UK to negotiate with Al Qaeda?

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Firstly, what makes this 'copper' an authority on international relations and politics?

Unlike N.I., in which British forces were hamstrung by laws and green cards in what was seen as only a civil matter - IE: the rules of war could not be used, the fight against A.Q. is an international fight against terrorists who's aims are not in the slightest bit compatible with Western ideologies.

The I.R.A. merely wanted Britain out of N.I., or at the very least, representation on the seat of power. That is something that one can negotiate, or even use democracy to sort out.

A.Q. wants to see the world under Sharia law. It wants to take the world back to the dark ages. You can't negotiate your way through that one, even with the best will in the world.

The good news is that, because this is an international fight (one that is fought as a war in other countries), one can use the rules of warfare - and thus kill anyone who fights for this twisted ideology. The 'Anbar Awakening' and other such political risings in other countries is effectively either reducing support for these twallecks, or simply exterminating the protagonists, just as US and British forces are doing in both Iraq and Afghan. We are working hard to win hearts and minds by giving the majority what they seek, and providing the means to martyr as many of the A.Q. reps as we can. Unlike in N.I. where we had to imprison the terrorists, and thus their numbers always remained, or even increased (such as during internment), with A.Q. we are killing them off.

The attrition rate is high for these people, and so long as we support the majority and continue to work on hearts and minds, then the numbers of A.Q. members still alive will gradually reduce, until the rest realises that there is only one path if they choose the route of A.Q. - death, without passing go, and without collecting £200.
 
#4
I'd take one of Biped's points a stage further - I don't accept al qaeda has a recognisable aim at all.

It's just a load of disgruntled people who get off on being the world's numero uno terrorist. Their claimed justification is entirely secondary to this. If we appease their desire for Sharia, there will be a splinter group demanding a slightly different version of Sharia etc.

So what do you negotiate on?
 
#5
Biped said:
Firstly, what makes this 'copper' an authority on international relations and politics?

Unlike N.I., in which British forces were hamstrung by laws and green cards in what was seen as only a civil matter - IE: the rules of war could not be used, the fight against A.Q. is an international fight against terrorists who's aims are not in the slightest bit compatible with Western ideologies.

The I.R.A. merely wanted Britain out of N.I., or at the very least, representation on the seat of power. That is something that one can negotiate, or even use democracy to sort out.

A.Q. wants to see the world under Sharia law. It wants to take the world back to the dark ages. You can't negotiate your way through that one, even with the best will in the world.

The good news is that, because this is an international fight (one that is fought as a war in other countries), one can use the rules of warfare - and thus kill anyone who fights for this twisted ideology. The 'Anbar Awakening' and other such political risings in other countries is effectively either reducing support for these twallecks, or simply exterminating the protagonists, just as US and British forces are doing in both Iraq and Afghan. We are working hard to win hearts and minds by giving the majority what they seek, and providing the means to martyr as many of the A.Q. reps as we can. Unlike in N.I. where we had to imprison the terrorists, and thus their numbers always remained, or even increased (such as during internment), with A.Q. we are killing them off.

The attrition rate is high for these people, and so long as we support the majority and continue to work on hearts and minds, then the numbers of A.Q. members still alive will gradually reduce, until the rest realises that there is only one path if they choose the route of A.Q. - death, without passing go, and without collecting £200.
Agreed direct negotiations with A.Q. would be immpossible.

My bold, I think this is a type of negotiation that hopefully, will eventually, lead to an acute shortage of A.Q. recruits.
 
#6
My main beef with this is how a "Top Cop" is undermining the feckin hard work our Forces are doing.

The idea of negotiation with AQ is a joke at the best of times. Whats his next idea? negotiating with cancer?

Edited cause I can't spell!
 
#7
60+ pages of comments on Sky News.
some loonies are even agreeing with this bloke. The "stop spending my taxpayers money" lot, you know the type.
 
#9
mmmmm,

so AQ we will pull out of Iraq

AQ - World Islamic State

And Afg

AQ - World Islamic state

errr Saudi

AQ - World Islamic state

Bradford?

AQ - World Islamic state

OK, so we surrender to you and get nothing in return?

AQ - Yes, give us everything in return for nothing and we get to carry out genocide in Israel. For starters.

OK, shall I bend over for you too?

Sounds fair to me, as least they would sort the Chav mongs out!
 
#11
Is he talking sense or complete b*llocks? I think he may have a point but considering al-Qa'ida is unlike any terrorist organisation we have ever seen,I think it's a bit of a pipe dream.
Opinions chaps?

Can we talk??

Friday, May 30, 2008
PSNI chief constable Hugh Orde has said he believes the British Government should talk to al-Qa'ida in an effort to end the group's campaign of violence.

In an interview with a British newspaper, Mr Orde says he cannot think of any terrorism campaign in history that has ended without negotiation.

He says the experience in Northern Ireland has convinced him that detecting terrorist plots and making arrests is not enough to defeat al-Qa'ida.

"If you want my professional assessment of any terrorism campaign, what fixes it is talking and engaging and judging when the conditions are right for that to take place.

"Is that a naïve statement? I don’t think it is. It is the reality of what we face.

"If somebody can show me any terrorism campaign where it has been policed out, I’d be happy to read about it, because I can’t think of one.”

Sir Hugh said the Troubles and the subsequent peace process was the example which had encouraged him to make the remarks.

He said: "If you look at some of the biggest risks my people have taken it is talking to people who historically they would not have dreamed of talking to.
 
#12
Of course we should talk to AL-qaida...from behind their prison cells in Guantanamo!
Or with an SA-80 A2 pointed squarley at Bin Laden before hearing his last words.

We cannot reasonably discuss anything with these fanatics and despots nor should we, particularly because they have murdered British and allied servicemen as well as countless civilians in attempting to reach their nefarious ends.
 
#13
Simon Heffer in the Telegraph articulates some of my opinion nicely:

We certainly did talk to terrorists in Northern Ireland, and it was shameful. After those same twin towers were attacked in 2001 the supply of money from idiotic Americans to the IRA more or less dried up. Suddenly, those in the bars of Boston and New York who had raised money for the fight against "the bloody British" realised that terrorism wasn't so nice after all.

However, instead of our pursuing an endgame with a defeated and bankrupt organisation - which was, never forget, pursuing by violence an aim it had failed to achieve by democratic means - our government insisted upon sitting down and being reasonable with men who had shown for years they did not know the meaning of the word.

And, now, Sir Hugh wants to do precisely the same with al-Qa'eda. Like the IRA, Islamic extremists seek by force to obtain ends that cannot be secured by democratic means. If al-Qa'eda wishes to establish an Islamic state in Britain, then the way is open for it to do so.
...and, of course, the result of the jaw-jaw was that we have the planners and glorifiers of all that murder sitting in Government over us, while their unpunished instruments of murder are on our streets. It isn't justice, it isn't democracy and it isn't right. If Orde wants to magnify that injustice and wrong a hundredfold, he'll do it by succeeding in bringing random religious anarchists into our democratic institutions.
 
#15
offhand said:
mmmmm,

so AQ we will pull out of Iraq

AQ - World Islamic State

And Afg

AQ - World Islamic state

errr Saudi

AQ - World Islamic state

Bradford?

AQ - World Islamic state

OK, so we surrender to you and get nothing in return?

AQ - Yes, give us everything in return for nothing and we get to carry out genocide in Israel. For starters.

OK, shall I bend over for you too?

Sounds fair to me, as least they would sort the Chav mongs out!
Bearing in mind the above and re appropriating a reply Stalin made when warned about the Catholic Church, may I ask you:

"How many divisions does Osama have?"
 
#16
In my experience, when someone says publicly that we should be talking with terrorists, it invariably means that we already are talking to them.

Heffer's comments in the leftygraph strike resonance with me, the Yanks only pulled the plug on NORAID after 9/11 taught them that they weren't quite as sheltered from such things as they wanted to believe.
 
#17
..and, of course, the result of the jaw-jaw was that we have the planners and glorifiers of all that murder sitting in Government over us, while their unpunished instruments of murder are on our streets. It isn't justice, it isn't democracy and it isn't right. If Orde wants to magnify that injustice and wrong a hundredfold, he'll do it by succeeding in bringing random religious anarchists into our democratic institutions.
Want to be a little careful there I'd have thought. That's a blade that cuts both ways. Its now clear to all the world they lied to go to war against Iraq. And when the lies were found out Bush & Blair sealed their fates by many times declaring that they had no regrets and would do it all over again.
And we the people, sealed our fate by not having them arrested for war crimes.

As for this notion that we need to fear some Islamic takeover the idea is totally preposterous. How could even a couple of thousand nutters forcibly convert a nation of 60 million?
They neither have the numbers,organization or Rupert Murdoch's Sun on their side - have they?
The same people what lied us into war are also the ones spreading that rubbish, which funnily enough includes the, er, Sun.
 
#18
EthanEdwards11 said:
... when the lies were found out Bush & Blair sealed their fates by many times declaring that they had no regrets and would do it all over again.
And we the people, sealed our fate by not having them arrested for war crimes.
All of which only proves that our democratic institutions are severely limited in favour of the few in office (or rather: "power"). Not enough is being done to promote the ideal that every eligible citizen should be an active part of his/her governing corpus on decisions affecting our freedom. There's no will to do so, either, at the moment (and count the number of press reports on Parliamentary snouts-in-the-trough at the moment).

Mind you, living in Northern Ireland, my view of our governing institutions is considerably more jaundiced than would be the case elsewhere in the civilised world.
 
#19
How do you negotiate with an ideology?

It was bad enough with the IRA , who apart from wanting 'representation' wanted to get on with drug running and profiteering and racketeering in peace.

No such concrete aims with Al-Q. Does anyone know what they are actually fighting for? Does Al-Q know? So many heads on the Hydra want different things, how do you negotiate? Who can claim to represent Al-Q?

Now if the Orde had said "We need to lean on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Islamic scholars to start getting on message" I could see a point.
 

Similar threads

Top