Al Qaeda: Time to Talk? - BBC 2

Luseac · 3 Sep 2006 at 21:16

Anybody else watching this? It's interesting viewing...

Goumet · 3 Sep 2006 at 21:17

Nope, clear and present dangers on....quality film.

Luseac · 3 Sep 2006 at 21:19

Goumet said:
Nope, clear and present dangers on....quality film.

Fair play, it's a good film.

Al Vallario · 3 Sep 2006 at 21:21

I'm watching it at the moment. It's certainly interesting, but nothing we didn't know already

mattbrown91 · 3 Sep 2006 at 21:42

Good film, especially when there is nothing else worth watching.

Cyber-Mav · 4 Sep 2006 at 00:05

are they going to blow anything else up?

andi · 4 Sep 2006 at 00:14

I refuse to watch anything that even vaguely suggests we should sit down for tea and biscuits with mass murdering terrorists.

Sleepy · 4 Sep 2006 at 00:53

andi said:
I refuse to watch anything that even vaguely suggests we should sit down for tea and biscuits with mass murdering terrorists.

Unfortunately if you want the violence to end you have to talk to them, otherwise the violence just goes on and on and on.

We had 30 years of IRA bombs before a negotiated deal lead to a ceasefire. I think Churchill said it best "to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

RetiredGreyFox · 4 Sep 2006 at 06:55

Sleepy said:
Unfortunately if you want the violence to end you have to talk to them, otherwise the violence just goes on and on and on.

We had 30 years of IRA bombs before a negotiated deal lead to a ceasefire. I think Churchill said it best "to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Agree.

DJWeasel · 4 Sep 2006 at 07:26

andi said:
I refuse to watch anything that even vaguely suggests we should sit down for tea and biscuits with mass murdering terrorists.

How do you know that negiotiating with Al Qaeda hasnt already happened?

i Think America has done some thing, to have no terrorist attacks, attempted or successful. Like 7/7 and the heathrow malarky not any suspected arrests. its a bit too unbelivable for me im afraid

Nix · 4 Sep 2006 at 07:29

DJWeasel said:
How do you know that negiotiating with Al Qaeda has already happened?

A more apt question would be: How do you go about negotiating with such people? How do you reason with someone whose mentality and logic are questionable, warped and bigoted? How do we really know that we can actually talk to these people? What's stopping them attempting to bully the government like recent muslims tried in regards to foreign policy? "Do what we want and then we'll do what you want."

Slinwagh · 4 Sep 2006 at 08:20

andi said:
I refuse to watch anything that even vaguely suggests we should sit down for tea and biscuits with mass murdering terrorists.

We did it with the IRA as far back as the late 1970's !!

atpbx · 4 Sep 2006 at 08:34

The only way to stop terrorists is to talk, you never beat them.

I dont think there is a single example in the entire history of mankind where anyone anywhere has ever "beaten" terrorism.

The only time it stops is when you negotiate.

Visage · 4 Sep 2006 at 08:41

atpbx said:
The only way to stop terrorists is to talk, you never beat them.

I dont think there is a single example in the entire history of mankind where anyone anywhere has ever "beaten" terrorism.

The only time it stops is when you negotiate.

Exactly.

You cant win a 'War on Terror', any more than you can win the 'War on Drugs'.....

cleanbluesky · 4 Sep 2006 at 09:41

Sleepy said:
Unfortunately if you want the violence to end you have to talk to them, otherwise the violence just goes on and on and on.

Disagree. Al-quida is an amorphous organisation, which cannot be understood as directly representing any single population. Their ideology needs to be dismantled, as it is the only thing which provides their resolve.

What exactly should we talk about with Al-Quida? What to give them in order to appease them? Do they have any reasonable demands? Are many of their demands not based on international affairs with third parties?

Visage · 4 Sep 2006 at 09:44

cleanbluesky said:
Disagree. Al-quida is an amorphous organisation, which cannot be understood as directly representing any single population. Their ideology needs to be dismantled, as it is the only thing which provides their resolve.

So how would one go about dismantling an ideology?

cleanbluesky · 4 Sep 2006 at 09:52

Visage said:
So how would one go about dismantling an ideology?

There are many ways to do this, and one is to completely reject their discourse. For example, the idea that our foreign policy is a legitimate reason for them to attack civilians.

Sleepy · 4 Sep 2006 at 10:00

cleanbluesky said:
Disagree. Al-quida is an amorphous organisation, which cannot be understood as directly representing any single population. Their ideology needs to be dismantled, as it is the only thing which provides their resolve.

What exactly should we talk about with Al-Quida?

I'm very aware that Al Q better represents a method of interaction with the west for muslims with an islamist viewpoint than a single unifying organisation ala western terrorist organisations such as the IRA or the RAF

However this makes dialogue even more important as we are at war with an idealogogy spread over the globe, not with a discrete group identified with a geographic region. The battleground is for the minds of the huge numbers of non combatants, this is why we must engage in dialogue. We cannot lock up all the members of Al Q as the German police did with the Baader-Meinhof Gang, there are too many sympahtisers and they are only linked to AL Q by a similar ideological mind set.

The alternative is the Long War. Another British soldier died today, I prefer it if that wasn't neccessary.

Visage · 4 Sep 2006 at 10:02

cleanbluesky said:
There are many ways to do this, and one is to completely reject their discourse. For example, the idea that our foreign policy is a legitimate reason for them to attack civilians.

So we reject their discourse and as a result they stop their terrorist activities?

How does that work? Surely whether *we* accept their reasoning is irrelevant - they beleive it, and thats all that matters.

4T5 · 4 Sep 2006 at 10:02

cleanbluesky said:
There are many ways to do this, and one is to completely reject their discourse. For example, the idea that our foreign policy is a legitimate reason for them to attack civilians.

But when our foreign policy goes against everything Muslims believe in then surely we must talk to find common ground.
We have invaded a Muslim country and are trying to impose our will on it.
This is against everything Muslims believe in and is directly related to Jihad.
There are Muslims less radical out there that we Need to talk to Now.
Of course we need to talk just as we talked to the IRA.
It is much better to get on with murderers than it is let them continue killing our familys.
I cannot believe the intelligent people on here do not want to open up some kind of discussion with those that threaten there future :confused: