The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[I1L2T3]

Go on, please tell me the dialogue he would plan to have with ISIS or the taliban. Jesus Christ, can you imagine what Putin would make of him?!?!

 

There are times when you need to negotiate and there are times when you can't just invite someone round for a cup of fair trade green tea and free range rice cakes and talk it out.

 

Has he (or you) seen anything that makes you think ISIS can be negotiated with? That will only happen if the world lets go great swathes of Syria and Iraq and that's also assuming they'll stop at those borders.

 

We never thought we'd negotiate with the IRA but we did.

 

Sooner or later, like it or not, the chances are we will have to talk to ISIS.

 

In a way Putin is right in that encircling the ISIS territory with strongly governed countries working together is the way to go. That means a strong Syria (what remains of it), maybe a strong and new Kurdish state, maybe even letting Iran join in the coalition against ISIS. Maybe lots of other unthinkable elements to the solution.

 

Thinking outside current parameters is what is needed

[tinfoilhat]

We never thought we'd negotiate with the IRA but we did.

 

Sooner or later, like it or not, the chances are we will have to talk to ISIS.

 

In a way Putin is right in that encircling the ISIS territory with strongly governed countries working together is the way to go. That means a strong Syria (what remains of it), maybe a strong and new Kurdish state, maybe even letting Iran join in the coalition against ISIS. Maybe lots of other unthinkable elements to the solution.

 

Thinking outside current parameters is what is needed

 

It's a different thing altogether - the level of violence used ups the ante for starters. And it's not like we have an indigenous oppressed population a significant chunk of ISIS is imported and is oppressing the indigenous population.

 

I agree with Putin to a degree and definitely agree the Kurds should get a proper state - they've had the crappy end of the stick for centuries. And whilst most of Iraq and Syria have been in chaos the Kurdish area has been stable.

[unbeliever]

We never thought we'd negotiate with the IRA but we did.

 

Sooner or later, like it or not, the chances are we will have to talk to ISIS.

 

In a way Putin is right in that encircling the ISIS territory with strongly governed countries working together is the way to go. That means a strong Syria (what remains of it), maybe a strong and new Kurdish state, maybe even letting Iran join in the coalition against ISIS. Maybe lots of other unthinkable elements to the solution.

 

Thinking outside current parameters is what is needed

 

The IRA had a plausible political objective. ISIS don't. Their political objective is to conquer the world and impose their version of Islam upon it.

 

The IRA wanted northern Ireland to be part of the republic of Ireland. Their motivation was that they wanted the ethnic grouping they supported to have more influence and not be treated as second class citizens.

The middle ground was to make that ethnic grouping more powerful in NI politics, to reduce the role of the UK in NI governance and to increase the role of the republic.

 

ISIS want the whole world to be their idea of an Islamic Caliphate. This involves treating women as property, death to all homosexuals and the reduction of people of other faiths to second class status (if they decide not to wipe them out).

 

What would we negotiate? Where's the theoretical middle-ground?

Are you hoping to persuade them to simply treat other faiths as second class and not exterminate them? Perhaps you'd like them to thrown homosexuals off less tall buildings? Establish a minimum standard of welfare for their sex slaves maybe?

[I1L2T3]

The IRA had a plausible political objective. ISIS don't. Their political objective is to conquer the world and impose their version of Islam upon it.

 

The IRA wanted northern Ireland to be part of the republic of Ireland. Their motivation was that they wanted the ethnic grouping they supported to have more influence and not be treated as second class citizens.

The middle ground was to make that ethnic grouping more powerful in NI politics, to reduce the role of the UK in NI governance and to increase the role of the republic.

 

ISIS want the whole world to be their idea of an Islamic Caliphate. This involves treating women as property, death to all homosexuals and the reduction of people of other faiths to second class status (if they decide not to wipe them out).

 

What would we negotiate? Where's the theoretical middle-ground?

Are you hoping to persuade them to simply treat other faiths as second class and not exterminate them? Perhaps you'd like them to thrown homosexuals off less tall buildings? Establish a minimum standard of welfare for their sex slaves maybe?

 

Totally agree. Right now ISIS have an agenda that means we can't negotiate.

 

But then for much of its history so did the IRA. They aimed for unification of Ulster with the rest of Ireland and that was not negotiable.

 

Only......one day it suddenly was negotiable and as a result senior Sinn Fein now sit in a legislative assembly in Northern Ireland in a non-unified North.

[Bonzo77]

Go on, please tell me the dialogue he would plan to have with ISIS or the taliban. Jesus Christ, can you imagine what Putin would make of him?!?!

 

There are times when you need to negotiate and there are times when you can't just invite someone round for a cup of fair trade green tea and free range rice cakes and talk it out.

 

Has he (or you) seen anything that makes you think ISIS can be negotiated with? That will only happen if the world lets go great swathes of Syria and Iraq and that's also assuming they'll stop at those borders.

 

Withdrawing from the middle east, stopping the weapons trade with them, apologising for the mess we've made over there and offering any assistance we can to appease the situation would be a better stance to take than arming and bombing them. We need to quietly become detached from the whole mess and act as a cautious friend. Whilst it sounds like we're bending over for them, it may help reduce terror attacks over here and that's what really matters.

[tinfoilhat]

Withdrawing from the middle east, stopping the weapons trade with them, apologising for the mess we've made over there and offering any assistance we can to appease the situation would be a better stance to take than arming and bombing them. We need to quietly become detached from the whole mess and act as a cautious friend. Whilst it sounds like we're bending over for them, it may help reduce terror attacks over here and that's what really matters.

 

And you honestly think that will appease ISIS - a group that decided to blow up ancient monuments for not being Islamic enough. And what about if you're the wrong sort of Muslim?

 

We'll need to kill quite a few before we can get anywhere near a negotiating table.

[unbeliever]

Totally agree. Right now ISIS have an agenda that means we can't negotiate.

 

But then for much of its history so did the IRA. They aimed for unification of Ulster with the rest of Ireland and that was not negotiable.

 

Only......one day it suddenly was negotiable and as a result senior Sinn Fein now sit in a legislative assembly in Northern Ireland in a non-unified North.

 

I'm not one to defend the IRA, but your comparison is clearly invalid. ISIS are in a completely different league. A better comparison would be to the Nazis, the Inquisition or the KKK.

Hamas can be reasonably compared to the IRA. I can quite believe that negotiation is a big part of peace with Hamas.

[Manlinose]

There will be negotiation n at some point (although what this is doing in a labour party thread is beyond me) - you will never bomb an idea out of existence

 

If we want to reach any sort of settlement in the Middle East, it will only be resolved by discussion.

 

An armed response did not solve problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and will not solve the problems in Syria and Palestine. (Or it may solve "a" problem, but it will only create others)

 

Sadly, it needs political courage and a very strong personality to propose it (as well as the major players in the Middle East to support and probably lead it)

 

I can't see it happening any time soon - there are too many vested interests too concerned with their own short term, narrow minded agendas

[unbeliever]

There will be negotiation n at some point (although what this is doing in a labour party thread is beyond me) - you will never bomb an idea out of existence

 

If we want to reach any sort of settlement in the Middle East, it will only be resolved by discussion.

 

An armed response did not solve problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and will not solve the problems in Syria and Palestine. (Or it may solve "a" problem, but it will only create others)

 

Sadly, it needs political courage and a very strong personality to propose it (as well as the major players in the Middle East to support and probably lead it)

 

I can't see it happening any time soon - there are too many vested interests too concerned with their own short term, narrow minded agendas

 

It's not always the case that negotiation is inevitable. There is such a thing as an existential struggle. I do not believe that ISIS can co-exist with other cultures.

This is not unprecedented as my examples in my previous post indicate.

 

Hamas can be negotiated with.

The IRA could be negotiated with.

Iran probably can be.

Any number of other groups. I would say the majority fall into this category.

 

On the other hand, some do not fall into the negotiable category. The classic example of the Nazis, is a good one.

 

All the time we're sitting back and letting ISIS get stronger we're adding to the ultimate death toll from the final conflict.

I believe an alliance will emerge, probably including many who we've fought not long ago, and many who conduct themselves in ways which we would never normally tolerate. Analogous to the alliance with Stalin in WW2.

It's rare, but every once in a while power falls into the hands of people so terrible, that you really have no choice but to wipe them out before ether do the same to you.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of history. I'm referring particularly to appeasement in the '30s. Waiting and hoping they settle down is a very bad idea.

[I1L2T3]

I'm not one to defend the IRA, but your comparison is clearly invalid. ISIS are in a completely different league. A better comparison would be to the Nazis, the Inquisition or the KKK.

Hamas can be reasonably compared to the IRA. I can quite believe that negotiation is a big part of peace with Hamas.

 

Think you're missing the point which is that organisations can change. ISIS may eventually have to compromise. A scenario would be them being encircled by strong states. At that point it's destruction or compromise. They would probably do the latter.