US negotiates with terrorists

[a_unique_person]

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.



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.

[Jude]

I thought they were "enemy combatants".

[Chaos]

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.

[zenith-nadir]

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.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.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Jude
I thought they were "enemy combatants".

To the politically shallow 'terrorists' has become the universal catch-all phrase.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main.int.ceasefire/index.html



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.

Egad, if they are not careful this could accidentaly lead to a peaceful resolution of a violent situation.

That would be down-right un-American.

[CapelDodger]

from Blue Monk:
To the politically shallow 'terrorists' has become the universal catch-all phrase.
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.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

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.

Oh, yeah? (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1084997.htm)

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.


Do I get any points for not using bold type?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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.
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.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
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.

Laugh a minute, ZN. I look forward to the next installment.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
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.

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 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1082886.htm), please except my profuse apology.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
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]

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.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oh, yeah? (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1084997.htm)



Do I get any points for not using bold type?

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.

[a_unique_person]

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.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
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. 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".

[subgenius]

Speaking of spin, check out the avatar. How ironic.

[subgenius]

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.

[demon]

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.

[zenith-nadir]

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....

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Chaos
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.

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.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by subgenius
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. So "several members of the Iraqi Governing Council" are not Iraqis after all, they are American 'puppets' under direct American authorization to negotiate....ergo you and a_u_p feel confident in the statement that Americans are negotiating bilaterally with "the terrorists". And you call me a spin doctor?...hahahahahahahahahaha!

[demon]

ZN:
"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...."

If I can borrow your batphone for a while I`ll get back to you on that.

[Mr Manifesto]

...why not take time out to visit his favorite website (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)?

[subgenius]

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Iraqi rebels fighting U.S. forces in the Sunni Muslim city of Falluja will agree to hold ceasefire talks if Marines withdraw from the city, an Iraqi negotiating team said on Saturday. Meanwhile, fierce battles raged across several locations in central Iraq, leaving more than 50 Iraqis dead.
...
He said the Falluja leaders they met were in contact with the Iraqi fighters battling U.S. Marines in the city.

"We will convey Falluja's view to U.S. officials either today or tomorrow," Rubaie told Reuters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4667742/

Batman to Robin:

Somebody tell them ZN says they don't have to report to the US.

[zenith-nadir]

My original question: 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'.

Demon's answer to the question; If I can borrow your batphone for a while I`ll get back to you on that.Mr Manifesto answer to the question; why not take time out to visit his favorite website?subgenius's answer to the question; Batman to Robin: Somebody tell them ZN says they don't have to report to the US.Well well well, so not one of you can answer a direct question, why am I not surprised in the least ;)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Well well well, so not one of you can answer a direct question, why am I not surprised in the least ;)

Tell me how much Pluto weighs, where it is in the sky right now, and what temperature its surface is, and I'll believe it exists.

Wheeee...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
My original question:

Demon's answer to the question; Mr Manifesto answer to the question; subgenius's answer to the question; Well well well, so not one of you can answer a direct question, why am I not surprised in the least ;)

As the Black Knight said "Tis only a flesh wound".

[demon]

ZN:
"Well well well, so not one of you can answer a direct question, why am I not surprised in the least"

I did answer...I said if you borrow me your batphone I`ll get back to you. Can`t say fairer than that.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Tell me how much Pluto weighs, where it is in the sky right now, and what temperature its surface is, and I'll believe it exists.
Wheeee... I'll tell you what Mr Manifesto, once you are done wiping Demons, a_u_ps and Subgeniuses DNA off your chin tell me when the US was in direct bilateral negotiations with the fighters in Fallujah. Or is your point that you really don't have a point?



Sorry Demon and a_u_p, you had your chance to answer the question previously and you failed miserably. No answers are required from you.

[demon]

ZN, you didn`t answer my question so here it is again.

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.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I'll tell you what Mr Manifesto, once you are done wiping Demons, a_u_ps and Subgeniuses DNA off your chin tell me when the US was in direct bilateral negotiations with the fighters in Fallujah. Or is your point that you really don't have a point?



Sorry Demon and a_u_p, you had your chance to answer the question previously and you failed miserably. No answers are required from you.

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.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto




Yeah, but what are their names and serial numbers?

[Mr Manifesto]

US, Fallujah rebels fail to heed Zenith-Nadir (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1085139.htm)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
US, Fallujah rebels fail to heed Zenith-Nadir (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1085139.htm)

"A perfect example of the rewriting of history and the ad hominems that I am trying to eradicate from JREF." ZN

[demon]

"Stand back honest citizens...don`t worry Mr President, my mission is to eradicate all ad hominems and all rewritng of history at the JREF. Holy Moses, to the batpoles!!!"

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by demon
"Stand back honest citizens...don`t worry Mr President, my mission is to eradicate all ad hominems and all rewritng of history at the JREF. Holy Moses, to the batpoles!!!"

You forgot the smiley. ;)

[subgenius]

"The apparent breakthrough came after the coalition suspended offensive operations in Fallujah and offered the talks. "

ZN was right all along. I admit it.

[subgenius]

"...the coalition offered a draft cease-fire agreement to Moqtada al-Sadr, the outlawed radical Shiite cleric whose militia has battled occupation forces across central and southern Iraq, an intermediary said."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1085139.htm

They really didn't say "the coalition" offered a cease fire agreement, did they?

No one consulted ZN on that first.

[crackmonkey]

Are you guys seriously equating a negotiated ceasefire with the old saw about 'never negotiate with terrorists' as in acceding to the demands of terrorists?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Are you guys seriously equating a negotiated ceasefire with the old saw about 'never negotiate with terrorists' as in acceding to the demands of terrorists?

It all comes down to wether you consider al-Sadr etc terrorists.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Chaos
It all comes down to wether you consider al-Sadr etc terrorists. Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle. Muqtada al-Sadr is not the leader of the sunni fighters in Fallujah.




Originally posted by subgenius
"...the coalition offered a draft cease-fire agreement to Moqtada al-Sadr, the outlawed radical Shiite cleric whose militia has battled occupation forces across central and southern Iraq, an intermediary said."They really didn't say "the coalition" offered a cease fire agreement, did they?No one consulted ZN on that first. Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle. Muqtada al-Sadr is not the leader of the sunni fighters in Fallujah. Once you kids are done climbing into each others colon I am still waiting to hear from even one of you who the "terrorists" are that a_u_p swears the US has negotiated with. I don't seem to see the word "terrorists" in any news links that subgenius, demon, Mr Manifesto or a_u_p have provided. So once you can tackle that question, "who are the terrorists and what terror group do they belong to", then we can move to question #2.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle. Muqtada al-Sadr is not the leader of the sunni fighters in Fallujah.




Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle. Muqtada al-Sadr is not the leader of the sunni fighters in Fallujah. Once you kids are done climbing into each others colon I am still waiting to hear from even one of you who the "terrorists" are that a_u_p swears the US has negotiated with. I don't seem to see the word "terrorists" in any news links that subgenius, demon, Mr Manifesto or a_u_p have provided. So once you can tackle that question, "who are the terrorists and what terror group do they belong to", then we can move to question #2.



The Fallujah breakthrough came as many of the country's leaders denounced the Fallujah offensive and large parts of Baghdad closed down in a protest strike.

Heavy exchanges of fire also broke out in the city's main Sunni neighbourhood.

It also came as the coalition offered a draft cease-fire agreement to Moqtada al-Sadr, the outlawed radical Shiite cleric whose militia has battled occupation forces across central and southern Iraq, an intermediary said.



So there are negotiations in progress with two groups at present. Al Sadr, and those in falujah. Have I cleared this up for you.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

So there are negotiations in progress with two groups at present. Al Sadr, and those in falujah. Have I cleared this up for you.

Not so much that he can't muddy the waters again, I hope. I can always use the laughs.

[zenith-nadir]

This is the original post;Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main.int.ceasefire/index.html 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. So I ask the question a fourth time; Where is the US in direct bilateral talks with terrorists? I don't see the word terrorist in the story you linked to start this thread a_u_p.



Originally posted by a_unique_person
So there are negotiations in progress with two groups at present. Al Sadr, and those in falujah. Have I cleared this up for you. WRONG. I pointed out that Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle, you just realized your typical blunder and now are attempting to backpedal and say "you cleared things up". Hahahahaha....

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Not so much that he can't muddy the waters again, I hope. I can always use the laughs. The only laugh in this thread is that you don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, until I pointed it out, and you and a_u_p replace the words, "anti-coalition forces" with "terrorists" and "Iraqi Governing Council" with "US" and then stand on your soapboxes and pronounce, "the US is negotiating with terrorists"! Then when I challenge the accuracy of that false statement you do everything to avoid my questions three times.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
This is the original post;So I ask the question a fourth time; Where is the US in direct bilateral talks with terrorists? I don't see the word terrorist in the story you linked to start this thread a_u_p.



WRONG. I pointed out that Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle, you just realized your typical blunder and now are attempting to backpedal and say "you cleared things up". Hahahahaha....

The only laugh in this thread is that you don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, until I pointed it out, and you and a_u_p replace the words, "anti-coalition forces" with "terrorists" and "Iraqi Governing Council" with "US" and then stand on your soapboxes and pronounce, "the US is negotiating with terrorists"! Then when I challenge the accuracy of that false statement you do everything to avoid my questions three times.

It wasn't me and a_u_p who called Sadr a terrorist, it was the White House (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05275851.htm). Now, of course, they're just 'thugs or assassins' which is such a big difference.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
This is the original post;So I ask the question a fourth time; Where is the US in direct bilateral talks with terrorists? I don't see the word terrorist in the story you linked to start this thread a_u_p.



WRONG. I pointed out that Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric, Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle, you just realized your typical blunder and now are attempting to backpedal and say "you cleared things up". Hahahahaha....

The only laugh in this thread is that you don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, until I pointed it out, and you and a_u_p replace the words, "anti-coalition forces" with "terrorists" and "Iraqi Governing Council" with "US" and then stand on your soapboxes and pronounce, "the US is negotiating with terrorists"! Then when I challenge the accuracy of that false statement you do everything to avoid my questions three times.

You forgot the smiley, ZN. Losing your touch. No one mentioned Sadr, till Chaos did. I never thought it had anything to do with him, just those in Fallujah, if you can be bothered re-reading the thread. That was because the ABC article mentioned not just negotiations with those in Fallujah, but also Sadr. I have never claimed, or implied, or had to backpeddle, on this matter, anything to do with Sadr. I will expect an immediate and unqualified apology from you.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You forgot the smiley, ZN. Losing your touch. No one mentioned Sadr, till Chaos did. I never thought it had anything to do with him, just those in Fallujah, if you can be bothered re-reading the thread. That was because the ABC article mentioned not just negotiations with those in Fallujah, but also Sadr. I have never claimed, or implied, or had to backpeddle, on this matter, anything to do with Sadr. I will expect an immediate and unqualified apology from you.

And even if a_u_p was talking about Sadr, you'd still have to apologise. Face it, you've just had your ass handed to you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


It wasn't me and a_u_p who called Sadr a terrorist, it was the White House (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05275851.htm). Now, of course, they're just 'thugs or assassins' which is such a big difference.

Ditto Ollie North.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040409.shtml



WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week in Iraq, U.S. Marines came under heavy fire in such cities as Fallujah and Ramadi. Amid gunfire and rocket propelled grenade attacks, their mission was to search for the terrorists who killed and desecrated the bodies of four American contractors killed last week and quell an uprising of radical Shiites, who are being lead by Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, a fanatical cleric and a pawn of Hezbollah. At least 15 Marines were killed and 20 more were wounded in the battles.



The association of the rebels in Fallujah with terrorists is pretty common. As Abdul has pointed out, many of the right wing are furious about the matter.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No one mentioned Sadr, till Chaos did.Wrong as usual a_u_p, subgenius brought up al-Sadr with this quote;"...the coalition offered a draft cease-fire agreement to Moqtada al-Sadr, the outlawed radical Shiite cleric whose militia has battled occupation forces across central and southern Iraq, an intermediary said."....which had nothing to do with Fallujah and Chaos responded to that quote.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I never thought it had anything to do with him, just those in Fallujah, if you can be bothered re-reading the thread.How about you look at the link you use as evidence that the US is negotiating with terrorists; http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main.int.ceasefire/index.html, and tell everyone where the words "terrorist" and "negotiations" are a_u_p.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I will expect an immediate and unqualified apology from you.When you can find the words "terrorist" and "negotiations" in the original article that you used as your evidence then I will apologize, until then dream on pal.

[a_unique_person]

Apology accepted. Now don't do it again.

[Dorian Gray]

So I ask the question a fourth time; Where is the US in direct bilateral talks with terrorists? I don't see the word terrorist in the story you linked to start this thread a_u_p.
Direct from ZNN - Whirled News Tonight!
Who are we fighting with over there? You can't have it both ways. You people want to claim that we are fighting a War on Terror, yet claim that these people are not terrorists when it suits you. And by 'you' I mean, of course, conservative idiots.

US troops negotiated a cease-fire with insurgents, which is the same as terrorists in the Giant Conservative Coloring Book of Disparaging Labels. ZNN, a thesaurus is your friend. Of the groups the US is attempting to negotiate with, two are the 'Fallujians' and the 'al-Sadrs'. It doesn't matter that "Muqtada al-Sadr is a SHIA cleric and Fallujah is in the SUNNI triangle" because we are NEGOTIATING with BOTH factions of ISLAM across IRAQ.

It doesn't matter what terms you use for the groups we are negotiating with, the sentiment is the same. In fact, implying that by using different terms it somehow means a different thing is, in this case, more than a little spinny and dishonest.

Besides, YOU have failed to ACKNOWLEDGE that JAPAN and CHINA are having to NEGOTIATE with groups that have taken their people HOSTAGE. China is not technically part of the coalition, but Japan is. (Whee! Random capitalization is fun!)

Coalition - terrorists - negotiating - release - Japanese hostages - are you getting it yet? (Please, for pete's sake, please don't repeat your little 'Sadr is a SHIA' spiel at me.)

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Apology accepted. Now don't do it again. Ok, so four times I asked you to point out the word "terrorists" and "negotiations" from the original article you began this thread with. Four times you avoided the question and failed that simple task. Pitiful.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Coalition - terrorists - negotiating - release - Japanese hostages - are you getting it yet? (Please, for pete's sake, please don't repeat your little 'Sadr is a SHIA' spiel at me.) Well I have looked very carefully at the article a_u_p started this thread with saying the US is negotiating with terrorists and can't find the words "terrorist" or "negotiations". Do you think that is honest debate Dorian Gray when people make up stuff? Then when asked four times to point out the words "terrorist" and "negotiations" a_u_p failed four times to do so. Now you chime in and add the words "japanese hostages". Please find the words "US is negotiating for the release of japanese hostages" in a_u_p's article.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
My original question:

Demon's answer to the question; Mr Manifesto answer to the question; subgenius's answer to the question; Well well well, so not one of you can answer a direct question, why am I not surprised in the least ;)

Such wonderful, incisive, and direct answers to your questions Z-N! :rolleyes: One would expect to meet such people at a comic book convention instead of a forum dedicated to empiricism.

-z

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main.int.ceasefire/index.html



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.

Assuming this is true, do you really care?

[subgenius]

U.S.-allied Iraqis were negotiating separately with representatives from Falluja and al-Sadr.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1081764114548&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Unless you're a semantic pindancer its a duck.

[Dorian Gray]

Well I have looked very carefully at the article a_u_p started this thread with saying the US is negotiating with terrorists and can't find the words "terrorist" or "negotiations". Do you think that is honest debate Dorian Gray when people make up stuff? YOU are a doughnut-eating buffoon. He said that the US is negotiating with terrorists. He DID NOT say that 'this document contains the exact words/phrases 'terrorists' and 'negotiating'. You have to fill in some blanks. Do some nogginizing on your own.

Zenith, you have to learn to think outside the box..... of chocolates.

I am talking about what is ACTUALLY GOING ON, and I am sure that AUP and everyone else is too. Shut up with your 'verbatim' and your 'find the words', and join in the damn discussion. Are there terrorists? Yes. Do they have hostages and/or forces? Yes. Are we/the coalition/the US/the Japanese negotiating for a cease-fire/release of hostages? Yes. Does it use those words in the ONE article that you keep harping on and on about? Who gives a rat's ass! If you'd wake up and use your eyes, you might realize that there's a whole conversation going on!

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
YOU are a doughnut-eating buffoon. He said that the US is negotiating with terrorists. He DID NOT say that 'this document contains the exact words/phrases 'terrorists' and 'negotiating'. You have to fill in some blanks. Do some nogginizing on your own.Wrong. a_u_p posted an article then made the claim that the US is negotiating with terrorists. I challenged the validity of that claim after reading the article because it did not state the US is negotiating with terrorists. a_u_p simply replaced the words "U.S.-led coalition" with "US", "seeking" with "negotiations" and "enemy combatants" with "terrorists", then spun it to say;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.

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Zenith, you have to learn to think outside the box..... of chocolates No box to think outside of. a_u_p misrepresented the event, (no surprise there), he replaced the words "U.S.-led coalition" with "US", "seeking" with "negotiations" and "enemy combatants" with "terrorists".


Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I am talking about what is ACTUALLY GOING ON, and I am sure that AUP and everyone else is too. Shut up with your 'verbatim' and your 'find the words', and join in the damn discussion. Are there terrorists? Yes. Do they have hostages and/or forces? Yes. Are we/the coalition/the US/the Japanese negotiating for a cease-fire/release of hostages? Yes. Does it use those words in the ONE article that you keep harping on and on about? Who gives a rat's ass! If you'd wake up and use your eyes, you might realize that there's a whole conversation going on! I know how offensive the 'verbatim' game can be to people who need to spin....

[Dorian Gray]

Do you deny that coalition members are negotiating with terrorists in general? In other words, is your claim that coalition members have NEVER negotiated with ANY terrorists since March 2003?

I know how useful a verbatim argument can be to a person who thinks an article appeared in a vacuum.

[subgenius]

Instead of nitpicking (the latest technique here for derailing a thread and avoiding any real discussion), why not address the issue head-on?

This subject was the topic on Nightline the other night.

Yes, despite saying we don't, we negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers all the time. Those that scream the loudest that we don't seem to be the worst violators of their own pronouncement.
Get over it, and have a real discussion on the merits.
Is it good or bad? No, its just a fact of life.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by subgenius
Instead of nitpicking (the latest technique here for derailing a thread and avoiding any real discussion), why not address the issue head-on?

This subject was the topic on Nightline the other night.

Yes, despite saying we don't, we negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers all the time. Those that scream the loudest that we don't seem to be the worst violators of their own pronouncement.
Get over it, and have a real discussion on the merits.
Is it good or bad? No, its just a fact of life. I am not avoiding the "real discussion". If a_u_p had said what the story said "Iraqi Governing Council members met with Fallujah leaders to try to bring calm while the U.S.-led coalition called for a bilateral cease-fire" I would have no problem.

The Iraqi Governing Council members tried to re-implement Iraqi control while the US forces unilaterally called a ceasefire to allow Iraqis to bury their dead and aid supplies to be brought in. That is what happened, there was no bilateral meeting where there was negotiation between the US and "terrorists". If there was a meeting why did U.S. Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt say:"This action is being taken with the expectation that enemy elements in Fallujah will also honor the ceasefire. Key word, expectation....So why does a_u_p get to say "US negotiates with terrorists"? If he had said US negotiates with terrorists in the past, or may in the future, or have in Iraq, I would have no problem. But you can't say something has happened then provide evidence that does not support your claim. So I asked four times to provide the evidence of a meeting and guess what, a_u_p nor anyone else could provide evidence that on April 10th or earlier the U.S. negotiated with "terrorists" in Fallujah.

[subgenius]

W called them terrorists last night.