September 29, 2004

NO NEGOTIATION

David Aaronovitch in The Guardian:

If it is the objective of terrorists to drive people mad, then the Jordanian serial killer who kidnapped Kenneth Bigley and his two US colleagues, is doing a fantastic job on us. The media and large sections of public opinion currently seem to be intent on rewarding him for his extraordinary brutality. He calls, we lean towards him. He makes impossible demands and we indulge in recriminations about whether they can be fulfilled ...

Suppose, for a moment, that we in Britain faced a fascist insurgency, which kidnapped a few Jews and black people. Should we negotiate for their lives by releasing Neo-Nazi bombers and racist murderers? Or would we calculate how many more Jews and black people would, as a result, wind up in cellars with knives to their throats?

No. Negotiations. With. Terrorists.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 29, 2004 02:23 AM
Comments

The only way to proceed is to become iron-hearted - you must give the hostages up for dead, and then do everything in your power to both kill the hostage takers and their masters, and to ensure that they get NOTHING good out of their crime and EVERYTHING bad we can pile on them.

In Kipling's words "Once you pay danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane."

Posted by: Parker at September 29, 2004 at 03:05 AM

Parket is right, and Aaronovich illustrates our dilema brilliantly. It's taking us a while to wake from our world-the-way-we-wish-it-were slumber. But it always takes a while for the civilized world to react to murderous tryanny, doesn't it?

Such forthright statements about the hard things which need to be done at times like these were rare two years ago. Now, I see them more frequently.

Posted by: Cosmo at September 29, 2004 at 03:18 AM

At last! Someone finally recognizes Abu al-Zarqawi and his thugs for what they are: serial killers. They hack off heads for the joy of killing, and for no other reason, despite their pompous, self-righteous spewing of Koranic verse and Islamic zeal.

How can any sane person believe negotiation is possible with serial killers?

Posted by: Rebecca at September 29, 2004 at 03:42 AM

Yet how quick are we to broadcast our own transgressions and flagellate our governments and armed forces at the slighest hint of abuse. indeed our media even manufacturing photoshop truthes to suit their left wing political agendas
We see no such self hatred from the ("militants")islamic jihadists whom we cannot even dare call by their true names. They feel no self hatred -only hatred for our civilisation.
Perhaps an indication of where the paths of tolerance and democracy which we hold dearly have ultimately led us.
Whilst the horror jihad recruiting snuff movies sell out in the souks of the arab world within hours , should we give more oxygen to the murderers by negotiation or airing these abominations? No negotiation but
by showing the horror, we may convince ourselves and our liberals that our civilisation is worth fighting for after all.

Posted by: davo at September 29, 2004 at 04:56 AM

I think everyone knows how the USSR took care of this problem. And suddenly, it wasn't a problem.

Posted by: JEM at September 29, 2004 at 07:53 AM

The Soviets created the Muhajeedeen - their approach didn't work so well, either. Our Afghanistan approach is best - help the indiginous Muslim population clean these guys out. Give fighter support, logistics, intelligence, training, and artillery, but let them do the job. May be messier short run, and we may miss a few targets (or at least not get confirms on the kills) but in the long run, we have a proud Iraq capable of cleaning up its own messes, and grateful to us for our help, rather than an Iraqi population which hates us for doing what it should have done, and hates us for killing their neighbors, friends, brothers - even the ones who even they agree needed killing. Once the elections are held, we help them, we don't call the shots.

Posted by: rvman at September 29, 2004 at 08:54 AM

I agree. No negotiations with terrorists.

But imagine they got hold of a nuclear weapon and threatened to exploe it in Sydney (or London or Washington). I know this is everybody's worst nightmare (except the terrorists - it's their wet dream).

Would it be wrong to negotiate with hundreds of thousands of lives at stake? I'm not convinced that it would be.

Posted by: PJ at September 29, 2004 at 10:15 AM

Would it be wrong to negotiate with hundreds of thousands of lives at stake? I'm not convinced that it would be.

If you are going to 'negociate', you have to believe that the other party will actually fullfil their side of the bargain.

If the 'other side' get what they want, what's to stop them detonating the bomb anyway?

Posted by: peggy sue at September 29, 2004 at 10:51 AM

My concern is that Islamic leaders are weaseling their way into the role of mediator/rescuer.So if they have success dealing with the serial killers will the West come to rely on this form of bokering? If so it is a small step away from abandoning foreign policy to a network of Islamic do gooders and serial killers.

Posted by: cranky at September 29, 2004 at 11:00 AM

Brokering
I will proof read my posts
I will learn to spell proper

Posted by: cranky at September 29, 2004 at 11:04 AM

The best way to "negotiate" with terrorists is to kill them.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at September 29, 2004 at 11:56 AM

A problem that has to be addressed is that the left and the antiwar movement use the relatives of victims for political purposes.For some perverted reason it never enters their heads that they are giving aid and comfort the terrorist by so doing.

Posted by: PeterUK at September 29, 2004 at 12:50 PM

Oh I think it does enter their heads. I think they just don't care.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 29, 2004 at 01:47 PM

PJ - one WMD attack and Sep 11 will look like a ripple rather than a watershed. Western economies haven't even geared up to a war time footing yet. One WMD attack and the West (or at least the US and its close allies) would be off the leash. No holds barred. The West will win this war because it has too.

Posted by: Razor at September 29, 2004 at 02:22 PM

"No. Negotiations. With. Terrorists."

That's what all the terrorists say.

Posted by: Alan Luchetti at September 29, 2004 at 02:44 PM

Wow. That's, like, so _fucking_ profound.

Posted by: Dave S. at September 29, 2004 at 04:01 PM

Brokering
I will proof read my posts
I will learn to spell proper

You could have said "bonkering".

Posted by: Andjam at September 29, 2004 at 08:45 PM

Suppose, for a moment, that we in Britain faced a fascist insurgency, which kidnapped a few Jews and black people. Should we negotiate for their lives by releasing Neo-Nazi bombers and racist murderers? Or would we calculate how many more Jews and black people would, as a result, wind up in cellars with knives to their throats?

I suspsect these rhetorical questions could become "phone a friend" territory for some...

Posted by: Andjam at September 29, 2004 at 08:48 PM