Hi!i glad to see U!
.levitra viagara

Jack Palancing

Hand over fist

Mum's the word

Pie - as easy as

Christmas card verses

Knock on wood

Heebie-jeebies - The

Homonyms

Homonyms

Red-handed (caught)

Pigeon-chested

Last but not least

Heads up

Clue - don't have a

Soap-dodger

Soap-dodger

Cart before the horse - Put the

In like Flynn

Turn the tables

faxless cash advance no fax payday loan Fine as frog's hair

delta dental insurance usa Devil and the deep blue sea

So let's recap:

The question is: Should we negotiate with terfrorists?

The answer is maybe, depends on the situation.

Islam is not a violent religion, but it does reserve the right to defend itself from the world's one and only terrorist nation, US_Israel.

Therefore, the message to the world's one and only terrorist nation, US_Israel:

Stop your Holy War on Islam.

Vacate the occupied Muslim holy land in Palestine and Iraq.

Vacate the 5 Million jews from Palestine and bring them to Texas.

Don’t worry so much, you will love Texas. We will partition it so that your half is contiguous, while the other half is divided into separated quarters.

You will have the prime real estate including the Dallas-Fort Worth and Crawford areas.

You will have control of the fresh water supply.

You can keep your Army, Navy, Air Force and nuclear weapons. We will back you up with the full power of the world’s last remaining super power.

We will immediately stop all federal aid to the native population, while continuing your $3 B annual aid.

Feel free to launch all the settlements that you wish in the native half’s real estate.

Assassinate the opposition leadership to create chaos on the other side.

See, it will just be a Grand Old Party.

I’m sure that you will get along famously with our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite in the White House.

Vivian,

I just have to tell the truth. You are absolutely beautiful. Stunning is the proper word.

You wrote:
“To consolidate this response, I will treat all “terrorists” as one – though we can certainly break down the meaning of “terrorist” and further complicate a complex matter. Western democracies’ logic is essentially never to bow down to violence, nor to reward terrorists for using it.”

My advice to thee is to eschew the term “terrorist” whenever possible, since there is no general agreement on what it actually means. The question facing South Korea was whether to negotiate with the Taliban over the hostages. Once upon a time, we (the USA) faced a similar quandary with Iran. Like the South Koreans, we chose to negotiate, once under the Carter administration and once again under the Reagan administration (Iran/contra).

Terrorists founded the State of Israel. The PLO made wide use of terror, not just in Israel but also throughout Europe and the Mediterranean. It is an exercise in asymmetric warfare, something the Israeli’s might remember from their days resisting British rule in 1947-8. We are not above the use of it ourselves. I don’t know what could be more terrifying than the two A-bombs we dropped on separate Japanese cities. More recently, what do you suppose the phrase “Shock and Awe” was supposed to convey, if not terror? It is not just terrorists who use violence, or is it? Is that your definition of a terrorist, anyone who uses violence?

I certainly agree with you with respect to the main thrust of your points regarding Hamas. I would, however, quibble with your characterization of Hamas as a “terrorist group”. The inconvenient truth, to borrow a phrase, is that they are primarily a charitable organization providing a range of social services (very effectively we might note) to the Palestinian people. Once upon a time, before Hamas came along, the PLO provided such services, until they were banished to Tunisia from Lebanon. Since then their specialty has become corruption. Certainly through their militant wing, Hamas has sponsored some suicide attacks against civilian targets in Israel, as has the PLO through their militant wings. It’s a nasty business.

The Palestinian people freely expressed their political will in their free and democratic elections with perfect good sense and intelligence. From their point of view it was a matter of voting for good governance to replace bad governance, for services and against corruption. Nor was this wishful thinking on their part. Hamas had already won a goodly number of municipal elections and had already established an enviable record of reform and good governance at that level. This is what Democracy is supposed to deliver, is it not?

I believe we would have been far better off to have accepted the results of the election and to have cooperated in an effort to improve Palestinian governance and services, which was the clear desire of the Palestinian people. Instead, we set about doing everything we could to force Hamas to fail, primarily by cutting off all funds, thereby unbearably impoverishing the whole budding nation. These are not the actions of a great nation, or a wise one, or a compassionate one. As an American, I have a hard time accepting it.

You are correct to point to a level of internal tension within the Hamas organization, although this has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. We might recognize that even within the highly disciplined ranks of the Bush Administration there have been some fierce internal battles. Hamas is somewhat torn between its rather fruitless ideology and the day-to-day imperative for practical results, for improvements in living. So yes, there are a wealth of practical things all parties would be well served to negotiate and well suited to begin building a level of mutual trust. It would, I believe, have been a better course than fomenting a civil war.

It is interesting that you mention North Korea in this context (terrorism). I wonder just how North Korea got on the terrorist list in the first place. There is no doubt that they certainly terrorize their own population. But apart from kidnapping a few Japanese for the purpose of teaching language skills to Koreans, I’m unaware of what you could call “external terrorist activities” by North Koreans. Certainly they have sold arms to anyone with the money to pay, but who doesn’t do that?

I would just repeat my initial advise; leave the word “terrorist” to those who specialize in meaningless political rhetoric. What say?

American Observer:
Fred Bos said:

"My comment was directed at 2ndtour whom I assume is serving in military and everyone least politically informed would confirm the priority on everyone's mind in Fallujah is to fight the
occupiers before anything else."

American Observer replies:

If that is what you were saying to 2ndTour, then you were telling a lie, and you know it. The first priority of the insurgents in Fallujah is to murder so many Shia civilians that the killings will provoke the Shia to massacre the Sunni in turn, thus provoking a war between Sunnis and Shia which is so bloody that Sunni powers like Turkey and Saudia Arabia will get involved and help the insurgents conquer the Shia. You should have told 2ndTour that the insurgents are traitors to the people of Iraq, and the best thing he can do for the Iraqi people is to gun down the insurgents like the wild pigs they are.

This is quote from 2ndtour "Go stand on a corner in Fallujah and negotiateand find "Some common ground." I've been there, Good Luck. Idiot. " End of quote.

Again, the priority for those in Falluijah is to resist the occupiers first and foremost. this is corroborated by the Jordanians I have met here who have met the Iraqis in Jordan who have either immigrated to Jordan or took temporary refuge there and what I hear from them is quite unlike what we hear or seldom see in media over here. the infighting between the Sunnis and Shias are engineered by the US. They used to coexist there before for all those many reasons there are and they do coexist in different parts of the world at moment too. Further, I have personally heard from two service men who have returned from Iraq that the dissent is very high among the servicemen. They both said they have never felt they belong there and their stay only aggravate the situation on grounds there.

Before I go any further let me correct you on a specific word such as INSURGENT you have used here. Saying that, I understand how popular or is the only word they use here to portrait the all sorts of factions who have armed themselves with a reason different from the next one, the US faces there. However, if you look at the meaning of the INSURGENT in the dictionary and possess the least clue to what is actually happening on ground in Iraq you will arrive with a different description for all armed group over there. No one has claimed there is only one group there to oppose any specific body. There are several with different agendas but the priority on their list remains to fight the aggressor .

I am sorry I could not and can not tell the 2ndtour or anyone else for that matter that all the armed factions over there are traitors. this is against my culture and conscience too for I, not only, do believe there are many out there who oppose the occupation and aggression imposed on them and are trying to recapture their country as well their natural resources but I would do the very same thing if my own country came under attack. Needless to mention, this is the most absurd thing I have heard through my entire life.

Quoting "The US is there because America spent a dozen years in a trap, and Bush -- in his pride and folly -- thought he saw a chance to break out of that trap.

The basic history is simple. As you recall, the dictator of Iraq led a war of aggression against the nation of Kuwait, and America led an international coalition to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait. We then encouraged the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam and replace his regime with a government which could lead a united Iraq back into the community of nations. Many Iraqis tried, but the Ba'ath defeated them; and America imposed the no-fly zone to keep Saddam from killing millions, as he could well have done; and we kept sanctions on Saddam to stop Saddam from rebuilding his army and threatening his neighbors or his own people again. End of quote.

The US gave Saddam the green light, remember the American ambassador saying the US has no objection, to go to Kuwait. The US has been the sole instigator of regional conflicts over there and has always come out the sole winner too while there have been loss of lives of no importance to it.

The neocons tried very hard but unsuccessful in convincing the Clinton to go Iraq for no reason other than having access to the worlds second largest known oil reserves and of course strategic permanent Air bases in that particular terrain that ensures and solidifies an American military might as well as a quick response to an emergency in the gulf region.

I saw Bush to campaign in 1999 and 2000 and during an interview by a reporter from channel 7 here in Boston he was unable to answer all the questions asked by the reporter. I gave him no chance and had still a little hope in American people till the very night when the Supreme Court with the help of two of the judges whom were appointed by his father, refused to hear the case or another words referred the case back to FL which essentially had earlier determined the winner over there. On that night, I was shocked and lost all my hopes for democracy in this country permanently. And thereafter, I have continuously witnessed American people have little say in electing most of their local, state country leaders meaning they are offered a selection of candidates to choose from not necessarily one who is good for all people.

after successfully installing Bush they immediately started to work and finished bringing in the very cabinet members suiting their needs. For you to spend that much time and take that much space here with materials that are void of any rational anyone can use to justify or reasoning why US went to Iraq I ONLY NEED TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO ONE STATEMENT Mr. O'NIEL,THE FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY MADE. THE IRAQ AGENDA WAS ON TABLE SHORTLY AFTER JANUARY 20TH.

I for one never ever believed there were WMD nor Saddam was involved in any kind of terrorism against US. If anything, I always believed the US knew the exact number of bullets in the Iraqi army let alone the WMD. The Scot Rittor you mentioned has a different opinion than the one you have mentioned here. They did not find anything of the significance relating the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Needless to mention, they asked for the Israeli assistance too. Let me share with you something I learned more than 20 years ago. When the US was engaged with the former Soviet Union in arms reduction negotiations the Russian were playing hard balls before the US team played the voice of late Brezneve ordering his lunch to his chef. The Russians were stunned and of course embarrassed too and immediately injected themselves with some reality doses and continued negotiating. The very same thing happened before when Kruschev was in power. Their negotiating team were playing low numbers of ICBM when the US team offered them satellite pictures. The US is far too capable in knowing who is who and who has what.

I found most of your material here incorrect and misleading but one thing that made me laugh is when you wrote quoting "the Iraqis are more interested in killing each other in the ancient Arab way than in enjoying the freedom we have given them." End of quote. This is the most infantile statement I have ever hard in my life. The US giving Iraqis freedom. Someone dropped from another planet, someone woken up from a come for the past fifty years, could have done a lot better. Please allow me to project what the at least Middle east would look like if the people had freedom over there with the exception of Iran and Israel. The people would immediately depose many dictators who solely look to US for protection and their survival and regain their countries and therefore their natural resources too and consequently and all of sudden the US would be cut out of many lucrative agreements which favor the US immensely. Oh wait a moment please. Did I mention the number of people in the region with the freedom who find the Israeli's foreign policies acceptable would not exceed the number of fingers on one of your hands ? Please, don't say the unthinkable.

LOGICAL: Your thinking is plainly illogical. In every test made upon the Israeli people to offer roads leading to peace,the PLO has rejected all of them out of hand. It was not Barak that torpedoed the Clinton-brokered peace accords but Arafat. It is not Jewish leaders who have stolen billions from their own people and then blame others for the catastrophe of poverty that affects the ordinary Palestinian. It was Arafat and his PLO rackateers. Indeed,even movements that are not even organic to ''Palestine''that include Egypts Islamic Jihad and Iran/Syrias HEZBOLLAH have invaded a second nation,Lebanon,to attack a third,Israel,based upon no legitimate goal[any more than they had traveling all the way to Argentina to murder Jews there],other than to destroy the Jewish people.
Finally,any claim that unites the Palestinian people in the seeking of a just solution was wrecked by both HAMAS and FATAH decsending into open warfare between the two groups with Palestinians being caught square in the middle. Israel had nothing to do with formenting this state of affairs between the two Islamic wings. You will also observe that Israel has less,not more land,and that the thanks that Olmert got was to have more rockets rained down on his people by the terrorists of Gaza. In addition,you forget that the old hatreds of Arab and Jew in this portion of the Middle East predate this conflict. Even before WWII,the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,made common cause with the Nazis in seeking the ''eradication''of the ''Jew''.[Assisted by no less a figure than Obersturbamfurher SS Adolf Eichmann,who called upon the Mufti in 1939]. Your ''reaction to action''makes little to no sense when we see that the one action of Jews leaving the West Bank should have caused a reaction of at least a ''wait and see'' attitude,or in the lack of this,more diplomacy. But it did not. Within days after leaving the West Bank the rockets again began to fall and bombers again began their reentry into Israel.

Lee Holmes:

Israel has plenty of faults to speak of, not only to the initial creation of the PLO but also to the rise of Hamas. Please look into the bloody history of Israeli independence and explain to me how the initial residents of Palestine wouldn't detest the Israeli. To every action there is a reaction, PLO and Hamas didn't rise out of nothing. The current Islamic hatred against Israel is distilled into its current form through 45-50 years of Palestinian-Isreali conflict. Don't cheapen the conflict by using the current Islamic extremism as an excuse to decades of Isreali exploitation and thug diplomacy. The jewish bombing of the King David Hotel is the start of the bloody creation of the Isreali nation, and it is still shedding other people's blood in its bid for more land.

Lee Holmes : Well written and rational post !

Ms. Salama brings knowledge, and logic to a discussion which all too frequently is riven by emotion, and harsh, unforgiving judgment. I hope that American audiences will, increasingly, be exposed to views such as hers. The concept of "stakeholder" is a central one in democratic thought, and Ms. Salama brings it into play in a timely fashion.

Ms. Salama brings knowledge, and logic to a discussion which all too frequently is riven by emotion, and harsh, unforgiving judgment. I hope that American audiences will, increasingly, be exposed to views such as hers. The concept of "stakeholder" is a central one in democratic thought, and Ms. Salama brings it into play in a timely fashion.

Unobserved in all of the sturm und drang over the usual faults attributed solely to Israel[but never to the Palestinians],is the failure by Vivian and others to notice that it was not the Israelis that launched the two wings of Hamas and Fatah into internecine warfare,but those of the Palestinian leaders themselves in a fight for the supremacy of who gets to hold the late Yassar Arafats purse strings and which side will garner the most from taking over Arafats structure as the beneficary of western largesse.
In this light,it is helpful to observe [Vivian patently ignores this fact,due largely to preconcieved biases on her portion],that Arafats PLO structure ripped off hundreds of millions of aid dollars from their own people. Arafats widow is considered to be one of the worlds richest women with a personal worth approaching if not exceeding a billion dollars,every cent of it,denied to her own people in order to stash into Swiss bank accounts for their own Arafatian fortune.
Supporters of the Palestinian factions,if not its people,foolishly support in-tandem,the total removal of womens,religious,gay, legal and childrens rights readily afforded Jews across the border in Israel. In that nation,presidents come and go at the voters whim, much as they do in the West. This years ''Bulldozer'' Sharon can become next years Dovish Barak or-other. In the Palestinian territories,strongmen are made dictators-for-life.
In Tel Aviv,one will observe gay rights parades no differant than those held in San Francisco,complete with cross-dressing skits and drag-queen competitions.
In Gaza they would beat a gay man into a bloody pulp and hang him on a gibbet as a warning to passerby to maintain the alleged ''purity''of Islam.
In Jerusalem,one may see dozens of ''peace and reconciliation''organizations made up of Labour and secular-leaning Jews urging their government to make peace and seek compromise with the Palestinians[in America,they are wrapped under an umbrella of anti-war groups such as ''United For Peace''and include Orthodox as well as secular Jews].
In Gaza,you would be stoned to death in the most medieval fashion as a ''collaberator'' or ''traitor'' for daring to find common cause with these Jewish persons and groups. Those who get out alive have prices placed on their heads wherever they move in the world and are targeted for death.
In Israel,children are taught in the neccesary disciplines of mathematics,agriculture,civics and government,history[including world],literature[international],and physics in order to create a nation that is a world leader in medical and agricultural sciences,much as Islam was over a thousand years ago.
In Gaza,children are taught to hate with fury. There is no other calling worth teaching. They are brainwashed in a manner no differant than what was practiced upon children during the Third Reich. Textbooks at even the second and third-grade level are filled with anti-Semitic diatribe with exaggerated cartoon parodies of ''The Jew'',lessons that infer that the ''Jew''is a thief,a murderer,a rapist,and the ''drinker of the blood of children''[the old blood libel that transcends the centuries reaching its apogee in the Middle East today and in Germany during the 1930s-1940s].
Palestinians use childrens programming to instill racial hatred. Again,cartoon characters are used as the device to engender this obscene brainwashing. Disneys Mickey Mouse is ripped off to become the teacher of ''martyrdom'',taught to four and five -year old children.''Farfour Mouse'',as well as ''Romper Room''figures in cheerful animal costuming show children how to strap on bomb vests to use against ''The Jew'' on televsion shows watched by Palestinians across the region.

There can be no defense whatever that may be used to excuse these horrors. Each and every behavior that runs directly counter to liberal principles is utilized as official policy,rather than isolated incident. Rampant homophobia,religious intolerance,racial hatred,the brainwashing of children,the outright theft of an entire national treasure by thugs and bagmen,whom these blighted western liberals see as ''freedom fighters''and members of ''legitimate resistance''. How anyone in any nation can attach ''legitimacy''to these Nazi-like behaviors is beyond the understanding of this writer. Further,none of these aspects in any way,shape or form,advances any cause of ''peace''that can even be remotely compared to what the Irish achieved in their own nation,what has occurred in the Balkans,South Africa and the end of its apartheid regime,or any other place on earth. The very fury and hatred we see here will not be abated even one whit by giving all that the Palestinians ask or demand. The only desire,as through the march of the long centuries,is to destroy the Jewish people. That there are those who shield themselves in strange,weird masks of ''peace'' and ''compromise''and yet allow these horrors to continue apace shows that they seek neither condition in the end.

To American Observer:

To the Taliban and Al-Queda, the US already has a very specific policy concerning their fate: Surrender or Die. We don't have any other policy than that. Reasonable, concise, and perfectly legitimate as they have attacked us during peacetime while we did not start any type of aggression against them. We don't negotiate with people who attack us at peacetime.

To the Iraqi debacle: this is a more thornier than the Taliban/Al-Queda debate. We invaded the country, it is only legitimate that someone who is fed up fights back. We have occupied the country without improving their lives and we are getting their oil, which pisses off people to no end. Perfect spawning ground for terrorists, but we do not have the legitimate reasoning to go after these people. Now some of these pissed off people can be talked to, just look at Anbar province (and fyi, the surge has nothing to do with the success of Anbar, our free guns did). Negotiation here, as long as it is under the table, helps us more than hurts us. As long as it serves American interest, backdoor diplomacy should be considered as a first line option.

Robert James says:

"I guess that the USA was absent from class on the day that its history teachers discussed the lessons to be learned from Vietnam and Ireland."

American Observer replies:

And what lessons are we supposed to learn from Ireland, James? Should we learn from the way the British have defeated the insurgents in Northern Ireland? Or, should we learn from the way the British defeated the Communist insurgents in Malaya?

Robert James says:

"The USA would have had a better chance of winning if it went to the peace table and negotiated outcomes with people that it does not like."

Oh? And what deal should we offer to the Taliban or to the Al-Qaeda in Iraq? The Taliban and the Al-Qaeda want to make sure that no little girl goes to school; the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda want to bury every homosexual underneath a brick wall; and the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda want to create an Islamic Caliphate across the Moslem world, from Pakistan to Morocco, and impose the laws of the Koran. Tell me, Robert, how do we negotiate that? How do we split the difference?

I guess that the USA was absent from class on the day that its history teachers discussed the lessons to be learned from Vietnam and Ireland.

Put simply, the USA cannot win against a determined group of locals who oppose a foreign invader, that's the USA,because they can thwart the US offensive with home made bombs and a strong desire to expel the invading force (that's the USA).

The USA military is designed to win on the battle fiels of WWII all over again. However, it is unlikely that WWII will be fought again.

The USA would have had a better chance of winning if it went to the peace table and negotiated outcomes with people that it does not like. Alternatively, it could have given all of its opponents $1 million in exchange for peace. Either approach would have been successful and cheaper than George The Village Idiot's proposal to stay the course forever.

To clarify, I just pulled this off the Washington Post server.

Quote:

Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'
U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; Page A01

....

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said.

....

For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

...

Unquote

You can read the entire article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662.html

I hate to nit, but logicaldoubtofhumansanity said something in a post last night that didn't quite do justice to what the Revolutionary Guard is and does.

"8. Stop labeling people you don't like as terrorists. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard in Iran isn't a terrorist organization, its a legitimate Iranian military force. Labeling them as terrorists is just stupid. Catch a couple of Iranian Revolutionary Guards inside Iraq and claim them as terrorists as they have no business in there anyways. Labeling an entire military branch as terrorist is nonsense. Its like saying the US Marines is a terrorist organization."
------------------------------------------

I can agree that it's a bit awkward to have labeled the Revolutionary Guard as such. Be mindful, though, that the Revolutionary Guard answers to and operates at the direction of the ayatollahs, not the political puppet theater they call a government and the state military. The Revolutionary Guard has been linked to a number of terror attacks over the last 25-30 years, including the embassy bombing and Marine barracks in Beirut by providing training, material support and personnel to more localized terror organizations. The analogy of calling the Marines terrorist doesn't quite work in this regard because of it.

A better analogy would be if in our system of government, the legislative, judicial, and executive branches were ancillary and subordinate to a supreme religious council that was responsible for the violent overthrow of our democratically elected government and continues to exist for the purpose of maintaining the religious hold on the country, and independent of the 3 branches of government (including the Defense Dept.) maintained its own highly funded, heavily armed, fully indoctrinated group of militia men to make sure all the political theater plays out according to the councils script and than the process to which we've grown accustomed. If we were to call that militia the USMC, that would be a more apt analogy.

Maybe calling out the Revolutionary Guard is merely a hair-splitting exercise, perhaps there's no worthwhile distinction to be made anymore between the ayatollahs and the Iranian government, but this construct allows the US to sling mud at the Iranians (OK, yeah, actually do more than sling mud, but you get the drift) without actually declaring war.

Nauseous,

Your message was intelligent and well-written. Thanks for sharing it.

So, the men behind the 9/11 atrocities, exactly what freedoms were they fighting for when they enrolled in flight schools and later boarded those planes at IAD, BOS, and EWR?

How about Ramzi Yusef and "the Blind Sheik?" Exactly what were the freedoms they fought for when they truck-bombed the WTC?

I try to be as even-handed as they come, but I call BS on the notion that the terms "freedom-fighter" and "terrorist" are interchangeable. The Islamofacists don't want to propagate freedom - that want to impose a caliphate - the opposite of freedom - and sharia law. You can't credibly equate those fighting off an invasion or struggling for independence for the pursuit and/or preservation of freedoms, for liberty, with stateless and evidently franchised entities engaging in terrorist acts for the sake of bringing about oppressive totalitarian and theocratic regimes.

What's one major difference? There's a possibility that a treaty could be struck with so-called freedom fighters. How on Earth do you come to such a resolution with a band of terrorists that seek not to repel you but to destroy you?

Would you negotiate or talk peace with the man who killed your child, mother, or father? If in killing your child he only wanted to make a statement or be recognized? And if you do, is there a garauntee that any other time he doesn't have your attention he will not kill another member of your family? Blackmail is one thing but murderous blackmail is entirely on a different level.
The truth be told we do not negitiate with people who commit crimes. Criminals go to jail. In Islam criminals pay a price for their crimes according to the religion of Mohammed.
Once upon a time the world had a disturbing problem of pirates on the high seas, the world stood together against piracy and the rest is history. Please let us not listen to this kind of nonsensical jargon about negotiating with people who perpertrate violence in our societies to make a point. It is called a shake down.
When they the terrorist organization(s) are ready to take a different turn or signal that they are ready to be peaceful then may be those considerations will be made. North Korea's case is different. There was a humanitarian need involved too, etc.
The answer to these terrorist acts is easy, the world must stand united and crack down on these senseless murderers. They should be punished for brainwashing those who commit suicide for the sake of making a political or religious statement.

I just can not imagine what this world would be like if Muslims are able to carry out all of their terror plots. Thank Allah for the good work of police, otherwise we all could be dead.

Would you negotiate or talk peace with the man who killed your child, mother, or father? If in killing your child he only wanted to make a statement or be recognized? And if you do, is there a garauntee that any other time he doesn't have your attention he will not kill another member of your family? Blackmail is one thing but murderous blackmail is entirely on a different level.
The truth be told we do not negitiate with people who commit crimes. Criminals go to jail. In Islam criminals pay a price for their crimes according to the religion of Mohammed.
Once upon a time the world had a disturbing problem of pirates on the high seas, the world stood together against piracy and the rest is history. Please let us not listen to this kind of nonsensical jargon about negotiating with people who perpertrate violence in our societies to make a point. It is called a shake down.
When they the terrorist organization(s) are ready to take a different turn or signal that they are ready to be peaceful then may be those considerations will be made. North Korea's case is different. There was a humanitarian need involved too, etc.
The answer to these terrorist acts is easy, the world must stand united and crack down on these senseless murderers. They should be punished for brainwashing those who commit suicide for the sake of making a political or religious statement.

Would you negotiate or talk peace with the man who killed your child, mother, or father? If in killing your child he only wanted to make a statement or be recognized? And if you do, is there a garauntee that any other time he doesn't have your attention he will not kill another member of your family? Blackmail is one thing but murderous blackmail is entirely on a different level.
The truth be told we do not negitiate with people who commit crimes. Criminals go to jail. In Islam criminals pay a price for their crimes according to the religion of Mohammed.
Once upon a time the world had a disturbing problem of pirates on the high seas, the world stood together against piracy and the rest is history. Please let us not listen to this kind of nonsensical jargon about negotiating with people who perpertrate violence in our societies to make a point. It is called a shake down.
When they the terrorist organization(s) are ready to take a different turn or signal that they are ready to be peaceful then may be those considerations will be made. North Korea's case is different. There was a humanitarian need involved too, etc.
The answer to these terrorist acts is easy, the world must stand united and crack down on these senseless murderers. They should be punished for brainwashing those who commit suicide for the sake of making a political or religious statement.

Would you negotiate or talk peace with the man who killed your child, mother, or father? If in killing your child he only wanted to make a statement or be recognized? And if you do, is there a garauntee that any other time he doesn't have your attention he will not kill another member of your family? Blackmail is one thing but murderous blackmail is entirely on a different level.
The truth be told we do not negitiate with people who commit crimes. Criminals go to jail. In Islam criminals pay a price for their crimes according to the religion of Mohammed.
Once upon a time the world had a disturbing problem of pirates on the high seas, the world stood together against piracy and the rest is history. Please let us not listen to this kind of nonsensical jargon about negotiating with people who perpertrate violence in our societies to make a point. It is called a shake down.
When they the terrorist organization(s) are ready to take a different turn or signal that they are ready to be peaceful then may be those considerations will be made. North Korea's case is different. There was a humanitarian need involved too, etc.
The answer to these terrorist acts is easy, the world must stand united and crack down on these senseless murderers. They should be punished for brainwashing those who commit suicide for the sake of making a political or religious statement.

Would you negotiate or talk peace with the man who killed your child, mother, or father? If in killing your child he only wanted to make a statement or be recognized? And if you do, is there a garauntee that any other time he doesn't have your attention he will not kill another member of your family? Blackmail is one thing but murderous blackmail is entirely on a different level.
The truth be told we do not negitiate with people who commit crimes. Criminals go to jail. In Islam criminals pay a price for their crimes according to the religion of Mohammed.
Once upon a time the world had a disturbing problem of pirates on the high seas, the world stood together against piracy and the rest is history. Please let us not listen to this kind of nonsensical jargon about negotiating with people who perpertrate violence in our societies to make a point. It is called a shake down.
When they the terrorist organization(s) are ready to take a different turn or signal that they are ready to be peaceful then may be those considerations will be made. North Korea's case is different. There was a humanitarian need involved too, etc.
The answer to these terrorist acts is easy, the world must stand united and crack down on these senseless murderers. They should be punished for brainwashing those who commit suicide for the sake of making a political or religious statement.

Fred Bos said:

"My comment was directed at 2ndtour whom I assume is serving in military and everyone least politically informed would confirm the priority on everyone's mind in Fallujah is to fight the
occupiers before anything else."

American Observer replies:

If that is what you were saying to 2ndTour, then you were telling a lie, and you know it. The first priority of the insurgents in Fallujah is to murder so many Shia civilians that the killings will provoke the Shia to massacre the Sunni in turn, thus provoking a war between Sunnis and Shia which is so bloody that Sunni powers like Turkey and Saudia Arabia will get involved and help the insurgents conquer the Shia. You should have told 2ndTour that the insurgents are traitors to the people of Iraq, and the best thing he can do for the Iraqi people is to gun down the insurgents like the wild pigs they are.

Fred Bos said:

"It comes as no surprise to me you have not mentioned any reasons at all why the US is there to begin with and exactly who is engineering all these bloodshed against each other..."

American Observer replies:

The US is there because America spent a dozen years in a trap, and Bush -- in his pride and folly -- thought he saw a chance to break out of that trap.

The basic history is simple. As you recall, the dictator of Iraq led a war of aggression against the nation of Kuwait, and America led an international coalition to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait. We then encouraged the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam and replace his regime with a government which could lead a united Iraq back into the community of nations. Many Iraqis tried, but the Ba'ath defeated them; and America imposed the no-fly zone to keep Saddam from killing millions, as he could well have done; and we kept sanctions on Saddam to stop Saddam from rebuilding his army and threatening his neighbors or his own people again.

Well, how well did that work? Badly. Saddam did everything he could to preserver his nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons programs, and though Scott Ritter and the other UN inspectors
finally removed them, it took more than seven years to finish the job; and Saddam had been so duplicitous for so long that even when the weapons were gone, nobody could be sure they really were gone. We allowed Saddam to sell oil for food so the Iraqi people would not starve, and the Iraqi people remained alive, but the sanctions strangled the economy and the entire nation stagnated, while Saddam stole the food money and used it to build palaces. At the same time, ruthless powers like the Chinese and the Russians kept trying to lift the sanctions against Saddam, which might have benefited the Iraqi economy, but would have allowed Saddam to buy the weapons he needed to massacre his own people and plot against his neighbors. And so, a dozen years went by and nothing got better. America and the Iraqi people were both in a trap, and nobody could figure a way out.

And then Bush thought he saw a way out. After the aggression against America on September 11, 2001,
the entire American nation was angry and in a mood for war. Against all expert opinion, Bush choose
to believe that Saddam still had biological and chemical weapons, and against all expert advice, Bush choose to believe that the people of Iraq would embrace democracy the way the Poles had done. Of course, Bush was wrong. It is now obvious that those seven years of work had paid off, and the United Nations inspectors had succeeded in stripping the Iraqis of weapons. It is also clear that the Iraqis are not Poles; Poland is an intelligent and civilized nation, while the Iraqis prefer to solve their political problems the way that Mohammed solved his political problems, with violence. Of course, Bush made many other mistakes as well; for example, it never occured to him that the Iraqis would loot their own city, so Bush never protected the city core, and so forth; and Bush sent Arthur Bremer to impose his idiotic flat tax. Nonetheless, the basic problem with Iraq is that
the Iraqis are more interested in killing each other in the ancient Arab way than in enjoying the
freedom we have given them.

Are there any other questions?

You negotiate with reasonable people.

They have much more then a different world view us, they want us dead or to "submit" (Islam means submission) to their 14th C. beliefs. Good people tend to think that all people are basicly good. Those of us who have lived and worked in the Islamic world have sceen the hatred these people have for anyone who does not agree with them. Remember they kill their fellow moslems more than they kill us. They kill over cartoons. They murder and rape for the crime of teaching girls how to read and write.

Ms. Salama is terribly confused. All Israel has done is give, give, give to the Arabs and all the Arabs have done is Kill, Kill, Kill. THERE IS NOT MODERATE PART OF HAMAS; unless you think that delaying the intended genocide of the Jews by a fews years qualifies as a "moderate" position. These Islamist, including the ones that supported Hamas in the election, must be dealt with and or eliminated because their goal is genocide and war. They say so opening and you folks that refuse to listen only get laughed at by the terrorists you are supporting.

And by the way, voting in a terrorist government does not constitute good government. The goal is not democracy, the goal is liberty and freedom.

And as for Oslo, well since the Israeli government foolishly agreed with the child murderer Arafat and his group to have discussions, the situation has only gotten worse. The Islamists want world domination and will accept nothing less, therefore they must be extinguished. Read today UK Times stating quite clearly that half or more of the muslim mosques in England are espousing violent overthrow of England and stating that any muslim that is friends with a Christian or a Jew are defying their faith.

Grow up Ms. Salama, or is it the case that you are an Islamo-fascist like the muderers of Hamas??

Hi Vivian,

True! Adversaries are not always virtual enemies. British negotiated with political adversaries in India : result Freedom for India:Pakistan then Bangladesh. What the British got in return: a British Empire i.e 192 years of British Rule and the trendsetter of post modernism of that of what today's is : Globalization and certainly English ..the virtual language of all time. Vivian you are Right.. Who knows how Peace and Progress be in Future... Do you know?

Negotiate???? Are you kidding me???

Next week is the anniversary of 9/11. I invite you to attend some of the remembrance ceremonies and present your position of negotiating

This site is a complete joke

All these "scholars" are stuck in their ivory towers and have no clue what goes on in the real world

Negotiate???? Are you kidding me???

Next week is the anniversary of 9/11. I invite you to attend some of the remembrance ceremonies and present your position of negotiating

This site is a complete joke

I agree with Vivian. We must keep open all communications with terrorist groups (to some and freedom fighters to others). One must realize that the same issues we face, face them, too, if they have to talk to official state organizations, e.g., how can they trust us, being forced to recognize the legitimacy of the state, etc. A point that is unique to their distinct disadvantage is the fact that negotiations means they have to come out into the open, exposing their identities, their offices, their families, etc.

Bottom Line:

If the narcissistic idiot in the White House didn't start this war, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We had the World behind us when we began to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then the buffoon thought he was invincible.

Negotiate with the terrorists? It’s too late; what does the United States have to offer at this juncture? (Other than the elimination of ALL infidels)

The Fool has us stuck in a war that was waged hundreds of years ago, and will now continue for hundreds more. The only difference is that it will now include the blood of our own countrymen.

To the military contractors of our county; I guess it was worth your effort, you’ve worked your way into a “Lifetime Contract” with the US Government.