When the US government publicly declare their no-negotiation with terrorists policy, do they really mean it. Is the US that hardcore? I imagine they say one thing but secretly do the opposite. They probably have a Delta Force headed by Chuck Norris that attempt rescues just like in the movie.

Ubuntu is my favorite distro.Simply Mepis is good too.

Hey administrator,the Linux post was oblique humor.Where`s your sense of oblique humor ?

Apparently I missed all humor that was in that, I'll bring it back for you, but I found nothing about it related to the question, maybe I missed something.

I just thought you were one of the many a day we get that post something in a thread they somehow meant for another thread.

No,don`t bother.I`m ahead of my time.I`ll just have to get use to it.

IMO, there's more that he DOESN'T than DOES :-( sadly this is neither humorous nor a subject for the technical group present here.
*flame off*

Well, publicly it looks good saying he doenst...it seems impossible that he has NEVER negotiated with any terrorits

Its actually US policy that we do not negotiate. Who the presedent is at any given time does not effect this policy. This is done as once a person/nation gives into a bully the bully can then expect the mark to give in next time as well. Look at the riots in Fance as a good reason for this type of policy.

I'm not advocating this, but imagine the following scenario:

Some criminals holds a group of people hostage, using them as human shields. They demand money, and threaten to kill a hostage every 30 minutes their demands are not met. Instead of giving them anything, or even replying, a team of armored soldiers enters and kills everyone that looks threatening. Some of the hostages are killed in the firefight, but most of them escape unharmed.

Would a policy like that have the effect of decreasing crime?

I have read this thread with interest, but promised myself that I would not comment. As I ALWAYS talk too much, I can't help myself.

The scenario offered by lithium deuterid is unpleasant, but all too real (witness the Russian debacle in gassing the Chechnyan rebels). More on this later.

To me, in today's world, the hostage takers have no real interest in the satisfaction of their demands, but rather only care about the publicity created by their actions. Meeting their demands might or might not encourage further similar actions, but I happen to think they will continue to do what they do, regardless. I am a pacificist by nature, but the only time these people will be stopped is when they are dead.

Back to the Russians- they used a "sleep" gas introduced into the ventilation system. A good idea, perhaps, except they did not know how long to wait before going in, because they were woefully unfamiliar with overexposure to the gas, thus insuring the deaths of many of the hostages they were trying to rescue. Which brings me to my point regarding George W. Bush.

He has no idea whether to negotiate or not. When he owned the Texas Rangers baseball team, he ran the francise into total disrepair, and I pronounced him a dolt. As the inept governor of Texas, he proved himself a dolt. As president, he has shown that he lacks even the ability to pronounce the names of other countries and their leaders.

Dolts have to ask others whether to negotiate or not. (After looking up "negotiate" in the dictionary)

There. Flame out! :hotouch:

WHAT! R u serious about that he owned the rangers and almost destroyed the franchise? so we put this man in charge of the US (a huge baseball team) and not only once but twice. i honestly thought that bush fixed his 2nd election. i really couldnt belive that he got re-elected i mean honestly.

i think bush is a terrible president. 1. he goes after saddam because he tried to kill bush senior (right didnt that happen?) 2. the man responsible for 9/11 (the one and only justifiable reason to go to war - the death of innocent people) osamma bidladden was totally just let off the hook and his focus turned to saddam. 3. our biggest threat North Korea who has WMD's is completly free to do what they want (i saw a video on the internet from north korea that was about bush being the devil and america being just as bad. thats no good commin from a country with WMD's trying to turn their people against us)

ps. if everyone could just disarm themselves stop spending ALL the money on weapons that only bring death. and spend the money of other things that can actually help people like food and housing.

i think we all the most powerfull nation in the world should lead the way. first get rid of all weapons except like a couple of nukes incase somebody attacks us(but then again who r we even gonna nuke if we cant find them and not to mention the other people who arent guilty) so no nukes but we keep something to not be 100% defensless and then we completly stop buying weapons and stuff pull all soldiers outta other countries.

this would be a good idea if every country would stop wasting there peoples money but it wont happen for a long long time if ever. its just human nature

Let me ask you this if you where a person thinking about doing the crime you mentioned and you knew the cops will just come in and kill you all for being evil criminals, would that make you more or less worried if you knew the cops would give you anything you asked for. But we are not talking about cops and robbers here we are talking about terrism.

My personal take on terrism is that it is bad and all terrists should be killed before they are aloud to kill innocents. (if we could do that it would be cool)
What do you think the world should do to terrists looking to kill others or take hostiges they are happy to kill in hopes of getting something they want?

During your average bank-robbery-gone-bad scenario, negotiations are called for, as usually the demands are reduced to a pack of cigarettes and a couple of pizzas, and armed confrontations are unnecessary.

In the world of fundamentalist extremists, however, the scenario is vastly different. These people have been convinced (brainwashed) that their "martyrdom" serves their faith and brings them rich rewards from God.* In these cases, any demands made are secondary, and the hostage-takers consider any that are met as just a "bonus" earned on their way to martyrdom. They don't value their own lives, much less those of innocents who may be harmed.

As to the "preemptive" excision of these radical ******- I have always been a pacifist by nature, but because of the callous disregard they have shown for innocent lives, and the consequences of their actions, I say- identify them, and take 'em out. As to those who escape this purge and DO manage to take hostages, take all possible precautions to protect the innocent, but take 'em out, anyway. Negotiate? No, it will not work.



*- see my post in the "jokes" thread- "language barrier" :hotbounce

The Clinton admin. negotiated with North Korea. It is policy, but not always enforced. Clinton gave oil to North Korea in exchage that they would halt the bomb production.

When Bush came in, the deal ended, which is why they have become upset.

I do not believe N. Korea was globally named as a terrorist state at that time. (but I could be wrong)

So you think any time a county or terrorist group gets their panties in a bunch we should just send them free oil or food or what ever else they want? :eek:

I guess that would only work if the person demanding the items was not greedy and thus never asked for any thing more, and the country paying them off had tons of extra loot they do not actually need to care for their own people.


Note the original post: "When the US government publicly declare their no-negotiation with terrorists policy, do they really mean it. Is the US that hardcore? I imagine they say one thing but secretly do the opposite. They probably have a Delta Force headed by Chuck Norris that attempt rescues just like in the movie."

Liberal rule #1 - Always blame Bush.
Liberal rule #2 - If you can't possibly blame Bush blame the Republican party.
Liberal rule #3 - If Rule #2 does not work, go back to rule #1.

Authoritarian rule 1: Poke fun at the liberals
Authoritarian rule 2: GOTO Authoritarian rule 1

Note that Ghandi was a liberal who freed India from British imperialist rule, while Hitler was an authoritarian who lost a world war and killed himself. I know which camp I'd rather be in given the choice.

You see, that's the problem with ignorant namecalling - the lead swings both ways.

In the 60's, I had long hair, used pot, and many other drugs, grew a little, worked on George McGovern's presidential campaign, got arrested for "sitting in" at the University, and on, andon, etc.

Guess that makes me a liberal? Now, contrast that with some of my earlier comments concerning hostage-takers, terrorists, etc. They sound rather conservative, no?

Blanket statements never work. I do NOT criticize Bush because he's a conservatve (he's NOT, really. look up the word as it applies to politics). I do not criticize Bush because he's a Republican. I criticize him for what he does, and says. And because he's a dolt. I criticized Clinton, as well. I criticize things/people who do things I think are wrong. Party affiliation notwithstanding.

I agree Hewybo. The really crazy thing with people who almost fanatically support Bush and have the "liberals=******" dogma stuck firmly in their heads, is that George W Bush is actually a politician that belongs firmly in the "Neo-Libertarian" camp.

Note that neo-liberalism is much like liberalism, except it's not. It tries to look like its a great thing for the very same reasons as your normal liberalism, but in actual fact instead of being about the reduction of government in terms that benefit the people, it's all about reduction of government in terms that benefit big money and corporation.

Even better, and even more crazy, is that Neo-libertarians are often evalangelists of the fanatical variety, and gain support from many evalangelists, but none the less when it comes to money, big buisness and the country as a hhole, what they actually preach is nothing short of "social-darwinism" (ie, survival of the fittest, and how can the fit be made fitter).

1. US is at this hour the biggest (and ony, for now) superpower.
2. They think that being the most powerful amongst the states of the Earth gives them the right to play as the cop (vigilante?) who takes care of everything.
3. Just as the terrorists were bad when attacking on 9/11, the United States are just as when they attack some other state without a resolution from the UN. Who gave them the right to attack Iraq?
What was their problem with Vietnam, former Yugoslavia and so on? The human rights?! Be serious, the Chinese give a sh** about them and nothing will EVER happen to them. Why? 'Cause they're powerful enough! In this world, you have to realize that the law of power is THE LAW.
4. I'm sorry to say, but most of the Americans seem to be brain-washed over this.
You people should really start reading some books, and get the movies of Michael Moore.
Then, take a look at your huge egoes and deflate them a little.