Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Negociating with Terrorist
BOTP    8/3/2004 6:10:26 PM
The best weapon against terrorism is to eradicate the reasons for it. What are they? Certain organisations are not happy with certain policies and start terrorising when this is the only way they can object. Calling all terrorism evil is completely useless as the terrorists think those taking certain decisions making them carry out acts are the most evil, so dialogue in that tone is impossible. Nobody will give up their positions and we have a closed circuit. So a government has to think which demands are moral if separated from the acts. Say there is a PLO (Palestine Liberation Army) that demands a free Palestinian state, and only demands this. That demand is moral and must be satisfied no matter how much Jews who live on occupied lands suffer when their houses are eradicated. This brings us to another problem. The lobby of those Jews must be ignored. So we give in to moral demands although that may mean material loss to our country, but we have some terrorism less. At the same time, those organisations whose demands are unacceptable have to be battled with swiftness, extreme power, totally. Say we have a Hamas organisation which demands something stupid like death to all Jews. We collect tons of information about this organisation spending billions if necessary, than, in one sweep, we eradicate the organisation totally. This is possible and Stalin destroyed many nationalistic terrorist organisations in this way. We use immense force and terrorise those carrying out acts (kill everyone in the organisation and send their kids and family to labour camps) and terrorise those who may join their cause - by explaining to people what will happen to them when they join organisations with immoral demands. By giving in to organisations with moral demands we show those same potential terrorists (all, say, Palestinian population) that we are able to separate good demands from bad demands. This will work pre-emptively on those trying to organise groups too, as the payoff may not be so certain any more. If necessary even carry out some purges of your own politicians who stubbornly didn't want to turn in to demands that are moral - say, creation of independant Palestinian state. So, we got rid of organised terrorism - but that required very centralised decisions on our part. Stalin could do this, can a democracy ever do this?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Thomas    RE:Negociating with Terrorist    8/4/2004 7:41:04 AM
I totally disagree with BOTP!!! In the first place: You don't stop terrorism by righting the wrongs - it is to late for that. You might PREVENT SOME terrorism by just policies (whatever that may be). But you don't try talking to a desperado gunman by talking to him about his unhappy childhood; You find him and stop him with all means at your disposal. Secondly, there will allways be terrorists - and other types of senseless criminal activity. This does not mean crime prevention and detection is a terrorist state activity just because Stalin did so. Hitler build highway, that does not make turnpikes nazistic construction (whatever that might be). By the way: If You take an asperin, you take a drug very well examined on concentration camp inmates, that does not make you a mass murderer.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Negociating with Terrorist    8/4/2004 2:16:57 PM
Don't trouble yourself refuting the pseudo-logic of the post. Exactly the same reasoning was used, widely, in Western Europe and North America in the early 1930s to justify the failure to confront Hitler. And, for that matter, the rest of the post seems to rely on quasi-Nazi reasoning: The evil Jews. Invented "facts". "Imagine" things which are not true. Then click your heels together three times, put your head between you legs, and kiss your butt goodbye.....
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Negociating with Terrorist    8/8/2004 7:37:33 AM
"Calling all terrorism evil is completely useless as the terrorists think those taking certain decisions making them carry out acts are the most evil, so dialogue in that tone is impossible. Nobody will give up their positions and we have a closed circuit." Sorry, but I've never been much of a fan of moral relativism. You kill 3000 people because you're upset, that is plain and simple murder. Some things in this world are black and white. "Say there is a PLO (Palestine Liberation Army) that demands a free Palestinian state, and only demands this. That demand is moral and must be satisfied no matter how much Jews who live on occupied lands suffer when their houses are eradicated." If that was all the PLO was advocating--which they are not; their official policy is still "death to Israel"--then there might be room for negotiation with them. The PLO, however, doesn't have a *right* to this. Remember that it was the Arab nations, not Israel, that started the 1948 war, and lost. If Israel is willing to negotiate and trade land for peace, then that is Israel's choice as the victor of the last five Middle Eastern wars (1948, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1982)--not the PLO's right, no more than it was Germany's right to demand a settlement on their terms in 1945. I do think some of the Israeli settlers will simply have to relocate, but the Palestinians must show that they too are willing to act in good faith. Right now, they haven't. "At the same time, those organisations whose demands are unacceptable have to be battled with swiftness, extreme power, totally. Say we have a Hamas organisation which demands something stupid like death to all Jews. We collect tons of information about this organisation spending billions if necessary, than, in one sweep, we eradicate the organisation totally. This is possible and Stalin destroyed many nationalistic terrorist organisations in this way. We use immense force and terrorise those carrying out acts (kill everyone in the organisation and send their kids and family to labour camps) and terrorise those who may join their cause - by explaining to people what will happen to them when they join organisations with immoral demands. By giving in to organisations with moral demands we show those same potential terrorists (all, say, Palestinian population) that we are able to separate good demands from bad demands. This will work pre-emptively on those trying to organise groups too, as the payoff may not be so certain any more." I'm all for crushing Hamas, and believe me, if the IDF felt like completely obliterating the Palestinian people in order to get Hamas, it would have been done already. However, your solution is rightly compared to Stalin's--it is brutal and unnecessary. Such an approach doesn't show the rest of the world that you know how to differentiate between good and bad decisions--it shows that you're no better than the organization you're trying to destroy. Israel has managed to hurt Hamas badly without resorting to gassing Jenin or rounding up every male Palestinian over 17 and gunning them down (though the Palestinian press and "useful idiots" like Rachel Corrie would have you believe otherwise). "If necessary even carry out some purges of your own politicians who stubbornly didn't want to turn in to demands that are moral - say, creation of independant Palestinian state." Agree or die? "So, we got rid of organised terrorism - but that required very centralised decisions on our part. Stalin could do this, can a democracy ever do this" The question is, would a democracy ever WANT to do this? Stalin killed more of his own citizens than Hitler did--and Hitler was trying very hard. That's not the kind of policy I think Israel wants to emulate. Or any other world leader who's relatively sane. Arafat, on the other hand--well, I wouldn't put it past him.
 
Quote    Reply

american in Italy    RE:Negociating with Terrorist    8/31/2004 9:53:38 AM
Terrorism especaily from the muslim world isnt caused by what we do, Look at the french captives, the frence have done everything to stop the war and abide by the Muslims yet they will kill so that their Muslim brothers can have a head dress at school. Its the intolarance of these people that make them comit terrorism. They will do it to any non muslim not for what we do or say but for who we are, Non muslim.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:Negociating with Terrorist    11/13/2004 10:26:19 PM
I think the main point about negotiating with terrorists is to regain your prestiege quickly. In other words pay the ransom but make sure that their top ten guys are abducted next week and hanged the following week. You get the idea.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    What gun to use?   11/14/2004 4:15:08 PM
Basically you need kill/capture existing terrorists without generating extra support for them and destroy the extremist ideology used to recruit new terrorists and justify the acts of terror.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics