"We do not negotiate with terrorists"

[ComradeDaryl]

The term "We do not negotiate with terrorists" is fucking stupid rhetoric that AmeriKKKans and the UKKK likes to use to justify their intervention in other parts of the world. I'd rather negotiate with terrorists than to die, it's common sense. If someone held a gun/knife to your head demanding things, would you rather give in, or die? It's common sense to rather give in, since you get to live only once, morons!

[Username]

>politics

[Ky]

Okay, your stance is starting to make more sense now. You're opposed to foreign intervention as a whole because you're afraid.

Consider the following: You're magnitudes more likely to die in a car accident than to become a victim of any terrorist attack. Terrorism is nothing more than a cheap, socially unacceptable political tool used in an attempt to terrify and thus coerce the masses - while the deaths caused by it are tragic, the ultimate toll is inconsequential compared to other, more valid threats, whether in war or peace. Terrorists are little more than bullies; why should they not be treated as such?

Negotiating with them only serves to empower and validate them. Realistically speaking, if ever you were to find yourself in the unlikely scenario of an act of terror, your options would be "give in and die" or "fight back and possibly save lives". Which would you choose?

[brainiac3397]

The Barbary pirates did the same. Europe kept playing to release their sailors. When they did the same to a newly formed economically struggling nation, they paid. Then they did it more so the US said "Fuck you" and invaded Tripoli and killed the pirates.

And then there were none.

While I'd rather live too, getting in a position to get caught is kind of your fault if you knew before hand how dangerous it was in that area. If ransom is paid, your survival only puts others lives at stake. How would you feel if the money you paid for your life was then utilized to massacre 100 others?

So bottom line. Don't be stupid and don't get caught. Best case scenario the gubament sends special forces to rescue you. Worst case they use you as marker for guided missile to kill other baddies.

Questionable issue is the part about who to call terrorist. Unfortunately the lack of an internationally recognized definition and internationally acknowledged database(many nations insist on having their own database parallel to an existing international one) means whose an actual terrorist and whose just an insurgent/rebel(thus less likely to commit wanton murder and have a clear political goal) gets blurred.

[Cianna200]

Terrorists usually cannot be reasoned with

[ComradeDaryl]

(09-16-2015 04:48 AM)Cianna200 Wrote:  Terrorists usually cannot be reasoned with

It's still better to reason with them than to die, and/or have your family/friends/etc die.

[Cianna200]

That's right.

[Ky]

(09-16-2015 06:21 AM)ComradeDaryl Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 04:48 AM)Cianna200 Wrote:  Terrorists usually cannot be reasoned with

It's still better to reason with them than to die, and/or have your family/friends/etc die.

So your strategy, if you ever come across any of these, is to reason with terrorists if they attack you, attack the armed forces (or cops) if they try to reason with you, surrender to foes who don't accept surrender, and fight against the government for even suggesting you should fight?

That's not even mere stupidity. That's insanity. The best you could hope for in any of these situations is to die a quick and relatively painless death... and that's not even getting into the worst...

[James Comey]

(09-16-2015 03:08 AM)ComradeDaryl Wrote:  The term "We do not negotiate with terrorists" is fucking stupid rhetoric that AmeriKKKans and the UKKK likes to use to justify their intervention in other parts of the world. I'd rather negotiate with terrorists than to die, it's common sense. If someone held a gun/knife to your head demanding things, would you rather give in, or die? It's common sense to rather give in, since you get to live only once, morons!

Not all of these so-called terrorists are friendly people Daryl.

The problem with Daesh is that no one likes them. Not us, not the Iranians, not the EU, not the rich Arab Gulf states, and not the people who have had to suffer from their destructive path. If we just "negotiated" with them, we're just going with the Neville Chamberlain tactic of "Live and let live", although to be fair to Chamberlain, Britain wasn't exactly ready to go full-on war with the Nazis, so while Chamberlain's decision may seem idiotic, in the long term he won the war. Too bad he didn't live long enough to see that outcome.

Another example that comes to my mind is Taliban; I've recently read a lot about Afghanistan before their own war and a lot of those Afghans weren't happy living under the Taliban. (Also, geopolitics isn't simply the "Evil west vs the world"; in fact, Middle Eastern geopolitics are far more incredibly complex than that, which is why I get mad when someone just bluntly says "we went to Iraq for oil")

In addition, as Brainiac has pointed out, the definition of a terrorist can get blurred. For example, the African National Congress actually did practice terrorist tactics for a while (although to be perfectly fair, they were fighting a pretty shady country), but are these people "terrorists" or "freedom fighters"? You decide.

[brainiac3397]

Techically one could say the US did go for oil, and money. Supposedly $23 billion dollars given in the war effort to contractors and the like had "vanished" when the Federal Reserve decided to take count. Literally...the US government had "misplaced" $23 BILLION and supposedly the courts put a gag order to prevent any information about the issue from leaking(I think it was said there were 70 cases or something being looked into).

I wouldn't put it past the neocons to take advantage of Iraq and the war.

However, should note about the Taliban too. They were nearly destroyed by the Northern Alliance(or whatever they were called, I always forget the exact name) and especially by a popular general whose believed to have possibly even predicted 9/11 before his assassination in '99(and he survived many attempts up till this point and was practically the archnemesis of the Taliban because of how successfully he kicked their asses). Ironically, the national security official who had prepared a presentation about a possible terrorist attack on US territory was killed in a terrorist attack(9/11). However, the point I was getting at was that right when the Taliban was about to be destroyed, they suddenly came back with more men and guns.

According to declassified CIA docs, it appears that the Pakistani intelligence was actually taking Paki youths, training them at madrasas at border near Afghanistan(parents only told their kids were receiving a religious education), and then sent to Afghanistan to fight with Taliban. Pakistan was trying to get the Taliban in power so they could use them to turn Afghanistan into a puppet state.

It all fell apart when the US started sniffing around wondering how Pakistan was spending the money we were giving them to fight terrorism(irony, I know). I still believe that Pakistan maintained a more discreet level of support for the Taliban though...

[ComradeDaryl]

http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/07/tim...errorists/

A history of negotiation with terrorists.