• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US negotiates with terrorists

a_unique_person

Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
a_unique_person
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
49,588
Location
Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main.int.ceasefire/index.html

BAGHDAD (CNN) -- The U.S.-led coalition is seeking a bilateral cease-fire with enemy combatants in the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah to take place Saturday, the U.S. military says.

The move is an effort to implement Iraqi control of the restive city, U.S. Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said.

"If the cease-fire holds, talks regarding the re-establishment of legitimate authority in Fallujah will begin," Kimmitt said.
Click to expand...

Now, isn't this sending the wrong signal to the terrorists? Won't it encourage them to more acts of murder? More rhetorical questions to follow.
 
I can´t wait for the right wing to chime in and call this "appeasement".

No...

Wait...


"Appeasement" is only when the left does it.
 
Well let's see how a_u_p's "spin" works. 1) Create a thread that says "US negotiates with terrorists". 2) Validate that claim with a news link and a question regarding the US negotiating with terrorists.

Now two sentences a_u_p didn't quote from his "source";

On Friday, Iraqi Governing Council members met with Fallujah leaders and leadership of the anti-coalition forces to try to bring calm.

The move comes a day after the coalition unilaterally halted its offensive to allow Iraqis to bury their dead and aid supplies to be brought into the region.
Click to expand...
The US is not negotiating with terrorists, representatives of the Iraqi Governing Council negotiated with Fallujah leaders and the leadership of the anti-coalition forces on friday as the US unilaterally halted its offensive to allow Iraqis to bury their dead and so that aid supplies could be brought into the region.

Typical a_u_p 'spin', "US negotiates with terrorists", but as usual, no substance.
 
from Blue Monk:
To the politically shallow 'terrorists' has become the universal catch-all phrase.
Click to expand...
I agree. Anyone opposing the US is ow a "terrorist", even when they're fighting against armed forces in their local streets. "Thugs and terrorists" was a recent description, as I recall. Perhaps we're about to see a change in the rhetoric, as well as more advice being taken from Jack Straw and less from Sharon.
 
zenith-nadir said:

The US is not negotiating with terrorists, representatives of the Iraqi Governing Council negotiated with Fallujah leaders and the leadership of the anti-coalition forces on friday as the US unilaterally halted its offensive to allow Iraqis to bury their dead and so that aid supplies could be brought into the region.

Typical a_u_p 'spin', "US negotiates with terrorists", but as usual, no substance.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah?

The United States military in Iraq has offered a deal to Sunni insurgents battling American led forces in Fallujah.

The coalition's director of military operations, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, says his forces are ready to implement a ceasefire.

He said if the ceasefire holds, they would begin talks on re-establishing what he calls "legitimate Iraqi authority" in the city.
Click to expand...

Do I get any points for not using bold type?
 
Mr Manifesto said:
The United States military in Iraq has offered a deal to Sunni insurgents battling American led forces in Fallujah.

The coalition's director of military operations, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, says his forces are ready to implement a ceasefire.

He said if the ceasefire holds, they would begin talks on re-establishing what he calls "legitimate Iraqi authority" in the city.
Click to expand...
Ok, which word in that link you provided Mr Manifesto means 'negotiations'?, and which word means 'terrorists'? I don't seem to see either word.

Since a_u_p says US negotiates with terrorists where did the negotiations take place? When did the negotiations take place? Who attended the negotiations between "terrorists" and the "US"? How would you like to spin it Mr Manifesto?


Or perhaps the reality is America has unilaterally said to the Sunnis without direct negotiation; here's a cease fire take it or be destroyed. As all winning forces do to losing forces in war.
 
zenith-nadir said:
Ok, which word in that link you provided Mr Manifesto means 'negotiations'?, and which word means 'terrorists'? I don't seem to see either word.

Since a_u_p says US negotiates with terrorists where did the negotiations take place? When did the negotiations take place? Who attended the negotiations between "terrorists" and the "US"? How would you like to spin it Mr Manifesto?


Or perhaps the reality is America has unilaterally said to the Sunnis without direct negotiation; here's a cease fire take it or be destroyed. As all winning forces do to losing forces in war.
Click to expand...

Laugh a minute, ZN. I look forward to the next installment.
 
zenith-nadir said:
Ok, which word in that link you provided Mr Manifesto means 'negotiations'?, and which word means 'terrorists'? I don't seem to see either word.

Since a_u_p says US negotiates with terrorists where did the negotiations take place? When did the negotiations take place? Who attended the negotiations between "terrorists" and the "US"? How would you like to spin it Mr Manifesto?


Or perhaps the reality is America has unilaterally said to the Sunnis without direct negotiation; here's a cease fire take it or be destroyed. As all winning forces do to losing forces in war.
Click to expand...

For your questions about negotiations, I could define what "is" is, and probably get as far with you. It's not my job to grow a brain for you: it's something you have to do for yourself.

As for 'terrorists', I hadn't realised the rhetoric had changed. It's now thugs or assassins, please except my profuse apology.
 
CapelDodger said:
Perhaps we're about to see a change in the rhetoric, as well as more advice being taken from Jack Straw and less from Sharon. [/B]
Click to expand...

I think it is a bit late for that. The Brits and others had plenty of advice for the US in order to try to prevent this situation happening. But that advice was ignored (and I believe similar advice from the State Department was also ignored by the people at the Pentagon who have been running this debacle).

Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Perle-Rice got the US into this. Now it is their baby. The "softly softly" approach recomended by the Brits (which had been working in southern Iraq) is not going to work any longer.

"Bring 'em on", said Bush. Looks like "they" did just that. That smirk on his face has been removed.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Oh, yeah?



Do I get any points for not using bold type?
Click to expand...

No, but you deserve a slap upside the head for confusing "negotiation" for "surrender." You DO understand that "proper Iraqi control" isn't referring to the insurgents, right? Sheesh.
 
No, the thread title clearly states, 'negotiation'. The US has negotiated a peace deal. 'proper Iraqi control' means something that I have no idea of, nor do you. Perhaps we will be enlightened on it's meaning sometime inthe future.
 
a_unique_person said:
No, the thread title clearly states, 'negotiation'. The US has negotiated a peace deal. 'proper Iraqi control' means something that I have no idea of, nor do you. Perhaps we will be enlightened on it's meaning sometime inthe future.
Click to expand...
No peace deal has been 'negotiated'. No American and Fallujah fighters have met to negotiate. There is a unilateral offer by US forces to the Fallujah fighters for a bilateral cease-fire. It is not a 'negotiation' it is an ultimatum. The US is telling the Fallujah fighters they have two choices, ceasefire to restore order or face the implied destruction by US forces.

But alas some people, for purely spin purposes, have a hard time distinguishing between "bilateral" and a "unilateral".
 
Doesn't sound "unilateral" to me, not that some are ever willing to accept common definitions of words when it suits their purposes.

"FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - Government negotiators entered the besieged city of Fallujah Saturday as fierce battles raged elsewhere in central Iraq, including Baghdad. Forty Iraqis were killed, two U.S. servicemembers and two Germans were missing, an American civilian was captured and a Red Crescent official was gunned down.

Several members of the Iraqi Governing Council met with Fallujah city leaders, trying to win the handover of people who killed and mutilated four American civilians last week. They also want the insurgents to give up foreign militants in the city, council member Mahmoud Othman said. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3962255,00.html

Let me guess, the argument will be that those are Iraqi's negotiating, not us. Like they don't have authority from us.
 
ZN:
"No peace deal has been 'negotiated'. No American and Fallujah fighters have met to negotiate. There is a unilateral offer by US forces to the Fallujah fighters for a bilateral cease-fire. It is not a 'negotiation' it is an ultimatum. The US is telling the Fallujah fighters they have two choices, ceasefire to restore order or face the implied destruction by US forces.

But alas some people, for purely spin purposes, have a hard time distinguishing between "bilateral" and a "unilateral"."

How the hell do you know who is talking to who right now or what they are talking about? Do you have some sort of hotline/batphone to Paul Bremer?

The Tory party assured the British public for years that it would never negotiate with the IRA while they were infact doing exactly that.
Do you believe everything you are told by your "leaders"? I guess it`s not much of a stretch when you already believe The Old Testament. Must be comforting to have faith in our brave leaders and the bible.
 
OK Subgenius and Demon, since this is the JREF forum prove to the skeptics out there that the US is in direct bilateral negotiations with Fallujah fighters AKA the 'terrorists'. Name the personel involved, the time, date and location of the bilateral negotiations that a_u_p asserts have taken place between the US and 'terrorists'.

I am all ears....
 
Chaos said:
I can´t wait for the right wing to chime in and call this "appeasement".

No...

Wait...


"Appeasement" is only when the left does it.
Click to expand...

I lurk on Free Republic a lot. You are plain wrong.

There is a "nuke 'em all" crowd over there which is very unhappy about this development.

The Bushies like to say "the adults are in charge", and within the Republican party they are right.

Bush is not an extreme right winger, for a Republican.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom