Should we or should we not talk to terrorists?

[cxg231]

Obama has said that he will talk with leaders of countries that have historically been against American interests, and he has widely gotten slammed for it by the media, the republicans, and some democrats.

The current administration has long held that we don't talk with terrorists, yet, as I type, Condoleezza Rice is in Libya, talking with "Colonel" Gaddafi. Now, I realize that Libya has made strides from the 1980's but Gaddafi is still the same man that sponsered the bombing of PanAm 103. Last I checked, that was a blatant act of terrorism, therefore, Gaddafi is a terrorist.

So why is it ok for the current administration to talk to Gaddafi, but it's a horrible idea for Obama to talk to Iran (for example)? While I agree that Libya has come a long way, I don't think we should talk to them until Gaddafi (the terrorist) is out of there. Oh, but wait - Libya has oil...

If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is hypocrisy, from either side of the aisle.

I am quoting the BBC News, since as I type, they are the only source I can find with a story up right now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7599199.stm

Rice making historic Libya visit
Condoleezza Rice in Lisbon before going to Libya - 5/9/2008
The US state department described the visit as a "new chapter" in relations

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hailed as "historic" her visit to Libya to meet its leader Muammar Gaddafi.

But she pointed out the "suffering" caused by the North African country's long stand-off with the West.

Libya was on the US state department list of sponsors of terrorism until 2003, when it abandoned weapons of mass destruction and renounced terrorism.

Ms Rice will be the first US secretary of state to visit Libya since 1953.

"It is a historic moment and it is one that has come after a lot of difficulty, the suffering of many people that will never be forgotten or assuaged," Ms Rice told a news conference in Lisbon, Portugal, before leaving for Libya.

Her trip will also include visits to Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

But the visit could be overshadowed by Libya's failure so far to honour a deal offering compensation to families of victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

The BBC's Rana Jawad in Tripoli says that six years ago, such a visit would have seemed far-fetched, but diplomacy and political will have overcome the obstacles.

The US State Department have described it as a "new chapter" in relations between the two countries, following on from the restoration of diplomatic ties in 2006.

'Way forward'

Earlier this month, Libya agreed to pay compensation to families of the victims of the Lockerbie aircraft bombing, for which it formally accepted responsibility in 2003.

The deal includes compensation for Libyan victims of the United States' retaliatory bombing raid over Libya in 1986.

Ms Rice's visit was partly intended to be a reward for successful completion of the deal, but Libya has not yet transferred the promised hundreds of millions of dollars into a humanitarian account.

The US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, David Welch, told Reuters that he was optimistic the transfer would happen soon but that Ms Rice would press Libya on this issue.

Col Gaddafi has stopped short of referring to America as a friend, but in a televised speech this week he said improved relations were a way for both countries to leave each other alone.

Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter told a briefing in Washington on Thursday that the visit would show other countries they have "a way forward" if they change their behaviour and co-operate with the US.

Our correspondent says that although the visit is largely symbolic diplomacy, many in Libya hope that US-Libyan relations will only improve in the long-run.

 

[Eghad]

depends

The Guy in Libya seems to have seen the error of his ways and reformed himself after 9/11.

 

[Pahoo]

Have to question just how much good it does but not a problem with talking to any Country and it's leaders. How else are you going to resolve problems or misunderstandings. Now, as far as negotiations and compromise, now that is a horse of a different color. Our biggest influence seems to be our dollars that we are all too eager to provide and they are delighted to take and then spit on us.

"Whenever you compromise with evil, you lose !!!"


Be Safe !!!

 

[nate45]

If you could set down one on one with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or one of the other hostile Muslim State leaders. What would you talk about?

 

[MedicineBow]

Everybody "talks" to everybody all the time, or at least off and on. There are back channels, intermediaries, etc. Everybody's always looking for various advantages or openings or opportunities or weaknesses.

The "we're not going to talk" BS is reserved for politicians speaking from some podium, usually for domestic political consumption.

 

[Eghad]

You have to take a look at a groups end goals. Many like Al Quaeda only have one. That is the destruction of the western world as we know it. Talk with them is meaningless.

 

[Creature]

Negotiations are best applied BEFORE open hostilities. IMO, that window of opportunity closed for certain on 9/11.

 

[MedicineBow]

Oh, by the way, my above post was about countries talking to one another all the time.

Of course, that doesn't apply to ever-shifting little groups of terrorists that hide all over the place. First, there's nobody to talk to, as there is nobody in charge. Second, it's pointless. They are by definition fanatics.

 

[FireMax]

The islamofascists have a goal of converting us into Muslims. How can we talk to people like that. It seems to me that talking to them legitimizes them.

I do not, however, believe we should be occupying Muslim land or anyone else's land.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I believe we have talked with nations like North Korea and Iran, but not without any pre conditions on what the talks would be about and what we expected out of a nation that sponsors terrorism. In Libya's case, they renounced, denounced or rejected terrorism, as a national policy. They also stopped their WMD programs and alllowed verification that they had done so.

Iran has not yet done so, although there are still conversations going on through intermediaries within the UN, I would guess. To have the President of the US directly meet with the leader of a nation which supports and foments terrorism, as Iran does, would be to legitimize I'm-in-a-jihad on the world stage. It would be an acknowledgement that Iran is accepted into the civilized collection of nations, when their policies are somewhat far removed from being accepted into that collection.

So, you don't meet with them directly, but you continue to engage indirectly through alternate channels of diplomacy. Remember, this is the Secretary of State, not the President, going to meet the leader of Libya.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

I think it depends too.

You'll recall that Yassir Arafat ordered the execution of the U.S. Ambassador to Sudan, and his aide. His order to the terror cell to do it is recorded on tape.

During the Clinton years, Arafat was invited to the White House more times than any other "head of state" in the world.

Contrast that to George Bush, who said from the beginning that so long as Arafat represented the Palestinian people, there would be no involvement in the peace process by the United States.

I think that's how you do it.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I'm-in-a-jihad meeting with Barack Obama.

Obama: "What is it which we can discuss to find common ground and move forward so that Iran and the US can share our common values, Mr. President?"

I'm-in-a-jihad, "We are building nuclear technology to address our energy needs and we will be willing to share that with other nations who have similar ideologies as we do. We don't think this is any concern to the US or the west".

Obama, "Are you planning on developing nuclear weapons capability with this technology, which would be capable of attacking Israel?"

I'm-in-a-jihad, "Why would you ever think such a thing? We are a peaceful nation. We do not want war with the West or America. Israel will destroy itself eventually. It will collapse under Zionism and then Islam will replace it."

Obama, "Are you supplying weapons and training to the Taliban in Afghanistan or Al Qaeda in Iraq?"

I'm-in-a-jihad, "Of course not. That would be foolish on our part. Why would we want to invite negative feelings upon our nation from the rest of the world? The US is the cause of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US demolished both of those countries and now they are being forced to deal with the realites on the ground. Iran had nothing to do with either of those wars. Why does the US use its imperialist military to occupy nations which are Arab or Muslim? We have never attacked the United States. The attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Why do you not take the Saudis to task for this act of war and try to topple their government?"

Well, you can imagine how pointless it would really be to have direct talks with him.

 

[astromanluca]

The important distinction is between "talking" and "negotiating." We should never negotiate with terrorists or their sponsors, because it encourages them.

I think what's good about talking (not negotiating) without preconditions is that it shows the world that we are willing to listen, even if we're not going to do anything. I'm sure that's part of the problem, and allowing other countries to vent their frustrations verbally is like allowing a kid to have a temper tantrum. In the end, he's still getting a timeout, but it helps cool everyone down.

What I don't like about a lot of our diplomatic efforts of late is the sheer weight of preconditions. We refuse to speak with a country unless they change their policies. Well, if they change their policies, why would we need to speak with them? I think it does more harm than good because the leaders in those other countries are convinced that they can't do anything to make us happy.

EDIT: Oh, and I do agree there should at least be preconditions on what is discussed and that neither side is agreeing to do anything. When I say "preconditions" I mean things like "we won't even speak to you until you change X, Y, and Z policies." That's basically one-sided negotiation, and the other side has no guarantee that they'll get anything from those sacrifices.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Why should we care if the world knows we are "willing to listen" to troglodytes who want to roll the calendar of social progress back to the 9th Century and beat women with sticks for not wearing a veil or making too much noise with their feet when they walk?

Al Qaeda cells in Iraq attacked bakeries because they were baking a type of favored bread people in Iraq really like.

Now, why do you suppose al Qaeda was upset over bread?

Because that particular type of bread did not exist during the time of The Prophet.

Therefore, it was an unpardonable affront.

I swear I'm not making that up.

Screw talking to people like that.

 

[fat old gun nut]

Libia

Gaddafi became more U.S. friendly after Reagan kicked his butt. It only took once to help straighten out his thinking.

 

[S832]

I see no reason not to talk to them, talking is fine but you obviously can't trust what they are saying.

 

[dipper]

No!!!
All you have to do is look at history.
Ask the other countries that have sat down and talked to them and "THOUGHT" they had a deal how it turned out for them.
Israel gave up the Gaza Strip and made other concessions in the name of peace.
While they thought they were living in peace, the terrorists were building skud missiles by the truck load just waiting to hit them again, and they did.
Some people do not understand that these people want us dead----period.

Dipper

 

[Citizen Carrier]

I concur. If there is anything these people do not respect at all, it is an "Oprah" style approach to diplomacy.

Listening to them and all that crap. They think we're fools for that stuff.

An aide to the brutal Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu was present when that man traveled to the White House for a meeting with then President Jimmy Carter. The aide later escaped and defected to America, where he recounted this story.

Afterwards, driving away, Nicolae poured alcohol all over his hands and vigorously scrubbed his face while saying, "That stupid peanut head."

See, Jimmy Carter had planted two big kisses on Nick's cheeks when he greeted him. Nick was a brutal dictator in the Kim Il Sung mold. A lot of people were murdered by his command.

But Jimmy just wanted to kiss and listen.

In 1989, the Romanians weren't listening anymore. They put Nick and his wife up against a wall and shot them.

 

[44 AMP]

Sure, we should talk to them

And we can listen as well. Just don't believe them until they proove it by their actions.

The Western Democracies got "Peace in our time!" because they believed "This is the end of my territorial demands in Europe" from a state leader with a small moustache.

Radical Islamists believe that they can lie to, and break promises to infidels and still maintain their honor. Their version of Islam teaches this is ok.

We should talk to them, and let them know exactly what we are feeling, and what we are willing to do. Sugar coating things for political correctness is meaningless babble to these people (as it is to most of the rest of us, but in a different way). All they respect is what they percieve as strength. Willingness to get along and compromise is percieved as weakness. We have, over the years dealt with many, many people from other parts of the world who act this way. When are we going to realize that this is the way they are, and nothing we say is going to change that?

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Libya was on the US state department list of sponsors of terrorism until 2003, when it abandoned weapons of mass destruction and renounced terrorism.

So let me get this straight. This is the very quote you posted by the BBC. Qaddafi gave in to the very demands we imposed. He complied without question. Now, you still call the govt hypocrites?

Tell me this. How does this look upon us in regard to diplomacy? If I were a terrorist organization and saw that America still didn't open up lines of communication after I fully complied with their demands, I'd honestly tell them to go pound sand.