Skip to comments.Talking to al Qaeda? Don't rule it out, some say (MEGAHURL!)
Posted on 09/13/2007 12:32:06 PM PDT by PreciousLiberty
LONDON (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.
"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.
"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?"
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
In retrospect, I suppose we should have talked with Hitler instead of fighting.
Give me liberty and give them death!
Go right ahead & do your "talking." Get back to us if you survive a beheading, you dumba$$ dhimmis.
Why in the hell do they keep writing this crap? I guess these clowns haven’t figured out how dumb they sound.
Yeah, worked great with Hitler. Tojo too. (Maybe they weren't "militant" enough). Frickin' morons.
We’re already talking to al Qaeda. And the libs don’t like it because it’s unpleasant for the jihadis. In their mind, it’s not just a matter of talking to them. It’s a matter of giving respect to them.
Or are they visualizing world appeasement again?
ummm, yep, definately room for diplomacy with these people /sarc
You just can’t make this cr@p up. I swear... these liberal morons would keep trying to talk to these monsters as they were sawing their heads off.
They forgot that Hitler betrayed their beloved Joe Stalin.
Wrong...the Mongols dealt very successfully with the Order of Assassins by killing them in very creative ways.
Ah yes, the famous "Oslo Accords." They worked almost as well as Munich did.
I propose that the Democratic Congressional leadership take the reigns and begin negotiations with the terrorists. The Dems can begin by offering to submit ... Oh wait ... they have already started. Scratch That.
> In retrospect, I suppose we should have
> talked with Hitler instead of fighting.
Uh, we did, and got “Peace in our time”.
Whenever some vacant skull proposes this,
merely ask them:
“How does one negotiate agreements with
people who don’t keep agreements?”
Cutting off their goolies is also good.
Unless, of course, it's the Minutemen, the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, ot etc. - it's shoot first and suppress questions later when it's alleged American militants we're talking about.
Proven threats like Osama get more tolerance from these %#@%$#! than Americans do.
If you're referring to Munich 1972, then yes, you're right. [/s]
I nominate Hillary as Ambassador to Al Qaeda!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.