The USA Now Negotiates with Terrorists?

The Obama administration negotiated with the Taliban in order to obtain the release and return of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban fighters held at Guantanamo. The Taliban has been on the USA's terror list since 2002. Therefore...under Obama, the USA now negotiates with terrorists.

Yes...Obama's minion have tried to lie their way through this, but instead stumbled, drooled and stuttered back to the facts. The USA now negotiates with terror groups. So where does this leave us now? Do the terrorists have more of a reason to kidnap and threaten beheading our people? What have we done to other countries like Japan who followed the same non-negotiation rules? Why did THIS president decide negotiating with terrorists is a good idea? Is it a good idea?

You can guess my opinions but I'd LOVE to hear yours! And yes..I searched for this topic and was SHOCKED that I couldn't find it.

FoxNews - Surprise...difficult or impossible to find on other news sites
NewsMax - Includes sadly hilarious video

ABC News
Washington Times

I think the phrase "we do not negotiate with terrorists" is often misunderstood.

Perhaps saying "we will not give into terrorist demands" is a better way of putting it, and something I may add I have heard Obama say in several of his speeches.

You could negotiate with a group of terrorists by saying "We will not bomb your ass to hell if you hand over our guy" that is not exactly giving into their demands, its just letting the terrorists know if they don't give him over they will suffer consequences.

Additionally negotiations are actually a good way to gain intelligence, entering into verbal, electronic or even low tech methods of negotiating will open up a wealth of intelligence that can then be used to rescue the hostages.

And like it or not but history has taught us that sometimes the best way to bring a reign of terror to a end is through negotiation, the Good Friday agreement being a prime example. At some point the two sides need to sit down, put their guns aside and start talking, If that means "negotiation talks" with the Taliban then so be it.

Negotiating with terrorists is not necessary a bad thing, giving into their demands is a bad thing, I am sure it was the French who discovered the problems that go with that during the 1990's.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Good Question, WaA.. maybe the first bump. This should
be a thread to revisit an honest assessment of what a
terrorist organization actually is, and what it is supposed
to do in order to fit the definition. Great beginnings....

It also makes me wonder what the government that's
supposed to be OURS is actually about.. more often
all the time. For most here, there should be no question.

For a few sympathizers in every instructed direction, the
questions will become accusations again.
You can accuse me of anything except a lack of curiosity.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

We've always negotiated with terrorists. That catchphrase is from Hollywood.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Not to offer any love towards Obama, but did he even have the ability to do this completely on his own with no oversight?
I admit to not having any clue as to the process used here, but it just seems as if there had to be others from congress involved in this decision. I agree that it's not been the policy to negotiate and this soldier/deserter didn't seem like the shining example of someone worthy of such a drastic change.

As with most things we get to hear what we are supposed to, and we form our opinions based on that information, I bet there is a lot more to this than what we were told. On the surface, it looked like an idiotic move by Obama. Could it just be that simple?

Good points! And I'm not hoping to revisit the "trade". I think that is pretty obvious. I have always looked at Israel trading one captured soldier for 986 terrorists (funny example) as stupid. And now we are doing the same? How does this contribute to stopping terrorism? Doesn't it instead make it a valid, lucrative "job"? Doesn't it instead of diminishing terrorism, in fact increase it's usefulness to the enemy?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Not to offer any love towards Obama, but did he even have the ability to do this completely on his own with no oversight?
I admit to not having any clue as to the process used here, but it just seems as if there had to be others from congress involved in this decision. I agree that it's not been the policy to negotiate and this soldier/deserter didn't seem like the shining example of someone worthy of such a drastic change.

As with most things we get to hear what we are supposed to, and we form our opinions based on that information, I bet there is a lot more to this than what we were told. On the surface, it looked like an idiotic move by Obama. Could it just be that simple?

Agreed...and I don't want this thread to go in a different direction, but I will say this. Obama doing this "himself" does not represent all of America. If it were done through congress, at least we would have all had a vote. In my opinion, he had no right to do this on his own as he is by far, no smarter than anyone else. So...most likely he did it because he knew it didn't stand a chance if OUR opinon was represented. He infringed upon our right for a vote...or a say!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

We've always negotiated with terrorists. That catchphrase is from Hollywood.

According to the State Department...we don't.
CNS News

I think the anti-Obama crowd fail to understand that nothing could give terrorists more incentive to kidnap people...

Because it's what they do already...




The argument that the deals could make it more common is a fallacy...

Because any chance they get to kidnap someone worthwhile, they do it anyways...





I probably won't stick around to debate this...

If you feel differently I'm not here to convince you.

How do you expect America to fund, arm and train terrorist groups without negotiating with them?

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Well apparently that guy has never heard of the Iran–Contra affair.

Obama didn't negotiate with the Taliban Qatar did the negotiating. Anyway he's not the first President to have dealings with the Taliban here's the first one.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I think the anti-Obama crowd fail to understand that nothing could give terrorists more incentive to kidnap people...

Because it's what they do already...




The argument that the deals could make it more common is a fallacy...

Because any chance they get to kidnap someone worthwhile, they do it anyways...





I probably won't stick around to debate this...

If you feel differently I'm not here to convince you.

Understood...but I'm still going to respond. What you are implying as fact would then mean that if no kidnapper ever got a thing as a result of kidnapping...it would still occur and at the same rate as if a kidnapper got money, recognition, etc. as a result of kidnapping.

I would love a link or something to this "fallacy" that is so common. Mostly because it defies logic and human emotion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Well apparently that guy has never heard of the Iran–Contra affair.

Just FYI...that was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in 2013.

originally posted by: buster2010
Obama didn't negotiate with the Taliban Qatar did the negotiating. Anyway he's not the first President to have dealings with the Taliban here's the first one.

OK...lets explore that for a sec. Lets put on our "no spin" logical hats. Were the Taliban on our terror watch list in 1985? I honestly don't know the answer but have a suspicion. If not...then I guess your example wasn't accurate. But I do understand your point.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And? The statement is still a lie and has been a lie for a long time.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And there is your flaw... imo

For one cannot apply logic & human emotion onto a terrorist... imo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And? The statement is still a lie and has been a lie for a long time.

Not trying to argue...just FYI.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

"I think the anti-Obama crowd fail to understand that nothing could give terrorists more incentive to kidnap people."

^
Finally, some sense.
The media acts like terrorists only act on money or prisoner exchanges are the reasons for kidnappings and/or deaths in war.
It's war - the other side wants to kill as many as possible. They're apparently very enthusiastic about it.
If someone wants to kill /capture / torture, more than anything else, they don't need incentives. The excitement alone that they get from killing is all those psychopaths need

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

"I think the anti-Obama crowd fail to understand that nothing could give terrorists more incentive to kidnap people."

^
Finally, some sense.
The media acts like terrorists only act on money or prisoner exchanges are the reasons for kidnappings and/or deaths in war.
It's war - the other side wants to kill as many as possible. They're apparently very enthusiastic about it.
If someone wants to kill /capture / torture, more than anything else, they don't need incentives. The excitement alone that they get from killing is all those psychopaths need

I guess you are kind of saying that like a gambler on a winning streak will continue to gamble, even if they start losing...they continue to gamble. Which is often a fact. All I can say is that at least at some point, they realize it is a waste and eventually stop. But only if they lose.