I mean this as a serious question

[Adam]

What is the actual reason you can't have talks with terrorists- I don't mean giving them whatever they want to make them stop. I mean, what do we really have to lose. At worst, it doesn't work out. Maybe we get a better idea what makes them tick.

 

It can't be as ludicrous as the "war on shadows." After all, an ideology can't be fought with the sword.

[pBills]

I agree. It never hurts to have open discussions. If at best, and as you said you will be gaining some basic knowledge.

[fisheralum]

What is the actual reason you can't have talks with terrorists- I don't mean giving them whatever they want to make them stop. I mean, what do we really have to lose. At worst, it doesn't work out. Maybe we get a better idea what makes them tick.

 

It can't be as ludicrous as the "war on shadows." After all, an ideology can't be fought with the sword.

 

Because it would legitimize them.

[stuckincincy]

What is the actual reason you can't have talks with terrorists- I don't mean giving them whatever they want to make them stop. I mean, what do we really have to lose. At worst, it doesn't work out. Maybe we get a better idea what makes them tick.

 

It can't be as ludicrous as the "war on shadows." After all, an ideology can't be fought with the sword.

 

There have been untold numbers of talks with the PLO, Hezbollah, and Hamas. The Europeans have forked over billions and billions of pay-off money to them.

 

You see the result...6th century hatred armed with modern capabilities.

[Wacka]

Because they can't be reasoned with. Look at the PLO. They tried to talk with them instead of wiping them out years ago.

[pBills]

Aren't they legit since every nation is on the look out for bombers and talking about them? I would rather see someone actually reach out to see if formal talks can exist with those groups.

[Chilly]

What is the actual reason you can't have talks with terrorists- I don't mean giving them whatever they want to make them stop. I mean, what do we really have to lose. At worst, it doesn't work out. Maybe we get a better idea what makes them tick.

 

It can't be as ludicrous as the "war on shadows." After all, an ideology can't be fought with the sword.

 

- These groups are large, loose-network entities that span the globe. The way the groups are setup is to dissolve tracking and responsibility. There are no guarantees that if the US comes to an agreement with the leader of the group, everyone would follow. That alone is a strong enough deterrent to not peruse such an agreement.

 

- There are no consequences for the terrorists if they break their agreement. Terrorist groups aren't exactly a known entity (like a nation-state) which has clear boundaries and it is easy to retaliate upon.

 

- Many of the goals that they desire (such as political goals of taking over a country, regime change, etc.) are goals that we won't ever be able to provide to them.

 

- As stated above, legitimizes an entity which shouldn't be legitimized.

[DC Tom]

It depends on which "terrorists" you're talking about. A bunch of gomers running around in Iraq trying to do nothing more than get us the hell out of their country is qualitatively different that an organized transnational militant organization with the stated goal of "destroying the Great Satan". Sometimes you can find common ground to discuss...sometimes you can't.

 

Fundamentally, it comes down to generalities being a bad idea, generally speaking. Arbitrarily drawing such a hard line does nothing more than limit your options in dealing with them. I believe it goes back to the '80s line of "We don't negotiate with terrorists", which was reasonable at the time for the situations in question (hostage-taking, hijackings, and such). But the key word there was "negotiate", not "talk". It was an incident-specific policy (and not an unwise one, still), not a general one.

 

With transnationals like al-Qaeda, the issue is less "We won't talk to them" as much as it is "They won't talk to us". Not a hell of a lot we can do in that case. In Iraq, though...notice that when the "terrorists" we wouldn't talk to were reclassified as "militia" that we would talk to, things started getting a whole lot better.

[Chilly]

It depends on which "terrorists" you're talking about. A bunch of gomers running around in Iraq trying to do nothing more than get us the hell out of their country is qualitatively different that an organized transnational militant organization with the stated goal of "destroying the Great Satan". Sometimes you can find common ground to discuss...sometimes you can't.

 

With transnationals like al-Qaeda, the issue is less "We won't talk to them" as much as it is "They won't talk to us". Not a hell of a lot we can do in that case. In Iraq, though...notice that when the "terrorists" we wouldn't talk to were reclassified as "militia" that we would talk to, things started getting a whole lot better.

 

Ah, the great definition problem, I forgot about this when making my post. What I posted above was for the terrorists that we refuse to talk to.

 

Tom's post brings up an important point, though: From everything I've seen, none of these hard-line stances are really all that hard-line, they're more campaign slogans than anything.

[Adam]

It depends on which "terrorists" you're talking about. A bunch of gomers running around in Iraq trying to do nothing more than get us the hell out of their country is qualitatively different that an organized transnational militant organization with the stated goal of "destroying the Great Satan". Sometimes you can find common ground to discuss...sometimes you can't.

 

Fundamentally, it comes down to generalities being a bad idea, generally speaking. Arbitrarily drawing such a hard line does nothing more than limit your options in dealing with them. I believe it goes back to the '80s line of "We don't negotiate with terrorists", which was reasonable at the time for the situations in question (hostage-taking, hijackings, and such). But the key word there was "negotiate", not "talk". It was an incident-specific policy (and not an unwise one, still), not a general one.

 

With transnationals like al-Qaeda, the issue is less "We won't talk to them" as much as it is "They won't talk to us". Not a hell of a lot we can do in that case. In Iraq, though...notice that when the "terrorists" we wouldn't talk to were reclassified as "militia" that we would talk to, things started getting a whole lot better.

I am just looking for an option that forces each side to stop the dehumanizing of the other side- that in itself would change a lot. It can be done- how it can be done is the tough part

[jimshiz]

Sure we can talk; we can even sing:

http://www.fugly.com/flash/53/Diplomacy.html

http://www.newgrounds.com/collection/waronterror.html

[finknottle]

I am just looking for an option that forces each side to stop the dehumanizing of the other side- that in itself would change a lot. It can be done- how it can be done is the tough part

 

I think there is a basic problem with an implicit assumption here -

 

Ok. Dehumanizing terrorists/radicals/sepratists whatever is not a big issue for a government, who ultimately just wants the problem to go away. Sometimes they demonize them, and sometimes they don't.

 

But it is never in the terrorists/etc interest not to dehumanize their opponents. The survive on fanatical devotion and contributions from the sympathetic. You can't expect people to give up their lives for a cause when you allow that the opposition is potentially reasonable and might come around some day. A terrorist movement that does not justify its motivation by painting its opponents as beyond redemption will eventaully be seen (by would-be sympathizers) as merely criminal.

[Adam]

I think there is a basic problem with an implicit assumption here -

 

Ok. Dehumanizing terrorists/radicals/sepratists whatever is not a big issue for a government, who ultimately just wants the problem to go away. Sometimes they demonize them, and sometimes they don't.

 

But it is never in the terrorists/etc interest not to dehumanize their opponents. The survive on fanatical devotion and contributions from the sympathetic. You can't expect people to give up their lives for a cause when you allow that the opposition is potentially reasonable and might come around some day. A terrorist movement that does not justify its motivation by painting its opponents as beyond redemption will eventaully be seen (by would-be sympathizers) as merely criminal.

Therein lies the problem- but I think it can be solved. In an ideological battle, you need to do some convincing. It is far easier than just going out there and slaughtering people over and over with no end in sight. In saying that they can't be swayed, we are further dehumanizing and giving more rationalization to continue the violence. Regardless of who's fault it is, one side has to be the one to take initiative. Why should we stop if they don't, why should they stop if we don't.....It can go on perpetually if it isn't stopped.

[DC Tom]

I am just looking for an option that forces each side to stop the dehumanizing of the other side- that in itself would change a lot. It can be done- how it can be done is the tough part

 

Not unreasonable...but not always practical, either. How do you deal with a group like al Qaeda who's platform is based on dehumanizing us?

 

Al-Qaeda's actually a bad example...as a loose conglomeration of groups with shared goals, "talking" to them is impractical. But the principle's still the same even outside terrorism. For instance, if you'll permit me a reasonable and non-Godwinish Nazi reference, could the Jews possibly have negotiated with a Nazi regime that considered them "untermenschen"? Or the Tutsi sat down and talked to Hutu Power?

 

You're correct, I think, in identifying the problem as dehumanization. And theoretically, getting opposing sides to stop dehumanizing each other would solve a lot (and conversation would to a great degree promote that). As a practical matter...you can't always do it. You don't necessarily control the other guy's beliefs.