Talking to Al-Quieda

[SurfDemon]

One of Britain's top policemen has called for direct negotiations with the leaders of al Qaeda to help bring their terror campaign to an end.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu...ef=mpstoryview

Thoughts? No one can argue that he doesn't have a lot of experience in this kind of thing.

I have to say that I do agree with him. Know your enemy and all of that malarky.

[mendhak]

No one can argue that he doesn't have a lot of experience in this kind of thing.

If you mean experience in coming up with ideas that won't work, then yeah, I can't argue with that.

Talking to AQ will validate their claims and lend credence to their campaign. Sounds like a bad idea to me.

[demotivater]

If you mean experience in coming up with ideas that won't work, then yeah, I can't argue with that.

Talking to AQ will validate their claims and lend credence to their campaign. Sounds like a bad idea to me.

[Fazi]

Wast of time

[zaza]

If you mean experience in coming up with ideas that won't work, then yeah, I can't argue with that.

Talking to AQ will validate their claims and lend credence to their campaign. Sounds like a bad idea to me.

A lot of people already believe that their claims are valid and that they have credence.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'd say go ahead and talk to them, it just depends on what you talk to them about. Concessions? Ask for them, then negotiate for the next few decades. The worst it can do is nothing, while the best it could do would be to fragment them. Consider that the most effective interrogation techniques are based on building a raport such that the target wants to cooperate. Negotiations can work the same way. Give the parties at the table a stake in success, and at worst their organization will fragment. Alternatively, we can paint them the way they want to be painted: As the enemy. This will give them not just validation for their personal views, but a handy recruitment tool. Talk, and you will find the divisions that exist in all groups, idealistic and otherwise. Might take a while, but what have we got to lose?

[mendhak]

I'd say go ahead and talk to them, it just depends on what you talk to them about. Concessions? Ask for them, then negotiate for the next few decades. The worst it can do is nothing, while the best it could do would be to fragment them. Consider that the most effective interrogation techniques are based on building a raport such that the target wants to cooperate. Negotiations can work the same way. Give the parties at the table a stake in success, and at worst their organization will fragment. Alternatively, we can paint them the way they want to be painted: As the enemy. This will give them not just validation for their personal views, but a handy recruitment tool. Talk, and you will find the divisions that exist in all groups, idealistic and otherwise. Might take a while, but what have we got to lose?

... said the leaders of Palestine and Israel. "This'll be over soon, surely."

[Shaggy Hiker]

Would it have been over faster if they hadn't talked? I'm not saying there is some kind of glorious solution in negotiation, but there is nothing to lose from it, and possibly something to gain.

[FunkyDexter]

To be honest, they may have talked but I'm not sure either side has ever really negotiated. Every time both sides have come to the table they've been so intractible that there was never any hope of a resolution. Neither side has ever shown any willingness to acknowledge the other sides grievances or objectives... and without that acknowledgement there can be no meaningful negotiation.

[CodedFire]

It worked for northern ireland

[demotivater]

Yes, it's a pleasant occupation now.

[SurfDemon]

Things are better in Northern Ireland because of the talks. Now, let me be clear, I hate the IRA and the UDF and all of their ilk, I think they are the scum of the earth, and for the longest time I strongly held the belief that we shouldn't entertain talking to them, even when the talks where going on. But I have to admit that we are in a better place now. Of course, there are many other factors as well, but without opening any line of communications, we are never going to resolve anything.

Note: I'm not advocating negotiating or concessions, I'm advocating talking, and trying to understand/explain what's happening on both sides. If we keep telling ourselves that we're right because we've got god on our side and they hate us because they're evil doing moustache twiddling villians, then we're not going to get anywhere.

Also, we don't necessarily need to be talking to Al-Quieda, we should be engaging the muslim world more fully, and side-lineing the radicals.

[SurfDemon]

Talking to AQ will validate their claims and lend credence to their campaign. Sounds like a bad idea to me.

I respectfully disagree. When we talk to North korea, we don't lend credence to their regime...... and not talking to them doesn't seem like a very good tactic.

[crptcblade]

"Violence begets peace."

- Lockheed Martin

[Shaggy Hiker]

"Violence begets pieces"

[crptcblade]

Who said that, Weird Al?

[SurfDemon]

As beethoven once said "Violins never solved anything."

[FunkyDexter]

"Brute Force: if it isn't working, you're not using enough."

[mendhak]

I respectfully disagree. When we talk to North korea, we don't lend credence to their regime...... and not talking to them doesn't seem like a very good tactic.

AQ is a terrorist group though, not a government - they blatantly and actively hate the western world. North Korea is just a government under sanctions that likes to strut itself every once in a while, like Iran.

[SurfDemon]

True, but what's the difference really. We could go with Mugabe's regime if you like. The fact that they have the biggest stick in their country doesn't make them any different from other terrorists.