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

[sandyRoe]

There was a time when The Taliban were the Islamic demons in human form who occupied many column inches in the newspapers. Times change. I think the present Afghani government would like to see them renounce violence and play a part in the governance of their country.
Somebody will need to talk with ISIS eventually.

[dannyk13]

If he believes that then he should get Isis to meet him in Syria

[dannyk13]

///Somebody will need to talk with ISIS eventually///
With the intention of achieving what exactly?

[youngmafbog]

The stated intention of ISIS is to eliminate the infidel.

He would not leave the meeting with anything, especially his head.

[sandyRoe]

They'll need to be told, and heed, advice that the time has come to pack up their tents and steal away into the night.

[TheChair]

A few years ago you could have had this same discussion about the IRA.

[dannyk13]

Their fight was against one country not against the Christian world.

[anotheoldgit]

To be fair YMB, he is not on his own, there are others who hold a similar solution to all such problems.

[anotheoldgit]

TheChair

/// A few years ago you could have had this same discussion about the IRA. ///

You can't possibly compare the IRA with a rag tag bunch of 'middle ages' degenerate savages such as ISIS.

[TheChair]

Sorry AOG. Didn't realise you were an admirer of the IRA

[Peter Pedant]

/// A few years ago you could have had this same discussion about the IRA. /// You can't possibly compare the IRA with a rag tag bunch of 'middle ages' degenerate savages such as ISIS.

Chair you naughty boy - go to the naughty step for winding up the old boy

and as Owen thingey said - we ended up negotiating with the IRA
( and did so secretly in the seventies )

sounz at some time in the future like a good idea ( negotiating ) and no I am not volunteering

[dannyk13]

PP, Are we going to negotiate on behalf of the western world which ISIS is against.

[Baldric]

M A A B O F

[anotheoldgit]

TheChair

/// Sorry AOG. Didn't realise you were an admirer of the IRA ///

Not an admirer as you appear to be regarding ISIS.

Yes the IRA were bad, but they did at least tip off the security forces if they were about to set a bomb off, they also didn't throw gays off tall buildings, chop off heads in public executions I could go on but there is a complete difference between the IRA and ISIS.

[Peter Pedant]

// PP, Are we going to negotiate on behalf of the western world which ISIS is against.//

No I was thinking of negotiating as the United kingdom - altho the time it takes, we may be just England by that time ...

I mean Gerry and his pal were red hot trots in Northern Irelland dirty years ago - nationalising everything - state ownership - union with the Republic
and none of it has come about even tho they have been in power for christ knows how long

[ToraToraTora]

standard lefty belief that these people can be reasoned with, they cannot, their demands are well known.

[andy-hughes]

Leaving aside the utter futility of grading terrorist organisations by their actions - it seems you score points for warnings, lose them for beheadings ...

I also believe that negotiation has to be attempted with ISIS, and it has with all foes throughout the ages.

The current battle lines between ISIS and the West are going nowhere.

This is an enemy that cannot be fought with standard armaments, either in terms of beating them into submission, or changing their mind-set against the West.

I believe that ISIS are relatively a very small group, and with dialogue not just with them, but with the wider communities on which they must rely in order to function, we can start to move forward in terms of sorting out where we go from here.

Simply sitting with our arms folded and our mouths clamped shut is going to continue things through this century and into the next.

Saying 'We don't negotiate with terrorists ... ' is a stubborn futile arrogant position to take, and it panders only to a mis-aligned sense of self-righteousness that sees us entrenched in this war of attrition which takes its toll on a daily basis.

We can sit on our mountain firing missiles at theirs, and getting missiles back, from now until doomsday, or we can try another tack, since that has failed, and continue to try and promote dialogue.

I know that gainsayers will trumpet the usual nonsense - 'They want to destroy us not talk to us ...' which may well be true, but unless we try, we carry on as we are, which is nowhere.

If we present ourselves, those wiling to hear (and they may just be out there) will understand that we are not corrupt and intent on destroying the Muslim faith - and that similarly, trying to take over the globe for Islam is utterly unrealistic, and co-existence is the best option any of us are going to get.

By dialogue, we can explore or differences, and more importantly, our similarities, and see if there is a way forward. It has to be worth trying, and trying hard - nothing else is working.

[jim360]

The problem with that AH is surely at the very start, ie the idea that we can't beat ISIS. I don't think this is at all true, or at least we have a long way to go before ruling it out. Recently ISIS has been losing territory overall; part of the reason these losses aren't total is not because they are a superior or equal military force, but that the West feels incapable of committing the resources it would need to complete the military victory. That, and taking the position of ruling Assad out as a legitimate leader and then doing nothing to back up that position has meant Assad is still standing, just -- but, while he is also opposed to ISIS, the West doesn't feel able or willing to go back on their 2012 position and ally with him.

ISIS isn't really a guerrilla terrorist organisation that could only be defeated by the most extreme and abhorrent measures possible, so talking to them is not necessary. At least not yet. First, we ought to resolve the situation around ISIS. Sadly, that's probably also impossible, as the divisions of those who are opposed to ISIS are very deep. But it stands to reason that we ought to try bridging divisions between those people first, before considering the last resort of giving ISIS themselves any legitimacy by offering talks on any level.We aren't there yet.

[ToraToraTora]

ISIS cannot be reasoned with Andy, they have no room for negotiation in their position. They cannot go anywhere and even if anyone in their number thinks they can they are executed as an apostate or something similar. For most cases I'd agree that there is room for talk but ISIS have none their aims are clear. What do you imagine their concessions will be? Only stoning women on Tuesdays? Throwing gays off a slightly lower building?

[andy-hughes]

jim - As usual a supremely well-argued post.

Hopefully you will have headed off the usual howls of outrage that follow any post that deviates from the 'We don't negotiate with terrorists ...' line.

It sounds wonderful - very chest-beating and Empire, and it may win votes, which is the main reason for adopting it - but it is futile for the reasons I have outlined.

That said, your cogently argued suggestions for actions in advance of any proposed dialogue do most definitely seem a more productive way of moving forward overall.