The US does or does not negotiate with terrorists

When Obama traded 5 GITMO terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl, people were outraged over the supposed flip in policy with no negotiations with terrorists. Sure, Bergdahl was a US soldier who "supposedly" defected, deserted his post to join the enemies side to fight, but later (perhaps) decided that it was a bad idea.
Obama was shown with Bergdahl's parents in a touching White House photo op, and it was a much debated topic for a while.

Now we are currently discussing the beheading death of journalist James Foley. Who wasn't a soldier who supposedly deserted, but was a person who was actively kidnapped. A failed rescue attempt was launched, but bad intel (supposedly) lead to a dead end. Instead of a photo op in the Rose Garden of the White House, Obama went back to the golf course.

The US does not negotiate with terrorists!

Wait, what?

Since when?

I offer to you, gentle readers, an opportunity to clarify this very confusing issue.

Do as I say not as I do.

If it benefits them they'll do it. Besides, they give their enemies all the arms and money they need anyway.

What's the difference?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Do as I say not as I do.

If it benefits them they'll do it. Besides, they give their enemies all the arms and money they need anyway.

What's the difference?

now i am really confused...who exactly is the enemy ?the bad guys or the government ? or are they one in the same ?

a reply to: beezzer

The Soviets back in the day when confronted with such a situation over a hostage taking would have the KGB grab one of the top guys of the other group and mail him back slowly, piece by piece.


They didn't have as many issues with the problem.

a reply to: beezzer

It does set a very bad president. Every two bit idiot in the world just might think they have a chance of converting a U.S. citizen into something they need or want. You and I both remember when the USA avoided ever claiming they tortured people ... Times have changed in so many ways..

It is meant to be confusing.

You have to have a boogieman in order to justify the need for the Military Industrial Complex.

You need fear of all kinds to keep the masses divided and continue the incremental infringements of our rights, which may not necessarily be the right word when you factor in the psychology of causing the people to want their rights taken because of said fear.

Enough time has past for them and I could be more specific here, for Hilldog to admit publically that we created Al Qaeda, I wonder how long it will take to fess up to IS.

So to ask whether or not we negotiate with these groups really amounts to what can they use to further their agenda that we see currently unfolding. I do not wish to elaborate for fear of being off topic.

a reply to: beezzer

Sweet little post Beezzer how to put a nasty question nicely. S&F for ya.

You only have to look at Bush's relatives at the bank to know that the USA alaows its citizens to fund both sides in a world war - does anyone not think one in the ME, much smaller, and less consequential to much of the world would be viewed any different no matter what bambam trumpets.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Do as I say not as I do.

If it benefits them they'll do it. Besides, they give their enemies all the arms and money they need anyway.

What's the difference?

now i am really confused...who exactly is the enemy ?the bad guys or the government ? or are they one in the same ?

Whichever one is trying to take our freedoms. Bad guys and government are not mutually exclusive.

a reply to: elementalgrove

I agree with your sentiment within reason.

You are aware though, that there are OTHER bad guys in the world and that the US/West are not the ONLY perceived ones on Earth?

Right?

I believe the White House had stated that the retrieval of Bergdahl was a rare case in which the offer of a prisoner exchange had opened up temporarily. Furthermore, the USA technically did not negotiate with terrorists. It wasn't even the USA which negotiated the release of Bergdahl. Qatar was the middle-man, the negotiator. They secured the deal. All the USA done was fly over and retrieve Bergdahl.

And as for Obama and his golf, i think he gets too much crap for it. Maybe its just the way he keeps a cool head in a stressful job, especially when faced with matters such as the execution of James Foley.

Even I know my thoughts on this are un American.

This is not the America we learned about in school. This is not an America we can be proud of or want to be a part of.

I don't know how to fix it. My inexpert opinion says it needs a complete rehaul. How do we possibly do that?

a reply to: daaskapital

So it is apparently okay to use a 3rd party to actually negotiate with terrorists in releasing someone or to do a prisoner swap.

I remember (back in the day) when we used to do prisoner swaps with the Soviet Union quite a bit.

So I don't have issue with actually exchanging prisoners.

Didn't ISIS though, demand a prisoner exchange as well?

a reply to: beezzer

"WAR on Terrorism"

Far be it for to defend this administration's lackadaisical approach to most, if not all, of today's important pending issues, but I guess "Prisoner" swaps are ok while at war?

On a technicality ?

I Dunno...

When Obama traded 5 GITMO terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl

Maybe that the US equipped tracking devices into the body of those 5 GITMO without their knowledge, and they can follow every move they make, it might even be able to pick up sound.

Then technically they didn't negotiate with the terrorist as it's a win win for the US.

Speculation of course

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: daaskapital

So it is apparently okay to use a 3rd party to actually negotiate with terrorists in releasing someone or to do a prisoner swap.

Perhaps. It all depends on the situation at hand.

We don't know how much of a hand the USA had in negotiating for the release of Bergdahl. All we know is that Qatar negotiated and secured the deal, and the USA released the prisoners and flew into Afghanistan to retrieve Bergdahl.

It did seem to be an act of indirect negotiation, but i think people exaggerate these actions too much.

Didn't ISIS though, demand a prisoner exchange as well?

That, i am unsure of. I do know that they demanded a ransom be paid, of which the US refused.

a reply to: daaskapital

SAN ANTONIO - The Islamic militant group ISIS reportedly offered to trade American hostages for cash and the liberation of a Pakistani woman who is being incarcerated in Fort Worth prior to beheading journalist James Foley this week.

Aafia Siddiqui, known as Al-Qaeda's highest ranking female associate, was convicted in 2010 in New York for attempted murder and assault. Siddiqui, a neuroscientist with a bachelor's degree from MIT and a Ph.D from Brandeis University, is imprisoned at the Federal Medical Center Carswell, a women's prison in Fort Worth with 1,828 inmates.

www.mysanantonio.com...

Apparently they did.

originally posted by: beezzer
I offer to you, gentle readers, an opportunity to clarify this very confusing issue.

Didn't Snowden suggest that ISIS is a US creation, like Al Qaida. That is supposed to be amagnet for all opposition to western countries in the middle east, uniting them all under one banner ... so that US/GB and the EU, can wipe them all out at once?

So, maybe you should be asking what did this Journalist or Journalists do, that the US decided to "allow" IS to behead them.

The US created and supported IS and Al Qaeda and whatnot right? So they're like their parent. A parent doesnt negotiate with their kids!

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: beezzer
I offer to you, gentle readers, an opportunity to clarify this very confusing issue.

Didn't Snowden suggest that ISIS is a US creation, like Al Qaida. That is supposed to be amagnet for all opposition to western countries in the middle east, uniting them all under one banner ... so that US/GB and the EU, can wipe them all out at once?

So, maybe you should be asking what did this Journalist or Journalists do, that the US decided to "allow" IS to behead them.

A good point!

I'm a firm believer that ISIS was/is a creation by the west to depose Assad, but that "Frankenstein monster" decided to attack everyone else instead.

Maybe Foley found out something that would have embarrassed the US and this solved the problem.

A sick thought, but a valid one.