US negotiates with terrorists

[zenith-nadir]

It all comes down to wether you consider al-Sadr etc terrorists.

Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle. Muqtada al-Sadr is not the leader of the sunni fighters in Fallujah.

"...the coalition offered a draft cease-fire agreement to Moqtada al-Sadr, the outlawed radical Shiite cleric whose militia has battled occupation forces across central and southern Iraq, an intermediary said."They really didn't say "the coalition" offered a cease fire agreement, did they?No one consulted ZN on that first.

Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle. Muqtada al-Sadr is not the leader of the sunni fighters in Fallujah. Once you kids are done climbing into each others colon I am still waiting to hear from even one of you who the "terrorists" are that a_u_p swears the US has negotiated with. I don't seem to see the word "terrorists" in any news links that subgenius, demon, Mr Manifesto or a_u_p have provided. So once you can tackle that question, "who are the terrorists and what terror group do they belong to", then we can move to question #2.

 

[a_unique_person]

Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle. Muqtada al-Sadr is not the leader of the sunni fighters in Fallujah.




Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle. Muqtada al-Sadr is not the leader of the sunni fighters in Fallujah. Once you kids are done climbing into each others colon I am still waiting to hear from even one of you who the "terrorists" are that a_u_p swears the US has negotiated with. I don't seem to see the word "terrorists" in any news links that subgenius, demon, Mr Manifesto or a_u_p have provided. So once you can tackle that question, "who are the terrorists and what terror group do they belong to", then we can move to question #2.

The Fallujah breakthrough came as many of the country's leaders denounced the Fallujah offensive and large parts of Baghdad closed down in a protest strike.

Heavy exchanges of fire also broke out in the city's main Sunni neighbourhood.

It also came as the coalition offered a draft cease-fire agreement to Moqtada al-Sadr, the outlawed radical Shiite cleric whose militia has battled occupation forces across central and southern Iraq, an intermediary said.

So there are negotiations in progress with two groups at present. Al Sadr, and those in falujah. Have I cleared this up for you.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

So there are negotiations in progress with two groups at present. Al Sadr, and those in falujah. Have I cleared this up for you.

Not so much that he can't muddy the waters again, I hope. I can always use the laughs.

 

[zenith-nadir]

This is the original post;

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main.int.ceasefire/index.html Now, isn't this sending the wrong signal to the terrorists? Won't it encourage them to more acts of murder? More rhetorical questions to follow.

So I ask the question a fourth time; Where is the US in direct bilateral talks with terrorists? I don't see the word terrorist in the story you linked to start this thread a_u_p.

So there are negotiations in progress with two groups at present. Al Sadr, and those in falujah. Have I cleared this up for you.

WRONG. I pointed out that Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle, you just realized your typical blunder and now are attempting to backpedal and say "you cleared things up". Hahahahaha....

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Not so much that he can't muddy the waters again, I hope. I can always use the laughs.

The only laugh in this thread is that you don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, until I pointed it out, and you and a_u_p replace the words, "anti-coalition forces" with "terrorists" and "Iraqi Governing Council" with "US" and then stand on your soapboxes and pronounce, "the US is negotiating with terrorists"! Then when I challenge the accuracy of that false statement you do everything to avoid my questions three times.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

This is the original post;So I ask the question a fourth time; Where is the US in direct bilateral talks with terrorists? I don't see the word terrorist in the story you linked to start this thread a_u_p.



WRONG. I pointed out that Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle, you just realized your typical blunder and now are attempting to backpedal and say "you cleared things up". Hahahahaha....

The only laugh in this thread is that you don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, until I pointed it out, and you and a_u_p replace the words, "anti-coalition forces" with "terrorists" and "Iraqi Governing Council" with "US" and then stand on your soapboxes and pronounce, "the US is negotiating with terrorists"! Then when I challenge the accuracy of that false statement you do everything to avoid my questions three times.

It wasn't me and a_u_p who called Sadr a terrorist, it was the White House. Now, of course, they're just 'thugs or assassins' which is such a big difference.

 

[a_unique_person]

This is the original post;So I ask the question a fourth time; Where is the US in direct bilateral talks with terrorists? I don't see the word terrorist in the story you linked to start this thread a_u_p.



WRONG. I pointed out that Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle, you just realized your typical blunder and now are attempting to backpedal and say "you cleared things up". Hahahahaha....

The only laugh in this thread is that you don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, until I pointed it out, and you and a_u_p replace the words, "anti-coalition forces" with "terrorists" and "Iraqi Governing Council" with "US" and then stand on your soapboxes and pronounce, "the US is negotiating with terrorists"! Then when I challenge the accuracy of that false statement you do everything to avoid my questions three times.

You forgot the smiley, ZN. Losing your touch. No one mentioned Sadr, till Chaos did. I never thought it had anything to do with him, just those in Fallujah, if you can be bothered re-reading the thread. That was because the ABC article mentioned not just negotiations with those in Fallujah, but also Sadr. I have never claimed, or implied, or had to backpeddle, on this matter, anything to do with Sadr. I will expect an immediate and unqualified apology from you.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

You forgot the smiley, ZN. Losing your touch. No one mentioned Sadr, till Chaos did. I never thought it had anything to do with him, just those in Fallujah, if you can be bothered re-reading the thread. That was because the ABC article mentioned not just negotiations with those in Fallujah, but also Sadr. I have never claimed, or implied, or had to backpeddle, on this matter, anything to do with Sadr. I will expect an immediate and unqualified apology from you.

And even if a_u_p was talking about Sadr, you'd still have to apologise. Face it, you've just had your ass handed to you.

 

[a_unique_person]

It wasn't me and a_u_p who called Sadr a terrorist, it was the White House. Now, of course, they're just 'thugs or assassins' which is such a big difference.

Ditto Ollie North.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040409.shtml

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week in Iraq, U.S. Marines came under heavy fire in such cities as Fallujah and Ramadi. Amid gunfire and rocket propelled grenade attacks, their mission was to search for the terrorists who killed and desecrated the bodies of four American contractors killed last week and quell an uprising of radical Shiites, who are being lead by Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, a fanatical cleric and a pawn of Hezbollah. At least 15 Marines were killed and 20 more were wounded in the battles.

The association of the rebels in Fallujah with terrorists is pretty common. As Abdul has pointed out, many of the right wing are furious about the matter.

 

[zenith-nadir]

No one mentioned Sadr, till Chaos did.

Wrong as usual a_u_p, subgenius brought up al-Sadr with this quote;

"...the coalition offered a draft cease-fire agreement to Moqtada al-Sadr, the outlawed radical Shiite cleric whose militia has battled occupation forces across central and southern Iraq, an intermediary said."

....which had nothing to do with Fallujah and Chaos responded to that quote.

I never thought it had anything to do with him, just those in Fallujah, if you can be bothered re-reading the thread.

How about you look at the link you use as evidence that the US is negotiating with terrorists; http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main.int.ceasefire/index.html, and tell everyone where the words "terrorist" and "negotiations" are a_u_p.

I will expect an immediate and unqualified apology from you.

When you can find the words "terrorist" and "negotiations" in the original article that you used as your evidence then I will apologize, until then dream on pal.

 

[a_unique_person]

Apology accepted. Now don't do it again.

 

[Dorian Gray]

So I ask the question a fourth time; Where is the US in direct bilateral talks with terrorists? I don't see the word terrorist in the story you linked to start this thread a_u_p.

Direct from ZNN - Whirled News Tonight!
Who are we fighting with over there? You can't have it both ways. You people want to claim that we are fighting a War on Terror, yet claim that these people are not terrorists when it suits you. And by 'you' I mean, of course, conservative idiots.

US troops negotiated a cease-fire with insurgents, which is the same as terrorists in the Giant Conservative Coloring Book of Disparaging Labels. ZNN, a thesaurus is your friend. Of the groups the US is attempting to negotiate with, two are the 'Fallujians' and the 'al-Sadrs'. It doesn't matter that "Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric and Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle" because we are NEGOTIATING with BOTH factions of ISLAM across IRAQ.

It doesn't matter what terms you use for the groups we are negotiating with, the sentiment is the same. In fact, implying that by using different terms it somehow means a different thing is, in this case, more than a little spinny and dishonest.

Besides, YOU have failed to ACKNOWLEDGE that JAPAN and CHINA are having to NEGOTIATE with groups that have taken their people HOSTAGE. China is not technically part of the coalition, but Japan is. (Whee! Random capitalization is fun!)

Coalition - terrorists - negotiating - release - Japanese hostages - are you getting it yet? (Please, for pete's sake, please don't repeat your little 'Sadr is a SHIA' spiel at me.)

 

[zenith-nadir]

Apology accepted. Now don't do it again.

Ok, so four times I asked you to point out the word "terrorists" and "negotiations" from the original article you began this thread with. Four times you avoided the question and failed that simple task. Pitiful.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Coalition - terrorists - negotiating - release - Japanese hostages - are you getting it yet? (Please, for pete's sake, please don't repeat your little 'Sadr is a SHIA' spiel at me.)

Well I have looked very carefully at the article a_u_p started this thread with saying the US is negotiating with terrorists and can't find the words "terrorist" or "negotiations". Do you think that is honest debate Dorian Gray when people make up stuff? Then when asked four times to point out the words "terrorist" and "negotiations" a_u_p failed four times to do so. Now you chime in and add the words "japanese hostages". Please find the words "US is negotiating for the release of japanese hostages" in a_u_p's article.

 

[rikzilla]

My original question:

Demon's answer to the question; Mr Manifesto answer to the question; subgenius's answer to the question; Well well well, so not one of you can answer a direct question, why am I not surprised in the least

Such wonderful, incisive, and direct answers to your questions Z-N! One would expect to meet such people at a comic book convention instead of a forum dedicated to empiricism.

-z

 

[ssibal]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main.int.ceasefire/index.html



Now, isn't this sending the wrong signal to the terrorists? Won't it encourage them to more acts of murder? More rhetorical questions to follow.

Assuming this is true, do you really care?

 

[subgenius]

U.S.-allied Iraqis were negotiating separately with representatives from Falluja and al-Sadr.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...548&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Unless you're a semantic pindancer its a duck.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Well I have looked very carefully at the article a_u_p started this thread with saying the US is negotiating with terrorists and can't find the words "terrorist" or "negotiations". Do you think that is honest debate Dorian Gray when people make up stuff?

YOU are a doughnut-eating buffoon. He said that the US is negotiating with terrorists. He DID NOT say that 'this document contains the exact words/phrases 'terrorists' and 'negotiating'. You have to fill in some blanks. Do some nogginizing on your own.

Zenith, you have to learn to think outside the box..... of chocolates.

I am talking about what is ACTUALLY GOING ON, and I am sure that AUP and everyone else is too. Shut up with your 'verbatim' and your 'find the words', and join in the damn discussion. Are there terrorists? Yes. Do they have hostages and/or forces? Yes. Are we/the coalition/the US/the Japanese negotiating for a cease-fire/release of hostages? Yes. Does it use those words in the ONE article that you keep harping on and on about? Who gives a rat's ass! If you'd wake up and use your eyes, you might realize that there's a whole conversation going on!

 

[zenith-nadir]

YOU are a doughnut-eating buffoon. He said that the US is negotiating with terrorists. He DID NOT say that 'this document contains the exact words/phrases 'terrorists' and 'negotiating'. You have to fill in some blanks. Do some nogginizing on your own.

Wrong. a_u_p posted an article then made the claim that the US is negotiating with terrorists. I challenged the validity of that claim after reading the article because it did not state the US is negotiating with terrorists. a_u_p simply replaced the words "U.S.-led coalition" with "US", "seeking" with "negotiations" and "enemy combatants" with "terrorists", then spun it to say;

Now, isn't this sending the wrong signal to the terrorists? Won't it encourage them to more acts of murder? More rhetorical questions to follow.

Zenith, you have to learn to think outside the box..... of chocolates

No box to think outside of. a_u_p misrepresented the event, (no surprise there), he replaced the words "U.S.-led coalition" with "US", "seeking" with "negotiations" and "enemy combatants" with "terrorists".

I am talking about what is ACTUALLY GOING ON, and I am sure that AUP and everyone else is too. Shut up with your 'verbatim' and your 'find the words', and join in the damn discussion. Are there terrorists? Yes. Do they have hostages and/or forces? Yes. Are we/the coalition/the US/the Japanese negotiating for a cease-fire/release of hostages? Yes. Does it use those words in the ONE article that you keep harping on and on about? Who gives a rat's ass! If you'd wake up and use your eyes, you might realize that there's a whole conversation going on!

I know how offensive the 'verbatim' game can be to people who need to spin....

 

[Dorian Gray]

Do you deny that coalition members are negotiating with terrorists in general? In other words, is your claim that coalition members have NEVER negotiated with ANY terrorists since March 2003?

I know how useful a verbatim argument can be to a person who thinks an article appeared in a vacuum.

 

[subgenius]

Instead of nitpicking (the latest technique here for derailing a thread and avoiding any real discussion), why not address the issue head-on?

This subject was the topic on Nightline the other night.

Yes, despite saying we don't, we negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers all the time. Those that scream the loudest that we don't seem to be the worst violators of their own pronouncement.
Get over it, and have a real discussion on the merits.
Is it good or bad? No, its just a fact of life.