What Planet Is This Potential Labour Leader On?

[youngmafbog]

Come on round for a cup of tea ISIS, yeah right like they will chat to you mate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3745004/Labour-leadership-hopeful-Owen-Smith-suggests-NEGOTIATE-ISIS.html

[andy-hughes]

TTT - //What do you imagine their concessions will be? Only stoning women on Tuesdays? Throwing gays off a slightly lower building? //

I don't think the concept of 'concession' figures in the ISIS mind set - it would be naïve to think that it would.

But dialogue around seeing what can be achieved in terms of trying to resolve conflict does not always have to start from a position of negotiation, and what each side is prepared to live without - rather it should be what each side is prepared to live with.

[ToraToraTora]

well they will only live with world domination under sharia, how do you negotiate with that? don't get me wrong I take on board your earlier points but these are automatons with no actual conscious choices. Like The original Terminator, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bargained with they do not feel pity or pain and absolutely will not stop, ever until.......

[andy-hughes]

TTT - //well they will only live with world domination under sharia, how do you negotiate with that? don't get me wrong I take on board your earlier points but these are automatons with no actual conscious choices. Like The original Terminator, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bargained with they do not feel pity or pain and absolutely will not stop, ever until.......

I think that extreme view is the result of a constant media construct that has been used to back the wars recent governments have dragged us into.

There are two factors needed for a population to back a war - the first is that the population is about to be invaded, and the second is that the enemy is bent on wholesale destruction.

But let's look a little closer - do we know that ISIS are all so hell bent on being destructive autmoatons? Or are they just following blindly the twisted rhetoric of their leaders, as the Nazis did, with a similar plan in mind.

We have given ISIS plenty of reason to believe that we are determined to destroy them, as they have given to us - bombs from them, invasion from us.

But the common ground we share is a fear of each other, a deep suspicion, and a desire to protect our homes and families.

I believe that if we start from there, we can get dialogue going, especially if the background of re-taken territory continues to develop.

But simply to say endlessly that they are devils who won't listen is not going to get us anywhere - simply because they say the same thing!

We know it's not true of us - let's explore how true it really is for them.

[naomi24]

For those here who are, along with Owen Smith, clearly living on another planet, have a little read about the ideology we are dealing with.

//there can be no compromise, no meeting of minds. Liberal democracy, personal freedom, the rule of law mandated by the people is all an affront to the will of Allah.//

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36979892

[andy-hughes]

A reasonable debate among people who appreciate that this is an extremely difficult situation with absolutely no easy - or even difficult - response in sight as yet, but the willingness to avoid simply standing with arms folded saying 'Nothing can be done'.

There was always going to be at least one post that would confirm exactly that utterly unhelpful position - and there it is!

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I beg to differ. My post is extremely helpful. Read and learn.

[ToraToraTora]

I think you've been a little unkind to naomi there Andy, she is only highlighting one source among many that indicate that dialogue is impossible. Are you saying that all the intransigence from the Islamic extremist is merely rhetoric? Hyperbole perhaps? Yeah I know we said we'd slay the infidel but we where just a bit angry when we said that! How should we start to negotiate? Does anyone even have a clue how to start such a process? We send and envoy and they chop his head off, what next?

[naomi24]

What does Owen Smith – and andy-hughes - suggest we negotiate? Peace with the rest of the world is not their ambition - so let's negotiate how? Shall we agree offer to cease opposing them, to recognise the territory they have captured, and will continue to attempt to expand, as a newly formed and perfectly legitimate Islamic State perhaps?

[vulcan42]

The only point in talking to people is they want to listen, isis is not the least bit interested in what we say unless it's "we surrender".

[ichkeria]

I am intrigued by aog's analysis of IRA v ISIS

I wonder if HM government has a rulebook which states how high the building has to be before dropping someone off it means they no longer qualify for negotiating status. And male gays ok but lesbians ...
Then there's the question of whether slicing someone's head off is ultimately worse than putting a bag over it and blowing it to pieces.
If one day it becomes advantageous to talk to IS then no doubt it will happen regardless. After all the PM wants to talk to Putin, whose bombs are currently burning Syrian children alive. And do she should.

[ichkeria]

'So she should'

[naomi24]

ichkeria, in fairness AOG didn’t offer an analysis of IRA v ISIS. You’re playing with words.

[anotheoldgit]

Okay say we do come to some arrangement around a negotiating table, and we say we will leave you alone and ISIS say they will leave us alone.

Then knowing Islam's mind set, say one faction Shia Muslims set out to destroy Sunni Muslims and in the process crimes against humanity are committed, women and children are slaughtered, what does the peace loving West do then, sit on their hands or once again go out there in an attempt to restore peace?

Once again back to square one, some are very naive if they think that by chatting over a 'cup of tea' we can bring everlasting peace to reign over the Middle East.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - //Once again back to square one, some are very naïve if they think that by chatting over a 'cup of tea' we can bring everlasting peace to reign over the Middle East. //

Personally, I rather tire of the superior attitude of everyone who thinks that looking for a (seriously failed!) alternative to military violence is classed as 'naïve'.

I am entitled to put forward my view - I do not scoff at those who think that simply saying 'We can't negotiate...' as an excuse to carry on failing and killing people is the way forward - it would be appreciated if they extended the same courtesy.

Negotiation would be seriously difficult even to begin, much less to progress, dealing with an intransigent set of fanatics who believe that their way is the only way. But to simply adopt the same attitude is going to go nowhere, except towards more death and destruction.

My view is different, that's all, different, not naïve, or ignorant, or based on fantasy, or any of the other tiresome insults trotted out on these threads.

Disagree by all means, but let's lose the superior scoffing, it's not helpful to the spirit of debate.

[ichkeria]

"in fairness AOG didn’t offer an analysis "

Just for a change ... ;-)

[naomi24]

ichkeria, no need to say what you said then. It smacks of bullying.

andy-hughes at 09:37. I refer you to my post at 17:07 Wed. What precisely do we attempt to negotiate?

[ichkeria]

"ichkeria, no need to say what you said then. It smacks of bullying. "

I think "gentle irony" is more the thing. You should try it.
I love aog dearly and I am sure he loves me too :-)

[naomi24]

ichkeria, that's the sort of thing that causes arguments and bad feeling. Not smart - but it's nice to know you're fond of him anyway. ;o)

[ludwig]

// I do not scoff at those who think that simply saying 'We can't negotiate...' as an excuse to carry on failing and killing people is the way forward //

That sounds a bit like scoffing.