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.

 

Nothing like paying ransom to kidnappers. How in the world would it increase the risk of future attacks?

 

Can't negotiate with terrorists? Tell it to Bill...

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

 

Yes, but what's your point? If, somewhere in history, be it the crusades or in our treatment of Native Americans or even recent covert operations, we have not taken the proper path, does that negate our ability or even our obligation to decide between right or wrong, and to react accordingly to the best of our beliefs? Are we now, as punishment, forced to accept whatever is thrust upon us because at one time "we did wrong also."

Yes, but what's your point? If, somewhere in history, be it the crusades or in our treatment of Native Americans or even recent covert operations, we have not taken the proper path, does that negate our ability or even our obligation to decide between right or wrong, and to react accordingly to the best of our beliefs? Are we now, as punishment, forced to accept whatever is thrust upon us because at one time "we did wrong also."

 

My point is that many will paint Carter, Clinton or Obama as being too diplomatic with terrorists, leading us to the path of destruction.

 

While the same people pass over Reagan's activities (not really diplomacy but covert deals) as laying the groundwork for future terrorists to be armed and maybe emboldened to take more hostages. (Lebanon)

 

My point is it is not a Dem - Rep difference but a reality that we deal with people all the time that you are saying "we should not have any deals/negotiations with at all."

Nothing like paying ransom to kidnappers. How in the world would it increase the risk of future attacks?

 

Can't negotiate with terrorists? Tell it to Bill...

 

One of the things you are missing in that picture is how that deal became destabilized because Rabin was assassinated. He was killed not by Palestinian terrorists but by an extremist countryman who felt he should not negotiate with the Palestinians at all.

My point is that many will paint Carter, Clinton or Obama as being too diplomatic with terrorists, leading us to the path of destruction.

 

While the same people pass over Reagan's activities (not really diplomacy but covert deals) as laying the groundwork for future terrorists to be armed and maybe emboldened to take more hostages. (Lebanon)

 

My point is it is not a Dem - Rep difference but a reality that we deal with people all the time that you are saying "we should not have any deals/negotiations with at all."

 

Important points if our goal is to properly distribute blame. However, if we are staying on the topic of terrorist negotiations then your second paragraph backs up my viewpoint.

One of the things you are missing in that picture is how that deal became destabilized because Rabin was assassinated. He was killed not by Palestinian terrorists but by an extremist countryman who felt he should not negotiate with the Palestinians at all.

 

So wait, what you're telling me is that diplomacy was working, but then a radical who thought you shouldn't sit down and talk with the other side messed things up?

Nothing like paying ransom to kidnappers. How in the world would it increase the risk of future attacks?

 

Can't negotiate with terrorists? Tell it to Bill...

 

Hey Bill! The Palestinians and the Israelis are still at each other's throats. (He does, however, now have a nice photo of Rabin shaking hands with a terrorist).

I can sum this thread topic up in four simple words......"Obama Has No Clue".

 

End of story.

I can sum this thread topic up in four simple words......"Obama Has No Clue".

 

End of story.

 

Well you can't just end the story there. Obama has no clue about what?

Hey Bill! The Palestinians and the Israelis are still at each other's throats. (He does, however, now have a nice photo of Rabin shaking hands with a terrorist).

 

I'm not saying that Obama will sit down at a table and all America's terror problems with cease to exist. I'm not that naive. But Clinton gives us a good example of how it CAN work. Who knows what would have happened had Rabin not been assassinated. But did it weaken America? No, of course not. Did it make America safer? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is for sure- it didn't hurt anything.

The "kill em' all" approach doesn't necessarily work either.

 

It might. We haven't actually tried that one to find out...

But one thing is for sure- it didn't hurt anything.

 

How can you say that? Any time you reward a terrorist act with recognition or negotiation you encourage other terrorist acts.

So wait, what you're telling me is that diplomacy was working, but then a radical who thought you shouldn't sit down and talk with the other side messed things up?

 

I'm saying that the extremists in Israel did not help the matter at all. When Rabin and Arrafat had brokered land and independent leadership for the Palestinians, Rabin was murdered by one such said extremist.

 

Here's a thumbnail description of what happened:

 

On 4 November 1995 Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a radical right-wing Orthodox Jew who opposed the signing of the Oslo Accords and believed he was saving the country from a dire fate. The shooting took place in the evening as Rabin was leaving a mass rally in Tel Aviv in support of the Oslo process.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin

 

The Oslo Accords was the first formal recognition of the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and Israel's first overtures to setting up a Palentinian Authority to help rule a Palestinian Province.

 

After the Assassination, the new Israeli government began to back away from the plan.

Hey Bill! The Palestinians and the Israelis are still at each other's throats. (He does, however, now have a nice photo of Rabin shaking hands with a terrorist).

 

Read my above posts or dig a little into the history of this event and you might realize how non-descript you are on that photo.

How can you say that? Any time you reward a terrorist act with recognition or negotiation you encourage other terrorist acts.

 

We're not talking about negotiating with the Russians who hijacked Harrison Ford's Air Force One. We're not talking about chatting with rogue agents. It's not the same thing. It is heads of these parties that I'm talking about dealing with. So you're saying if the leader of Hizbollah sits down with Obama and talks about relations its going to cause a backlash that will see an increase in terrorism? I don't see it.