Is it time to start talking to al-Qaeda?

[OneofaKind]

I watched a programme on telly yesterday about the Al Khada and how they are increasing their recruits on a global basis. At the end of the programme a question was raised as to whether it is time to start talking to Al Khada. What do you think?

 

[triumph]

I am not really sure what you mean about talking to them. They want western civilization and the US in particular to be destroyed. What would talking to them do? It does not seem like they are to be reasoned with or convinced to change their behavior.

There is a difference at the very core level, and no amount of dialogue will change that right now.

 

[kelkat]

The only benefit to talking to them would be having their location so that we could take them out. I'm with triumph. Their core beliefs involve the destruction of democracy. Can't ever bode well for the US.

 

[Adrian MacNair]

I'm not sure what you mean by talking to Al Qaeda. This reminds me of a Sasha Cohen sketch when he suggested we negotiate with the terrorists to blow up "empty planes" or bomb buildings when nobody was in em.

 

[Jim]

The idea that al-Qaeda and other Islamic "terrorist" groups are beyond reasoning with is absurd. The "Western" world, and the United States in particular, needs to open a dialogue with al-Qaeda and the worldwide Muslim population as a whole if there is ever to be a peaceful end to the current conflict. Otherwise, people on both sides will continue to act like bloodthirsty animals. Take a look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see what happens when one side or both sides of a hostile situation refuse to negotiate or even regard each other as human beings—generation after generation of violence and hatred.

Many members of so-called terrorist groups are motivated primarily by losses they have suffered at the hands of the people they wish to harm. For example, Usama bin Laden explicitly traced his genesis as a jihadi to the 1982 destruction of Beirut by American and Israeli forces. Ask each jihadi what his or her catalyst is, and you are likely to end up hearing the same things over and over again: "My family was killed in a U.S. firebombing," "I was tortured by American spies," "My hometown was reduced to rubble by Israeli tanks," etc.

People think of Sept. 11, 2001 as a horrible day in American history, and it is, but other countries have suffered far worse fates as a direct result of American military strikes and international economic sanctions. More than ten times as many civilians have been killed in Iraq as were killed on Sept. 11, and the physical damage to that country has been a great deal more serious than a handful of collapsed skyscrapers and some downed aircraft. Consider that, and then proceed to consider that the United States has caused this kind of damage in several other countries in the region. America is also responsible for funding the military machine of Israel, which has killed thousands of Palestinians and other Arabs in the past few decades, most of whom were just ordinary people walking home from work or buying groceries.

Killing innocent people around the world gives survivors a reason to fight back, especially if the conflict is ongoing. The result of decades of violent foreign policy is that a lot of people are going to hate the aggressor. An unwillingness to negotiate with or even talk to the other side only encourages them to take the same position and to regard your side as an inhumane monster hell-bent on murdering everyone. That's how al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah see America and Israel. If we were more willing to talk, that might change and peace might be possible.

And "talking" does not mean shouting a list of commands from atop the United Nations building with threats of sanctions for non-compliance. The "Western" world must also be willing to make compromises.

 

[kelkat]

Survivors from Iraq and many of the Iraq people still there are greatful to the US for what we are willing to sacrifice to help them. If you think the terrorists - and they are terrorists - want to open negotiations with the US then you are delusional. They have one goal and that's to destroy america. They are not muslims out to right wrongs. The muslim religion does not tolerate the actions that the terrorists have used and continue to use. There are dictators and terrorists in the past the were "talked" with and negotiated with and they never held to their end of the bargin. What makes you think that this would ever be any different?

 

[sarah]

I think we have a better shot trying to negotiate with them than trying to hunt them down. We are obviously having trouble with the latter.

 

[Jim]

kelkat: I'm not aware of this instance during which the United States tried to negotiate with the people it now calls terrorists. Throughout the past few decades, America has either been arming these people and prodding them to kill each other, or launching bombs at them and calling them monsters unworthy of exchanges of words. We negotiate—hell, we even have alliances—with countries that have been responsible for war crimes and acts against humanity. Al-Qaeda is not even a blip on the historical radar compared to the atrocities committed by our past and current allies, yet we will not negotiate with al-Qaeda because they are "terrorists."

But they commit the same acts that heads of state have ordered for centuries (with increasing frequency the past century). The average year of American foreign policy induces more death than al-Qaeda can muster in ten years! What al-Qaeda's infrequent and largely ineffectual acts do accomplish, however, is to create a pretense for American politicians to run completely amok and to burn billions of dollars on unnecessary sh*t, all the while manipulating the government further and further from its intended purpose and deeper into the pockets of rich corporate types. Negotiating has the potential to end the war and consequently all the neat benefits they get out of it. The politicians do better to just pretend that talking is useless and continue the war as long as possible.

 

[DJDizzy1]

I think America should try and talk to Al-Qaeda. I know our government does not want to negoiate with terrorist, they think doing so would make them look weak and ineffectual. But they have always done this! Look at North Korea, look at other governements they have chosen to talk to which many would say are terrorist states. What they really seem to mean lets not negoiate with terrorist we don't need anything from.

But talking to AL-Qaeda would be a good idea. If by showing that we care about their needs and concerns maybe we can reach some members before they commit crimes, especially the young children they have recruited and those from African and European nations. But negoiating with the zealots would probably be a wast of time.

 

[Jim]

I think America should try and talk to Al-Qaeda. I know our government does not want to negoiate with terrorist, they think doing so would make them look weak and ineffectual. But they have always done this! Look at North Korea, look at other governements they have chosen to talk to which many would say are terrorist states. What they really seem to mean lets not negoiate with terrorist we don't need anything from.

You bring up an interesting point about the decision-making process that results in whom the government claims is a terrorist and whom it does not. The current order has already named its targets, and they are therefore the "terrorists." Even the guerrillas fighting against the occupation of Iraq are called terrorists. But Eric Rudolph is just a disgruntled citizen, the murderous dictators running China are good guys, and the United States is "spreading democracy" by committing the same acts it uses as a basis for declaring others to be terrorists.

The incommunicado thing is just one more way of dehumanizing the "enemy" so that Americans will keep nodding their heads about the war. If we actually spoke with these people once in a while, we might see through the concerted propaganda effort underway by our government to promote its wars of conquest and domination. (Nothing that comes out of the government or its corporate allies can be trusted.)

 

[sarah]

The incommunicado thing is just one more way of dehumanizing the "enemy" so that Americans will keep nodding their heads about the war. If we actually spoke with these people once in a while, we might see through the concerted propaganda effort underway by our government to promote its wars of conquest and domination. (Nothing that comes out of the government or its corporate allies can be trusted.)

I think this has alot to do with why we have not yet made any real attempts to negotiate, the American Government wants to keep "them" on a level below "us".

 

[DJDizzy1]

Jim you put it so eloquently. Thats exactly what they have done, were almost brainwashed into thinking if you don't agree with the current administrations thinking and "support" the war, you are in favor of terrorist!

 

[Adrian MacNair]

al-Qaeda has little interest in negotation with the West. They believe our lifestyle to be inherently immoral and abhorrent, and they want our destruction. Reconciliation with the West may only be achieved by full withdrawl from the Middle East, and then it may only be for a short time when a full-blown war occurs between factional violence of Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, and the whole oil fiasco. Throw into the mix nuclear ambition, and the world is in trouble.

 

[Jim]

How do you know that al-Qaeda doesn't want to negotiate? Nothing coming from the government or the easily duped/influenced media can be trusted, including many statments supposedly from al-Qaeda. No one on this side of the conflict really knows what al-Qaeda wants or what will stop them. But logically it seems that they are upset about something.

As you said, reconciliation can only come if the "West" (I really hate that term, but am forced to use it so often) were to withdraw fully from the Middle East (support for Israel included). Our presence there is what drives them to fight us, and every new U.S. soldier who sets foot there gives them more reason to fight.

As to what would happen in the case of a withdrawl, no one can really say. Ethnic wars would continue, just as they are occurring now under the occupation. But a full withdrawal would largely demotivate jihadis from attacking the United States because it is no longer active in their region. Furthermore, the constant violence against the currently U.S.-controlled governments of Afghanistan and Iraq would subside, allowing those nations to rebuild their law enforcement. Pursuing more conflict in the region is vicious and reckless. Any kind of physical strike against Iran will motivate thousands more people to fight, and with good reason.

 

[Adrian MacNair]

Why do I believe they won't negotiate? Simple:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5309376.stm