Talking with terrorists

steve

I think the line should be drawn depending on a, do their demands pass a reasonableness test, b, how flexible are they. and c, what is the cost benefit analysis To take a couple of examples. The IRA had a set of demands based on a united Ireland (to be simplistic) a united Ireland is a perfectly reasonable theoretical concept (please note I am in no way condoning the actions of the IRA I am dealing purely with the concept of a united Ireland.) It also transpired that the IRA was flexible on the issue. Finally the cost benefit - endless civil strife v peace and relative prosperity looked pretty good, so it made sense to talk to them and hammer out a deal (a sort of they may be b*****ds but they are sane b*****ds principle, I suppose) To take al-qaeda, the demands seem to revolve largely around the establishment of a mediaeval worldwide Islamic Theocracy, and the extermination of the Infidel (i.e. people like me) this does not appear to be a reasonable concept, I doubt if al-qaeda is likely to show much flexibility, as (in their eyes) Allah is telling them to do this. finally I can't even work out a cost benefit framework that looks reasonable to me. Therefore I can't see any way of opening a dialogue (a sort of, they are b*****ds and they are insane b*****ds to boot, principle) I concede that this is an amoral, realpolitik sort of approach, and makes no account for the magnitude of previous crimes and I haven't done the thought experiment to test where my personal limits might lie, beyond which I would refuse to talk full stop.

London Calling

The Lines should be drawn Strictly across the Chessboard,checkmate is no position for either side, for a stalemate position benefits no one, whilst the pawns cry out for change. We must embrace our enemies as our friends and yes indeed keep them closer, but this takes wisdom,patience and virtue, but most of all a new kind of mediation and intellect that mankind has never known on mass. There is nothing particularly controversial about Jonathan Powell's words, for if you put your ear to the ground you will hear the voices of the multitudes of peoples who want change also and a positive way forward. Who is brave enough to lead the way? let the brave rise and be heard before we shout them down, otherwise we have shut our ears to the truth.

Max Kaye

There is a world of difference between the political-nationalist terrorism of the IRA and the messianic madness of the Islamists.

We in the West need to be destroyed - completely and utterly - for the Islamists to achieve their objective: a world-wide Caliphate. The Israelis have been dealing with this type of existentialist threat for 60 years. Those demanding that they talk to and compromise with Hamas - or that we should talk with the likes of Al Qaida - are either fooling themselves or do not understand the reality and the severity of the threat facing us.

One cannot 'compromise' with someone sworn to one's destruction. The result is usually called suicide.

Charlie T

"You want to destroy western civilisaton.But western civilisation doesn't want to be destroyed. Can we find a third way?"

Realist

Anyone who thinks that Powell is a wise man whose views are worth consideration should read “Five Days in London – May 1940” by John Lukacs, about the discussions on the possibility of seeking to negotiate peace with Nazi Germany. Or read the chapter on that topic in “Fateful Choices” by Ian Kershaw. Powell is just another Halifax, and the Halifaxes are always with us, people whom we have to take seriously because they seem so sensible and wise, even if they are dead wrong. Of course Powell’s claim to authority is his experience in Northern Ireland, but what we will never know about that situation is how many lives would have been saved if the Heath and subsequent governments had taken a tougher line with Unionists and approached the IRA as a problem requiring an intelligence lead military and police solution. Powell and Blair just pursued the path started by Heath and Whitelaw.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Neville Chamberlain had a good line in talking to gangsters. So did Jonathan Powell. That's why we now have murderers, torturers and thieves as members of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland.

Verity

London Calling - You are alarmingly naive about hardline islam - and hardline is what Al-Qaeda is about. Reread Steve, above. The IRA were a bunch of opportunistic thugs. Al Qaeda believes it is acting on direct orders from their diety. It is in the koran. Allah has directed, according to the hardliners, that the whole world must be made islamic. What you may not know, London Calling, is that they believe that everyone is born islamic. They believe it is the natural way of things, the way everyone is born wanting to breathe air and the way the sun comes up and goes down. This is why, on the odd occasion they get someone converting to islam, they refer to them not as a convert, but a revert. They are returning to the natural way of things. According to Al-Qaeda's reading of islam, there is no room for discussion, because they are following their god's will. The population of the whole world must be converted to islam by persuasion, taqya and kitman (lies and deceit) or at the point of a sword. You write: "Let the brave rise and be heard ...". I recommend that the brave first read the koran. This isn't the IRA you're dealing with. This is a totally different mindset. This is not to say that every muslim person feels this way - but it is to say that Al-Qaeda feels this way, and they have many admirers and allies. One simply cannot engage in a rational discussion with religious fanatics.

David Lindsay

“Al-Qaeda” would have to exist first.

We certainly already talk to the Taliban. We just call them “tribal elders” when we do so. But they are exactly the same people. I expect that we already talk to each and every one of the many related but unconnected phenomena falling under the “al-Qaeda” heading.

Did anyone else hear Oliver Kamm’s effort on PM? He had the effrontery to mention “al-Qaeda in Iraq”, which is entirely a product of that country’s invasion and occupation, and very specifically of the removal of Saddam Hussein, cheered on by Oliver Kamm, who pointedly refers to the country in question as “Mesopotamia”, refusing even to acknowledge the existence of Iraq.

Herbert Thornton

The flaw in all this is that there is no point in attempting dialogue with people who are inspired by religion to be fanatically irrational and implacable.

The Panglossian dogma that dialogue is possible with such people is as deluded as imagining that we could reason with a crocodile.

The Zaporozhian Cossacks, several centuries ago, had a better grasp of reality.

http://www.infoukes.com/history/cossack_letter/

Verity

Herbert Thornton endorses what I wrote and I like his analogy regarding the crocodile. The crocodile might squat there looking at you, appearing to listen to your reasoning, but it is just figuring out the quickest way to get you dead and eat you. The British should stop relating everything to the IRA. It is so provincial. It is like comparing apples with London Bridge or a car assembly line. They're not in the same universe of definition. Remove all thoughts about the IRA from your heads and approach Al-Qaeda as what it is, not what you think it might be like. The Americans aren't hampered by provincial defintions of the IRA. That is why it can take two hours to get through Immigration in the US. The State Department understands. I am afraid the British do not. You cannot negotiate with someone who has been commanded by his god to kill you or beat you into submission and conversion, or, as they call it, "reversion". You just can't.

Verity

Further to my comment above, I see in the MoS that a senior Al-Qaeda organiser wrote a handwritten manual mapping out the obliteration of advanced Wesetern civilisation. It was found by our people in an abandoned flat in Manchester and shared with the Americans. The Americans, being Americans and believing as they do in absolute openness - which is one of their great, enduring strengths - put it on the internet. Makes interesting reading, and should disabuse all those people who think we're dealing with the IRA but with operatives who don't have red hair and talk with Irish accents.

Max Kaye

Verity, I tried to answer your query - how do I make paragraphs - in a previous thread but it didn't post (and I would hate you to think that I'm discourteous).

I'm not sure why I (and some others) can and you can't. It could be the computer and/or browser that you're using. (I'm using an Apple Mac PC and Apple's Safari browser).

BTW, a number of posts I've made to previous threads have not appeared. Weekend blues?

Pete Hoskin

Max: yep, we've been having a few problems with comments this weekend. All should be ok now, but I fear some didn't get through to us.

Verity

Pete Hoskin, why can't I get a double space between paragraphs? OK, this time I'm trying three spaces. Max, I'm on Windows XP, which I loathe, and Explorer 6 (or maybe 7 - who cares?). I also post over on Iain Dale's Diary and have no problem with paragraph breaks. Also, occasionally on Devil's Kitchen, and again no problem. I think it's something to do with The Speccie. Thank you for the courtesy of your reply, though. I appreciate it.

Pete Hoskin

Verity: I'm not 100% sure - in fact, I've never been able to get paragraph breaks myself! I'll check with our tech people tomorrow and get back to you.

Nicholas

Oh you the naive ones if you think we have heard the last of Ireland and the IRA. The biggest mistakes we made were in not accusing the Irish government of exporting terrorism, insisting on sanctions against them and threatening to invade the South.

Woolly appeasement and naive belief in the essential decency of evil bastards only results in one thing. It may take a long time coming and you may delude yourself into thinking the problem has been solved while it is coming but come it will.

And to those who say this never works and point to Suez, Vietnam, etc., it never worked because the will to continue at all costs was lost. They know they can endure longer than we can. They know our media and our liberals and the belief in our own guilt will undermine our will and drain our determination. "Nuclear war? There goes my modelling career!"

(Verity, get a Mac, you'll never look back)

Ian C

It seesm to me that when Al Qaeda have reached a point that they are 'worth talking too', their own raison d'etre will have been discontinued. So Powell's logic is questionable on the grounds that they have nothing but violence to negotiate with. Howver, should they acquire nuclear capabilities. The equation changes at that moment and we have no choice but to ensure that such people do not get the REMOTEST SNIFF of the possibility. This is what made the Iraq invasion essential (for other reasons too in my book, as well as the remotest sniff test) and what makes facing down Iran inevitable. Failure to do so now is likely to mean that we will be forced to talk to Terrorists in the future. So Powell is both wrong and right, in practice. He is wrong that we should do it. He is right that we should know how to communicate withthem IF they get nuclear capability. As Melanie Philips points out, talking to the IRA secretly in the 70's and 80's lenghtened the war with them out. That we cannot afford in dealing with any sort of terrorism and governments must realise that.

Verity

Ian C - You aare correct. I find it amazing and terribly naive that there are so many people in Britain who simply do not understand the nature of islam. It is a religion of conversion - by force, if necessary. Al-Qaeda and many other islamics are offended at the existence of the West and its individualism. We infuriate them for drinking, wearing bikinis, shacking up, whatever. We tolerate people with habits we don't like; they want to wipe us out. The spread of islam is paramount to these people, and we must be alert every second to their aggression. For example, the well-known (in the US) case of the attempted colonisation of the airport taxi service at Minneapolis airport. The muslim drivers were telling Americans what they could take into the cab with them. No liquor. Now, I could understand a driver being nervous if he had someone behind him, in the back seat, drinking out of an open container, just from his own safety point of view, but no. It was duty-free they were refusing to take. Unopened duty-free. God doesn't like alcohol and God's little army on earth is here to stamp it out. Second, they refused to take blind people with guide dogs. Apparently, God doesn't like dogs, either. The drivers, of course, cited their human right not to have to go against their conscience. The Minneapolis bureaucracy operating the airport taxi concession eventually fought their way through this "religious freedom" crap and told the drivers that if they refused a fare, they got to drive round the airport perimeter and go to the back of the taxi queue. Suddenly, they saw the light. But it was an attempt. They are at it all the time. Ever alert for possiblities to gain an inch. Then another inch.

James Forsyth

Verity: not sure how helpful it is to generalise about Islam in such broad terms. Do you think Sufis are trying to convert people by force?

Max Kaye

James, There are various streams of Sufism. Some are nice and fluffy (like the wine and woman-loving Rumi). Others are more militant. Overall in Islam, however, Sufism is marginal.

I think that Verity is attacking Islamism and not Islam. (Hence her use of 'Islamics' not 'muslims'). Maybe we should all agree on the terminology.

Verity

Thanks, Max. We were discussing Al-Qaeda. But what James and others are in denial about, because it's just not cricket to mention it (sorry if you're a Scot, James, and don't play cricket), is, this is a religion steeped in and aggression. Now, there are muslims who aren't bothered and, like many Christians and Jews, pick around for the bits of their religion that they will adhere to and what they will ignore. But the fact is, James, the koran commands conversion of the world, by violence if necessary. Persuasion should be tried first and that includes lies and deceit (taqya and kitman). Finally, if that doesn't work, the sword. The British establishment is strangely in denial about this and, like you, shuts down the discussion. Meanwhile, you are being conquered, inch by inch, concession by concession. Now your taxes are going to pay benefits for illegal polygamous marriages. You don't want it discussed, fine. Don't post on it and invite others to respond.

Ian C

Verity Iwould recommedn that your read Ed Husain's 'The Islamist'. He sets out very clearly the difference between the elements of Islam and how the Wahhabi and other sects that he names are as you assume but the others, the majority Sufi Muslism have a very different understanding of their religion. I am glad you agree with the main thrust of my point above but we all need to understand better what we are dealing with. His book is a real eye opener - and I thought I knew enough.

Verity

And, James Forsyth (apologies for having been such a busy poster today), you might wish to consult the blog of your colleague Melanie Phillips, in particular, Jihad in East Londonistan from yesterday. Britain is being swallowed whole because the British think that criticising another chap's religion is, well, rather infra dig, don'tcha know.

Wake Up

Here's how the so-called "dialogue" actually goes. US: "Hey, we think you Islamists have got some things wrong, can we talk about it?" THEM: "We will kill you for saying that". Wake Up, New Zealand

Mohammed Abbasi

blasphemy!