with those who are reasonable.

They both stated that the IRA was negotiated with (true) which shows that terrorists can be negotiated with successfully (true). No one was claiming that exactly the same procedure would work with every other terrorist group. The IRA example is not telling us HOW to interact with a terrorist group, it's showing us it can be done.

No one has demonstrated that an Islamist terrorist group can be negotiated with successfully.

 

[GreyICE]

Have fun with your own personal definition of "Islamist", I'll discuss it with those who are reasonable.

No one has demonstrated that an Islamist terrorist group can be negotiated with successfully.

I want your definition! Does one exist?

 

[WildCat]

I want your definition! Does one exist?

Is anyone else as confused as GreyICE?

 

[Earthborn]

What constructive dialogue did Reagan and Gorbachev have?

The constructive dialogue that resulted in this.

Not so. Both sides during the Cuban missile crisis were sincere in their desire to avoid a nuclear war.

But if both sides had believed the opposite side was sincere in their desire to avoid nuclear war, there wouldn't have been a crisis to begin with.

And in any case, neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S. denied the right of the other to exist.

That's sure debatable. If that was true, why didn't they just adopt a "live and let live" strategy instead of targeting nuclear missiles at each other?

The quote I think you're looking for goes the other way around: "War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means." (Carl von Clausewitz)

Thanks!

If I want a pay raise, I'm not going to bother negotiating with my boss for it if I know he has no intention of keeping any promise to give me one. If, OTOH, I know my boss is trustworthy and honorable, I'll negotiate with him, because I know that he will keep his word regarding whatever he has agreed to.

Trade between friendly parties is a bit different than peace negotiations between warring parties, which is what I am talking about.

If you won't even acknowledge my right to be alive, why should I believe any promise you might make to me?

You shouldn't. You should instead demand assurances during the negotiation. Israel should do that even if Hamas were to acknowledge its right to exist, and Hamas should demand the same from Israel. Neither of them has any reason to trust the other's promises, so they shouldn't base their relationship on trust but rather on distrust.

 

[GreyICE]

Is anyone else as confused as GreyICE?

You know, if someone were confused as to what the IRA was, I could tell them. If someone was confused as to what evolution was, I could tell them. If someone was confused as to what neoconservative was, I could tell them.

The fact that you cannot tell me clearly speaks volumes...