The first sentence of my first post in this thread:

<< Unreasonable people cannot be reasoned with. >>

Assuming they're unreasonable is one of the reasons they hate us.

Military force should be the absolute last resort.

Sounds more like Pakistan is conceding than making peace.

When whole populations of a society are born and raised being taught (over generations, even) that the West and Jews are evil (in fact, taught that they're the offspring of monkeys and pigs), and that it is a GOOD thing to kill Westerners and Jews, and that they will go to meet their god (Allah) and get 72 virgins when and if they do so in battle (or jihad, whatever) and die (which they openly welcome, even though they're still cowards and use women and childen as human shields), and quite a few believe this right to the last fiber of their being; they're unreasonable. There's no assuming here.

Needs more straight talk from straight conservative warmongerers.

You very much seem to be also.

We are evil. I don't let that ruin my day.

They have sworn to kill the infidel... where do you see any room for negotiation in that? :confused:

And you sir, seem to be ... Oh never mind. I won't stoop to that.:p

An appeaser?

I agree with most of what SSJ4 Gogitta said in regards to these people being raised with a really fucked up upbringing, but that doesn't mean they can't benefit from peace talks.

Attacking without first negotiating proves to them that we are everything they say we are, or worse. That stirs up a hell of a lot more anti-us thinking.

I'd say more but I'm limited on time, so you're lucky today.

Yeah, well it's too ask questions before shooting first, since the first shot was fired decades ago, now wasn't it? Suck it up.

The "first shot" was fired just after the first gun was made. Why that shot, or any shot was made has important-to-understand reasoning - perhaps not good reasoning, but nevertheless, important-to-understand reasoning.

Please don't think I am 100% anti-gun or anti-military by my saying this, as I am a gun-owning hunter and I am in full support of a select number of military actions of our nation's past.

What I am really trying to communicate here is the need to attempt to use all we can to find peace before resorting to violence.

There are a lot of negotiating tools that trained professionals can use that have proven to be successful.

While it is understood that the odds may be against such success in negotiating, that does not eliminate our need to try it first.

I won't say we don't have the right to protect ourselves.

However, regardless of who these people are and how they were raised, they are still human beings, and they still deserve to be treated as such.

Look at it this way - a loose, but notable analogy - there are certain diseases/ailments that will most likely kill you. There are medical treatments that can permanently stop those diseases, but more than half the time, those treatments will fail. So, does that mean the said treatments should be considered a waste? No. Why? Those treatments will sometimes, even if less than half the time, end the problem and allow you to live your life in such a way that you have little to no bodily proof that the problem ever existed.

The same goes with peace talks. Even when people are "unreasonable", your ability to change them may not be as hopeful as you would like, but it still is worth it.

It is not a waste.

I'm all for blowing the middle east up without asking questions, and I don't want to get into why; because that would be playing a unfair card, so I'll just make something up.

I uhhh think they're encroaching on oil that rightfully belongs to America.

There, have fun!

You're aware that treatments for disease, in general, completely kill all offending viruses/bacteria/fungus, right? ;)

Damnit!

PWNT... GG.

You're aware of the meaning of the word "loose", right? ;)

loose, yet noteworthy and understandable

Diplomacy may be one of the "treatments" for terrorism, but so is force. All should be employed (when necessary) to prevent people from attacking us.

When a terrorist says his stated goal is our complete destruction even at the sacrifice of his and his countrymen's lives and nothing we do or say will change his mind. Then it is time to put the diplomacy treatment away and pick up a stick.

Force means nothing when improperly applied, however. 'Tis all confusing.

Al-Quaida we should not talk to. But talking peace is a good thing, it may be the only option that works.

Talking peace with terrorists is not an option, because that would mean comprimise. Besides, they only want three things:

1) Jews dead via the destruction of Jerusalem
2) The world
3) Number 2 to be all Islamic/Muslim

Which are you willing to give them to receive peace?

To respond to the original question: No we can not negotiate with Al-Quaida. However, we can change our course of actions that will disempower terrorists. To promote the notion that Islam, thus all the peoples of the Middle East, is bent on our destuction is ignorant, racist and counterproductive. It is our actions, not our words, upon which we are judged by the peoples of the region. The longer we continue our current course of actions, an ever growing number of the populace will see us as the opressor and be pushed towards Al-Quaida. You don't have to look any further than the British actions in the South during the Revolutionary War to see that lesson in action.

We had a window of opportunity after 9-11 but squandered it by going into Iraq. Now that we have painted ourselves into a corner, we have severly limited our options. But all in all through a national forum built upon truth rather than lies and fear mongering, we may be able to find a course of action which will create a win-win outcome.

I'd rather have a win-lose outcome with the terrorists on the losing end...

You missed the point!
Oh Well. :rolleyes: