Recognize this guy?

 

No longer a sponsor of terrorism or pursuing WMDs. Thanks to diplomacy.

 

Funny how one can change their mind when a 2000 lb bomb lands in your living room.

They ironic thing to me is that one of the highest concentrations % wise of Christians in the Arab world is among the Palistinian people. It's not just a Muslim-Jew-Christian thing.

 

Put in the ENTIRE quote, which was "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."

 

Do Palestinians have any legitimate claims? Of course they do. That doesn't make all or even most of their claims legitimate. It doesn't make their tactics legitimate, but to fail to acknowledge that Palistinians have any legitimate claims gives them no choice but to continue down the path of violence. If our only solution is to "kill them all", we'll be at it for a long time. There are some that will never reform. They must be captured or killed. There are others that will be ready to join the civilized world, someday.

 

As has already been mentioned, that never happens. In fact, the more that is poured on them, the more likely the conflict never ends.

 

The Japanese were considered fanatical. Yet we stopped short of killing them all. In fact, once we received their absolute surrender and punished their leaders - we rebuilt them and they became a valuable ally.

 

The problem with your theory Hearsay is that there is no way to tell when they are all dead. None. Because not every Arab or Muslim is a war mongering, terroristic animal. But many can be created when they see no justice or have no ear to their experience.

 

Your way sounds easiest. But I think it leads to a never ending cycle.

 

Sorry.

 

Look, Reagan also sold arms to the Iranians (You know, the one's who want to wipe us off the face of the map.), and I don't see you mentioning that here. What's more, those Iranians didn't "turn on us" because by then they were already against us.

 

That is pretty much impossible IMO.

 

If you kill one, there are probably 10-15 possible replacements ready to go. Saying we can kill every terrorist in the world is like saying we can catch every criminal in the U.S.

 

Fair enough. But until all of them are dead, isn't it just as likely that they are using the same logic about America? If everybody on every side dies, who wins? And who is "all of them?" How do we distinguish? How do we know?

 

Our policies over the last thirty years (Republican AND Democrat) have legitimized the claims terrorist groups have. Why do they hate the United States? Because we have constantly been two-faced with most of them about every single issue. Can you negotiate with terrorists? Probably not. But when the United States consistently throws their weight around and bombs anybody we don't care for, like their policies, like their leaders, etc. how does you separate that from terrorism?

 

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

Just don't know what else I could add!:thumb:

Recognize this guy?

 

No longer a sponsor of terrorism or pursuing WMDs. Thanks to diplomacy.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That's the funniest thing I read on here in years.

 

The 'diplomacy' that we used with Qaddafi was to send F-111's and F-18's to destroy tactical sites around Tripoli, including Qaddafi's bunker in retaliation for his general terrorism and SCUD attacks and bombings in the Gulf of Sidra. The strike killed his adopted daughter, injured his two sons, and nearly killed him.

 

He had not been a terrorist since.

Just get to know them for goodness sake. Listen to their side of the story. The Bush Administration has ignored these groups for far too long. They're legitimate whether or not we want to admit it. Turning a blind eye doesn't make them go away. Nor does bombing their countries. It's time to try diplomacy.

 

So administrations prior to the Bush administration were more open to discussion with terrorist organizations? What were the Clinton successes in discussions with terrorists for example?

 

Not being facetious, these are honest questions.

THE ONLY question I had of UKpat was to ask what he would discuss when he sat down to talk with the terrorists. A discussion with terrorists concerns "the current". How can that be SO hard to understand? Wow.......

 

Ok...I won't pursue you to reply to my points. You might mentally consider them, though.

Is Hezbollah the majority party in Lebanon? I am actually curious.

 

Per Wikipedia-

 

At present, Hezbollah is a significant force in Lebanon's politics. The groups is now a major provider of social services, which operates schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shias.

Ok...I won't pursue you to reply to my points. You might mentally consider them, though.

 

Your points are well taken. I'm just asking a follow up to my original q of UKpat. But believe me I completely agree that History and current events are hopelessly intertwined and related it's just that I wanted to ask UKpat a q. You won't get an argument from me that says you can ignore history when discussing current events.

Just get to know them for goodness sake. Listen to their side of the story. The Bush Administration has ignored these groups for far too long. They're legitimate whether or not we want to admit it. Turning a blind eye doesn't make them go away. Nor does bombing their countries. It's time to try diplomacy.

 

Thier side of the story is they hate America. I really don't care why they do. We shouldn't be concerned if terrorist groups like us or not.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That's the funniest thing I read on here in years.

 

The 'diplomacy' that we used with Qaddafi was to send F-111's and F-18's to destroy tactical sites around Tripoli, including Qaddafi's bunker in retaliation for his general terrorism and SCUD attacks and bombings in the Gulf of Sidra. The strike killed his adopted daughter, injured his two sons, and nearly killed him.

 

He had not been a terrorist since.

Exactly! But hey, if that's what UKPat02 wants to call diplomacy, the he's right, we need more "diplomacy".

Recognize this guy?

 

No longer a sponsor of terrorism or pursuing WMDs. Thanks to diplomacy.

Question: What is the difference between Mohammar Qaddafi and Bill Ayers?

 

Answer: One of them is a repentant terrorist and one of them is not.

Exactly! But hey, if that's what UKPat02 wants to call diplomacy, the he's right, we need more "diplomacy".

 

Qadaffi was still stubborn even after the bombings. He just renounced his WMD program in 2003. I'm sure the bombing the heck out of him helped spur the process, but continued diplomatic efforts assisted, as well. We seem to be pretty good with the bombing part, but why not sit down and talk, too?

Thier side of the story is they hate America. I really don't care why they do. We shouldn't be concerned if terrorist groups like us or not.

 

I know they hate America. That was never the question. What do we have to lose from sitting down at a table and talking to them?

Very simply put, negotiating with terrorist is like paying ransom to kidnappers. It may help the immediate situation but greatly increases the risk of future attacks.

 

We absolutely can't negotiate with terrorists.

No, I don't remember the Crusades because I was born in 1965 a few years after the "sades" ended. Besides I am interested in current events for the purposes of this thread. My question is regarding what the conversation with terrorist organizations should be comprised of.

 

But you remembered the birth of Islam in the 7th Century?

Very simply put, negotiating with terrorist is like paying ransom to kidnappers. It may help the immediate situation but greatly increases the risk of future attacks.

 

We absolutely can't negotiate with terrorists.

 

So, was Reagan wrong for doing so in the Iran-Contra dealings in the 80's?