In western diplomatic circles, this isn’t called capitulation. It’s called flexibility.
From Reuters:
Six years after the September 11 attacks, a few cautious voices are beginning to suggest the unthinkable — maybe it is time to consider talking to al Qaeda.
The idea will revolt some people and raises obvious questions — through what channels could such a dialogue take place and what would there be to negotiate?
But proponents say al Qaeda has established itself as a de facto power, whether the West likes it or not, and history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war.
Best neutralized? Perhaps, though I have my doubts..
But they are almost certainly best exterminated by war. And given that there is simply no place in the civilized world for those who wish to impose medieval rule — and given that those wishing to impose medieval rule are intent on imposing it on the west — there is no room for “neutrality” or “neutralizing.” The “movement” must be discredited entirely — not dignified by any kind of diplomatic recognition and negotiation. And in fact, anyone who believes a death cult whose goal it is to restore the Caliphate can be negotiated with in the first place should be laughed out of polite company — unless the “negotiation” demanded unconditional surrender and a dissolution of the “movement.”
And al Qaeda can agree to those terms without all the diplomatic fanfare simply by waking up one day, rolling off its sand pillow, stretching its dusty arms, and deciding that being chased from cave to cave, having its operatives caught and interrogated (or, alternately, turned into pulp and mist), having its funds tracked and seized, and losing face within the greater Muslim community with each successive ass whipping, isn’t quite worth the time.
Then it can return to sipping sweet tea and eating figs, and retiring permanently from the “take over the world” business.
“No insurgency or terrorism has been defeated by warfare or violence,” former Anglican church envoy and hostage negotiator Terry Waite said in a debate on BBC World television.
Well, that’s what he said, Reuters. But is it true?
Quick. Get thee to a history book!
“There are some rational players in al Qaeda but it also attracts the psychotic. We need to seek an entry point,” said the Briton, himself a captive in Lebanon from 1987 to 1991.
Jan Egeland, a Norwegian who helped broker secret talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the 1990s and later, as a top U.N. official, dealt with warlords and guerrilla leaders from Colombia to Uganda, told Reuters: “I wouldn’t rule out speaking to anybody, a priori.”
He went on: “It depends on who you speak to, but also what you speak to them about. I’m willing to speak to the devil to help the victims in the depths of hell. If I could have a meeting with al Qaeda where one could impress upon them that they are the biggest anti-Islamic force around, why not?”
Why not?
Well, first off, they probably wouldn’t agree that they are the biggest anti-Islamic force around, and would castigate you for presuming to judge Islam. And you know something? By the rationale of your own embrace of multiculturalism, they’d be right — and you’d be left sputtering out apologies.
Which leads directly into the second why not: because to merely engage them is to validate them, and to embrace a form or relativism while pretending toward pragmatism.
And that is precisely the wrong move — particularly when you are fighting medievalists against the backdrop of competing ideologies, and yours happens to promote natural rights, pluralism, and individual autonomy (at least ostensibly), leaving no room to accept as a viable alternative the kind of oppressive ideology promoted by radical fundamentalist Islam.
In short, there can be no “live and let live” once a movement that doesn’t accept such a premise actively enters the fray. And the reason for this is simple: they only believe in live as we say and let live; otherwise, show us your necks.
Negotiating sends the message that you don’t believe in the “natural” or universal rectitude of your position. And once you are willing to admit this, you have forever compromised your erstwhile unassailable moral authority.
Which, of course, is one of the predictable outcomes of a long term multiculturalist project — but if we must go that route, let’s start slow with, like, unisex toilets, rather than surrendering so early on to the 7th century.
(h/t slackjawedyokel)
“I’m willing to speak to the devil to help the victims in the depths of hell.”
But the only one who can help them is God.
Killing them only creates more of them. Lending them cachet by putting them in a room with Condoleezza Rice?
Idiots.
Oh. Happy New Year also.
The most fearful thing about dealing with al Qaeda as if they are a nation-state is that the entire basis for al Qaeda is rooted in anti-Semitism that grew out of the teaching of the mufti of Jerusalem decades before the establishment of Israel. The mufti called for eradication of all Jews everywhere, and he was an ardent supporter of Adolf Hitler and national socialism as an ally in his hate and agenda. Out of those teachings came the Muslim Brotherhood, which has spawned innumerable cells of hate and death in the decades since its founding. So what might one offer al Qaeda in talks? What they want cannot be given. It is not the destruction of Israel that motivates them; their religious convictions are far older in origins. They require annihilation of an entire people, the Jews! Suggesting negotiations with al Qaeda is an appalling idea, one that can come only from deliberate moral dishonesty and weakness.
Actually, even He can’t help those who rejected Him. Hell’s gates are locked from the inside.
[…] From Protein Wisdom: […]
The downside to that whole apple-in-the-Garden-of-Eden thing
Talking to AQ?
“Ok, Muhammad, where d’ya want it? In the head or in the belly?”
Talk all you want but unless you are willing to bow and submit to Islam and Sharia and give up all that makes you American we will continue to bravely plant our IED’s and wear our Mark Jacobs jihadi inspired suicide vests awaiting our audience with the most holy Allah and his harem of virgins.
Ah yes, the Comedy Central approach. Personally, I think it’s time for Christians to rise up and start killing if they want things done! Enough of this boycott and protesting nonsense! Time for killing!
I am all for negotiating with OBL and AQ. Just as long as the time and coordinates of the meeting place are given to Major John, RTO, and wishbone, well in advance.
For those of you still suckered by the talk, there’s a fine honesty-of-avowed-relativism test in here, I think.
I wouldn’t rule out speaking to anybody, a priori, says Egeland.
Well let’s just ring up ol’ Jan after lunch then, and we’ll hash this Middle East shit out.
I have a baseless suspicion that exploding some Jews first — or at least funding some Jewsplosions — might improve the odds that he takes our call, but I’m sure that’s just me being a crazy Europhobe.
I’d also like to know exactly what kinda flouncing douche says “a priori” — and how do Norwegians pronounce it? Do Americans correct them if the “a” has that dippy Scandinavian thing in it? Or is it only in the presence of power that their avowed linguistic relativism kicks in? (Ahem.)
I’ll let you know after I talk to him.
After lunch.
Hey AQ, you suck and will die horribly soon.
There, I just talked to AQ.
What’s the problem with talking again?
Maybe we could send Madeline Albright and Jimmah Carter to meet with them. She can give them some autographed sports memorbilia, a nightmarish spin around the dance floor, and he can bore them to tears. Then, a group os US special forces can drop by to say hello.
The idea of Albright and Osama doing s Pasa Doble is just too much for me.
Well those Oslo Accords worked so well….
Someone needs to slap this guy upside the head and remind him of one of the key rules in staying a strong civlisation, you never negootiate with barbarians.
Hmmmm, let me change a few words:
*************************
Reuters, 1942:
THREE years after the INVASION OF POLAND, a few cautious voices are beginning to suggest the unthinkable  maybe it is time to consider talking to ADOLF HITLER.
The idea will revolt some people and raises obvious questions  through what channels could such a dialogue take place and what would there be to negotiate?
But proponents say NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMANY has established itself as a de facto power, whether the ALLIES like it or not, and history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war.
**************************
Yeah, that’s better.
“History shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation”? Which history exactly?
“No insurgency or terrorism has been defeated by warfare or violence,†former Anglican church envoy and hostage negotiator Terry Waite said in a debate on BBC World television.
Demonstrably false, by the way. See (among many others): the British in Malaya. Also: Viet Cong — the U.S. did NOT negotiate with the VC. We had virtually wiped them off the battlefield by the time negotiations were begun with North Vietnam, a recognized, if rogue, state.
Why do they even allow AQ’s continued existence? I mean, between ’68 & ’72 the Phoenix Program neutralized like 82,000 VCI … so what’s holding up simply identifying and neutralizing a few thousand AQI.. ?
So, there are victims in Hell?
Osama was a victim of aggressive American imperialism, and I have no doubt that he is roasting in Hell right now.
We should just run and invitation to AQ for peace talks in a full page ad in the NY Times. That should guarantee more bang for the buck.
I have no use for neutralization of the islamic militants, unless it involves them meeting their maker by way of making them involuntary splodeydopes.
I’m a victim of lunch. I wish someone would negotiate with that leftover chicken divan.
If you think you could get a word in edgewise.
Noisy bastard.
I remember this movie. The Martian Ambassador disintegrated the negotiators.
Only in the fog-soup mind of a flouncing douche © liberal Anglican.
Use of flouncing douche ©2007 courtesy of psychologizer
Here’s how it would go:
Euroweenie: Mr. bin Laden, pleased to meet you today. We would like to negotiate a peace settlement with you.
OBL: Great. Everybody convert to Islam, the way Allah intended, submit to his will, and you’ll be hip-deep in peace in no time.
Euroweenie: Well, you see, Mr. bin Laden, as much as we respect your religion and all, we’re not that interested in converting.
OBL: Fine. Then die, infidel. It’s sixes to me.
Euroweenie: Oh! Heh. Die? Isn’t that kind of violent? I mean, we were thinking of a more nuanced approach…
OBL: Nuance this: There’s no god but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet. Any questions?
Euroweenie: No, er, um, we don’t really believe in a God, but we respect your right to believe what you want. Live and let live, right?
OBL: That option’s not on the table. The earth must be purified of all wickedness. And Jews. Especially Jews.
Euroweenie: You mean Zionists, right? We’ve got no problem sacrificing Isreal, but all Jews seems like overkill.
OBL: Overkill is what we’re looking for.
Euroweenie: My, you’re quite direct in what you want, aren’t you, Mr. bin Laden? Is there anything we can offer you to dissuade you from your goal of establishing a worldwide Caliphate? Mesopotamia? Afghanistan? A seat on the UN security council?
OBL: Thanks, I’ll take them all.
Euroweenie: WooHoo! Then you’ll stop pursuing a worldwide caliphate, right?
OBL: Yes. I’ll get right on that.
OBL:
“But proponents say al Qaeda has established itself as a de facto power, whether the West likes it or not, and history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war.”
Fascism was neutralized by vigorous talks, held 1939-1945.
The Greek Communists were neutralized by a series of roundtables held in the late 1940s.
The Malay Communists were bested at the negotiating table by the British Foreign Ministry.
The Sendero Luminoso finally gave up terrorism after extensive peace discussions.
Fortunately, Hezbollah was able to peacefully reconcile with the rest of Lebanon, in large part due to talks and the UN’s help.
Algeria avoided having to resort to violence because the Armed Islamic Group was willing to end it’s attacks and chat.
Luckily, the North Vietnamese were able to talk the Khmer Rouge out of violence, using a series of mediated talks.
And that is just the first few I can come up with…
In Brussels recently, a rally to commemorate 9/11 was denied a permit, because the mayor was concerned that Muslims would get mad.
So, we could start the negotiations by sending Al Gore to Waziristan as our special envoy to plead for permission to commemorate 9/11.
LOL…Great Job, dicentra. But you did forget that OBL would offer the Euroweenie the chance to pay the Jizya tax first, before the lopping off of the head. I think, even with 7th century barbarous morons, there is a protocol to be followed. That Mo was an administrator alright.
But, these people cannot be taken seriously, and I am hoping and praying that no one does.
If by “vigorous talks” you mean ‘wall-to-wall counseling’ on a continental scale, then yes, fascism was neutralized by vigorous talks.
And if by “neutralized” you mean ‘brutally killed, bulldozed into an open pit, and then crapped on’, then yes, fascism was neutralized.
:)
I have no problem with us talking to members of Al Qaeda. None it all. It really is something we should be doing.
I prefer that they be strapped to a waterboard at the time, but that’s a small difference of opinion. I’m sure we can work it out. Perhaps they would prefer a stress position, or a pair of soiled panties over their heads. I’m easy.
I’ve long suspected that someone would float the idea of “negotiations” with AQ at some time. I may have read Steyn speculating on it a few years ago. Great idea. Hey, let’s give them some global legitimacy. I nominate Cindy Sheehan as chief negotiator.
Mama Sheehan would be a perfect diplomat to meet with AQ. After she gets done sucking off Chavez, she can start in on OBL and Omar. Then, due to her uncleanliness, they will behead her, filmed on a grainy old VHS hand-held about the size of a car battery, in front of some jihad slogan spray painted on a bedsheet, and hung from a stalagtite(mite) in a cave. Or something like that.
Ards:
You are all about the love, man! :-)
JD:
Thanks so very much for that lovely vision. Cue nightmares.
These relativistic losers have absolutely no understanding of the jihadist mindset nor of the instructions that they are prying out of the Quran with blood soaked tweezers. If my enemy of Islam wants to negotiate this indicates that we jihadists are winning. Press him and kill him while I send people to lie to him. However the overwhelming strength of my enemy should cause me to try and negotiate with him to get him to stop killing me and my boombats for ten years, until we are stronger.
These people have absolutely no interest in real peace negotiations and the multi cultural weenie kids who think otherwise are circling a cotton candy planet firmly astride a flying hippo. Drinking a decaf double latte.
FOR THE LISTENING SKILLS BOOST!!!
BJ – It was the least I could do for you.
Come on, BJ, all of those peace agreements that Israel have negotiated with them have turned out so well, why not just keep on trying. They have bought Israel at least 5 days of peace after each one, give or take a couple days.
If the Joooos and Americans would just leave them alone, they would quit sending their splodey dopes out into the world. So far, they have had their fingers crossed behind their backs every time.
history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war.
Translation: history shows that conflicts are avoided by allowing your enemies to kill you.
Not that Koresh and the Davidians were a militant movement, but has anybody heard anything out of them lately?
Yeah, the “frank and open exchange of views” we had with the Japanese in 1945 comes to mind…
If we sent Mama Sheehan, the MSM would be up in arms if she were murdered, 3000 innocents on 9/11, not so much.
“No insurgency or terrorism has been defeated by warfare or violence,â€Â
Part and parcel of the Left’s closely-held tenet that “War doesn’t solve anything”.
Au Contraire, war SOLVES a lot of problems. Perhaps they were thinking that war doesn’t PROVE anything, which is not the purpose of war.
Sounding like petulant children.
In RE my comment at #30, supra:
If by ‘are you in favor of these kinds of vigorous talks to deal with Islamofascism’ that my prior comment alludes to then my answer is ‘certainly, and I’ll provide the tea and cucumber sandwiches’. Which means Hell, Yes!
See? Even a troglodyte like me can do diplo-speak, which is to normal language as a fart is to a thunderstorm.
Major John beat me to it again, although I don’t think I could have managed the same high tone. Well done, sir.
In case no one mentioned this already, here’s a link to a college professor telling us that maybe it’s time to talk to al qaida, in the Boston Globe Sept 14 2005:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/14/time_to_talk_to_al_qaeda/
What is it that we gain by talking with people whose religion says it is OK to lie to infidels, i.e. us? What’s the slogan, “distrust but verify?”
‘We’re sending someone in to negotiate’
“Jan Egeland, a Norwegian who helped broker secret talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the 1990s …”
Yeah. That’s worked out well Jan. You go boy!
Well, I used to say, ‘live and let live.’
You know I did, you know I did, you know I did.