When Do Governments Talk to Terrorists?

Hello

I have been following this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and it raises the issue when and if 'terrorists' should be negotiated with. It's sort of going off-topic, which is why I'm bringing it up here.

Sinn Fein are the political wing of the IRA, most people would agree. They did were 'terrorists' by most definitions of the word, although were relatively civilized compared to Al-Qaeda (apologies to anyone who lost family to them). The British Government either negotiated/sold-out to them over a few years, which led to a situation of some kind of political settlement in Northern Ireland (still ongoing and occasionally shaky). They're now the largest nationalist party in the NI Assembly and their armed wing has (more or less) said the war is over and are (more or less) decommissioning.

When should a government (if ever) negotiate with terrorists? When does a terrorist organisation become completely beyond the pale?

If Bin Laden is one extreme, and Sinn Fein the other of a broad spectrum, where would you place Hamas? How many dead civilians does it take to completely stop a terrorist organization from evolving into a political one? What would your reaction be if Hamas renounced terrorism and said it was going to pursue purely political means, in spite of the deaths it is responsible for?

TD

They don't... it would kind of be like talking to yourself.

Interesting thread though

Hamas does not suscribe to terrorism anymore than the U.S. government does.
The only difference is, Hamas makes it clear that they are seeking the death of their enemies, while nobody is sure why the U.S. government has been killing innocent people all over the world for hundreds of years.
Other than the U.S. government's desire to 'stay the course',
in which they are going straight to hell.

How many dead civilians does it take to completely stop a political terrorist organization?

"When should a government (if ever) negotiate with terrorists? When does a terrorist organisation become completely beyond the pale? "

When the government is either taken down or they acknowledge that THEY are the terrorist organization.

If you take Americans into consideration, nobody comes close to killing as many people as the U.S. government through their support of the industry. They kill people for money.

I don't know when or if this government should ever be negotiated with.

Originally posted by Submersible
Hamas does not suscribe to terrorism anymore than the U.S. government does.
The only difference is, Hamas makes it clear that they are seeking the death of their enemies, while nobody is sure why the U.S. government has been killing innocent people all over the world for hundreds of years.
Other than the U.S. government's desire to 'stay the course',
in which they are going straight to hell.

How many dead civilians does it take to completely stop a political terrorist organization?

"When should a government (if ever) negotiate with terrorists? When does a terrorist organisation become completely beyond the pale? "

When the government is either taken down or they acknowledge that THEY are the terrorist organization.

If you take Americans into consideration, nobody comes close to killing as many people as the U.S. government through their support of the industry. They kill people for money.

I don't know when or if this government should ever be negotiated with.

OK, *very* nice turn of the post.

To turn it back on you - if you were offered some sort of political settlement in return for a cessation of violence, would you take it?

TD

Originally posted by TaupeDragon

OK, *very* nice turn of the post.

To turn it back on you - if you were offered some sort of political settlement in return for a cessation of violence, would you take it?

TD



It depends if the source of offering was holding a knife behind their back or not.
My opinion of this government would be different if a drug company did not run the white house.

As one of 'our' sectarian lunatics here in Northern Ireland once said "when they are the right kind of 'terrorist'".
In that instance he meant when they were from 'his side', I suppose it could also apply to those 'terrorists' that win (and there is a whole host of ex-terrorists' that went on to become 'statesmen' - check out almost the entire Israeli leadership to date for example The King David hotel bombing and the innocents those involved were happy to slaughter.)

There it is in a nutshell.

You really didn't expect anything else did you?

[edit on 1-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]