The ultimate goal of a terrorist is to make people fear them. Not hunt them down. I think most of them are relying on the fact they can get a trial if they're caught. What keeps people from doing wrong is the amount of punishment recieved for the crime. If you don't agree with my shoot on site idea, then at least we should torture them. Considering I don't believe in their heaven or any other, I think they should be punished by humans before they die.
To deny the humanity of others, however inhumane their actions, is in itself... inhumane.
I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter." The terrorist actions are happening against innocent people. They are cowards that believe the only way they can achieve their goals are by killing those that cannot defend themselves.
Freedom fighters, historically, haven't attacked innocents (at least not intentionally, or in general). Their attacks were against military or political targets. Was that always the case, no, but that was the tendancy.
what was said:
man's terrorist, is another man's
They are not the same person, and demonstrates the wonders of moral relativism, ie: The freedom fighter always does what is "fair game", and often involves killing people. Free fighters unfortunately don't go around armed with a bunch of flowers and sticking them into the rifles of their enemy...
I promised myself some time ago I'd not become embroiled in these debates here any more ... however this deserves a response.
My attempt at staying as far away from the 'Net is proving rather futile at the moment aswell, though as for "lame post", don't deny this could be true... just trying to be pragmatic whilst annoyed with the "kill all ayrabs" mentality that appears to have surfaced in matter of minutes from yesterdays events whilst coping with jet lag!
Jon, first off, given what happened today if I see a
in this topic again I'll lock it. Secondly, tell me then, go on, how do we "negotiate" with these people? You appear to have the smart answers so do share. I'm sure numerous politicians will be very interested in your thoughts on solving the Israelie-Palestinian question, the Saudi problem, the return to fundamentalism in Iran, the difficulties in (whoever runs and whichever political model is used) Afghanistan, the continued oppression of the democratic movement in Syria, the complete lack of any coherent "organisation" of these groups (unlike your dubious example above), the fact they seek not only the removal of "American" forces from the middle east but ultimately any western influence which may detract from their particular reading of the Koran, etc. etc. As I say, please, do share.
Excuse me whilst I try and write a quick responce, so I'll just quote ad verbatum an article regarding "Getting to YES" by Roger Fisher:
While it may seem that those of us in the field of conflict resolution have had little to say since September 11, 2001, professional negotiators have not been silent on the subject of terrorism. Roger Fisher addressed this very question in the second edition of Getting To Yes, and in January of 1992, the Negotiation Journal published a special issue called Reflections on the War in the Persian Gulf. The insights found in these publications are just as valid in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack as they were for the terrorism of the 1980s and early 90s.
In answer to the question, should we negotiate with terrorists, Roger Fisher replies with a resounding yes, because the better our communication, the better our chances of exerting influence
. But doesn’t negotiating with someone whose behavior you abhor grant them legitimacy that they didn’t have before, and therefore reward criminal activity? Won’t this encourage further bad behavior because it means we have given into pressure? According to Fisher, it may confer a little legitimacy, but this effect can be minimized by involving relatively low level or non-governmental personnel in the initial talks
. The effect could actually be eliminated if we had a policy of negotiating with anyone
. With such a policy, no one could attain special status just because negotiations were opened
What is much more certain and important is that a refusal to negotiate indicates rejection of the other side, and rejection creates serious physical and psychological obstacles to problem solving, because it prevents clear communication from taking place, and it guarantees defensiveness and resistance to change
. We simply need to make it clear that a decision to negotiate does not mean acceptance of the other side’s behavior
. We can in fact love our enemies and hate what they do
, but to prove it we need to act in loving ways by accepting their humanity enough to negotiate for mutual gains
. Each side need get no more than that to which they are entitled
. And we need to remember that regardless of how we respond, there are no guaranteed results, except that forced agreements are always very unstable
We need not accept their values or their conduct. What we do accept is the humanity underneath as deserving
of due process with the realization that we could be at least partially wrong in our perceptions and conclusions (because of stereotyping, attribution bias, projection, misinformation, inadequate data, etc.)
. According to Fisher and Brown in their 1988 book Getting Together, we should consider all others as equals, that is “equally human, equally caught up in the situation, equally entitled to have rights, and equally entitled to have any interests and views taken into account” (Fisher & Brown, p. 160). In reality, that is a fairly minimal level of acceptance. But shouldn’t the enemy have to give something for this kind of acceptance? No, bargaining over acceptance is like bargaining over apology: acceptance is only effective when freely given, not when it’s withheld
. It is coercive to use acceptance as a bargaining chip; it creates distrust and it helps further entrench a defensive, adversarial relationship
What did we do right in the Gulf War according to Fisher? We strengthened our BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and weakened Iraq’s BATNA by moving our military into Saudi Arabia. We also increased our negotiating power by building an international coalition. Where did we fail? Fisher said: “We failed to maintain effective communication with Iraq, the very actor we were trying to influence. We did not try to understand Iraq’s interests and perceptions. We did not accept the government of Iraq as the one with which to deal. We failed to explore fully options other than war. And, while holding aloft the mantle of the United Nations, we coerced it in ways that undercut its legitimacy and effectiveness”
(Negotiation Journal, 8(1), p.17). The same could be said for our current refusal to negotiate with the Taliban government of Afghanistan. There are most always opportunities to negotiate with governments who harbor criminals, and to squander those opportunities, as we have done with Afghanistan, sets a very poor precedent
One person’s “terrorist” is another person’s “freedom fighter.” Different perceptions and world views abound throughout the history of our small planet, and just as it is impossible to win a marriage, it is impossible to win peace and justice
. Neither can be achieved in a competitive battle, and despite our “toughness” neither have been achieved in the Persian Gulf. Because we need to obtain and preserve both peace and justice, we owe it to ourselves and to everyone else to do the hard work of integrative negotiation whenever we possibly can. Getting past the posturing and rhetoric and involving all stakeholders requires skill and patience, so a respected mediator with knowledge of both Western and Islamic culture is probably essential
. As a last resort
, if power moves must be made (whether to raise consciousness, deliver punishment, or demonstrate our resolve), the goal should always be getting the other side to the negotiating table, not killing or beating them into submission
Emphasis mine... further more, Islamism, in it's most important strain is a political movement derived from the European romantic movement, which attributed to Nationalistic Romanticism in 19th C to Fascism of the 20th C.
Whilst yesterdays event was a vile attempt at indescriminate mass murder, the target are principally "apostate" Muslims, not you or I. Why else was Edgeware Road and Aldgate East chosen, homes of westernised Arab Muslims and British Bangladeshis?
The Islamists are fighting an unrealisable fight as they are trying to oppose the corrupting forces of modernity, however... it was the only things that would have emerged from failed Arab Nationalism where the governments are hopelessly corrupt though the West has just turned a blinded eye to things in their quest for oil, and a power struggle to exert influence relative to the now defunct Sovient Union... Liberalism & Capitalism vs. Communism & Atheism.
Furthermore, the economies of the Middle East aren't completely oil dependant and/or hopelessly corrupt, are excluded to do world trade with the EU and US because of trade tarrifs (the joys of Conservatism when "Economic Liberalism" actually means "Economic Protectionism"). So there are scores of unemployed educated young men, with nothing to do... so extremism is the only thing that will flourish.
The only long term solution to the Islamist problem is to actively and fully support democracies against tyrannies of the Middle East. However, in the short term, this would mean that the acts by the Islamists will get worse... but no different to the flundering a lobster does as it's thrown into a vat of boiling water.
If the West continues to think that the Islamists can be dodged by engaging on an unwinnable "War of Terrar!", is it only at the cost of deserting not just the Liberals, Feminists, Socialists and Democrats of the Arab world, but all its people.
It's like the neighbour where a frail mother and young child came to your dorr asking for help from an abusive husband, only to turn them away as their husband isn't the sort you associate with as he's a "bit of a thug" and slam the door shut telling to go on their way...
Geez, how to introduce xenophobia into an extremely complex situation. Obivously, it's because it's an Islamic state ... the slow progress on EU membership can't possibly have anything to do with the poor shape of the economy (and the subsequent drain it'll likely be on an already overstretched budget), issues with human rights (like the continued lack of them except when under extreme pressure), the little matter of Cyprus and Greece, et al. And, if you're trying to suggest terrorism in Europe is in some way due to the behaviour of EU politicians towards Turkish memership I'm sorry to raise the point that of its leaders Tony Blair and the British Government have been the most fervent supporters of its membership and remained so after British interests (and citizens) were attacked there. Yet today we witness what will, more than likely though we cannot say for certain at this point, turn out to be an attack by so called "Islamic extremists". This is frankly one of the worst posts I've seen you make ...
I never siad Turkey should be admitted now, as it's true it doesn't meet the economic criteria yet. However, I see no reason why Turkey shouldn't should it achieve such goals. Turkey is currently heading down the road to accession with no guarantee it will get it... just a slight disservice don't you think? The only reason the French have spouted and foamed "NON!" boils down to the fact Turkey is too "un-European" (news speak for "a bit dark" I guess).
As much as I hate Tony Blair, his support of Turkey is something I commend and hope he does use his EU presidency to win over the other 24 completely. Oh, and kick backside regarding the CAP.
I don't refute that yesterdays events were caused by a bunch of Islamists... came across the below on Blogoshpere and it's comments are interesting read in all:
http://www.stalinism.com/shot-by-both-s ... p?pid=1239