Just shows how completely useless the term 'terrorist' is. ISIS and the IRA are nothing alike.
Poll: How should the world deal with ISIS ?
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
If only there was one http://www.theonion.com/article/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule-222
Different situation. The IRA had an elected political wing - Sinn Fein - who were able to act as intermediaries on behalf of their community. You didn't have lads in flack jackets & balaclavas sat at the table (they took them off before they went in and put their suits on
)Also shows how stupid an absolute statement like "You can't negotiate with terrorists" is. Sometimes you can, it depends on the situation.
I wasn't suggesting that ISIS could be negotiated with just that negotiations have happened with Terrorists even when still in conflict.
It's not "You can't negotiate with terrorists" it's "The US (or whomever you are talking about) doesn't negotiate with terrorists".
If you negotiate, the terrorists have learned that they can get whatever they want by using terrorist techniques, and they do it again.
Just like these kidnappings.
Aye, but if you don't negotiate then you don't get developments like the Northern Ireland peace process either. You have to judge when and who to negotiate with but negotiation in itself can't be seen as totally out of the question as that essentially rules out any form of compromise.
They were terrorist no matter how you want to sugar coat it.
The US have negotiated with plenty of people they've classed as terrorists over the years. Most recently, Cuba.
What are you on about?
Indeed, and rightly so.
It was (and is) a Shiite theocracy in all but name.
Last edited:
Option two sounds simple when expressed as above. However the lessons of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya surely show that occupying and rebuilding countries in that part of the world is anything but simple.
It's complicated everywhere, it's a long term commitment.
Is that a pun there?
Anyone who voted containment, that's precisely what is happening now and is obviously not sufficient.
Agreed. Though I think Putin will do the dirty work, leaving the current crop of Western leaders to navel gaze.
Where do they get all their bullets from?
Not sure if Russians would tolerate a ground invasion at this point, especially after their experience in Afghanistan and the current state of their economy. Although you never know with Putin and sentiment after the airliner attack.
And Paris gives him all the more licence now.
Of course you can negotiate with terrorists, that's the whole purpose of it to bring you to the table and extract political gains. The IRA is a example of this.
However you can't not negotiate with religious fanatics, they work on an entirely different set of rules, where it's all driven by their interpretation of what their particular man in the sky wants.
The IRA were a bad bunch, but they never suicide bombed or thought what they were doing was a religious imperative. In summary you can deal with rational, but not with crazy.
You've got to exterminate crazy.
However you can't not negotiate with religious fanatics, they work on an entirely different set of rules, where it's all driven by their interpretation of what their particular man in the sky wants.
The IRA were a bad bunch, but they never suicide bombed or thought what they were doing was a religious imperative. In summary you can deal with rational, but not with crazy.
You've got to exterminate crazy.
Seconded. It's like negotiating with Ebola.
Quinn talking about ISIS in Homeland
Has it been confirmed that Isis were responsible?
I reckon its very obvious they did put a bomb on the plane but I haven't seen any confirmation from a credible source.
Stopping there financing and arming would be of primary importance which would of course lead us to saudis and turkey.
They have a feck tonne of money. And how much money does it take to blow people up?
Didn't hear that they finance IS/Al Qaeda. Erdogan is insane, but not that insane. And when it comes to politicians/other powerful people from other parties, they are quite secular, right?
Turkey have been openly supporting al-Qaeda in Syria, and covertly facilitating ISIS in order to prevent the emergence of Kurdish autonomy there.
As much as we hated Saddam Hussain, he kept that area of the world under control.
Been saying it for ages, get the ground troops in, clear out the majority of the problem and then concentrate on the problems at home.
Been saying it for ages, get the ground troops in, clear out the majority of the problem and then concentrate on the problems at home.
Full scale invasion to rebuild both countries?? Im not sure if anyone noticed but we tried that approach over the last 14 years and its done feck all
Yeah sorry, not really the time to make stupid jokes.
Didn't know that they supported AQ there. About IS, in that way yes, but I guess not financial support. More like 'don't fight the enemy of our enemy'. Doesn't make it less scumbagish though.
It requires a full commitment unlike anything we have seen before.
This.
Where's the option to go after the countries which have elements actively funding and enabling ISIS, the same countries the West are allies with.
Then they've won if thats how you feel.
You have 1000x the amount of civilian casualties there. Why do you think these populations have fallen under the sway of such an extreme, twisted ideology?
There is no right option, invading will cause alot of civilians to die. Taking no action will not stop them spreading fear around the West.
Very well said.