Would Brits who say "You can't negotiate with terrorists" prefer it if the IRA were still bombing London?

Question

Btw, as for Muslims hating the "British way of life" (eg the "slags" dancing in nightclubs):

The IRA mentioned all kinds of things in their motivation for bombing including the19thC Potato Famine. I suspect the Potato Famine was not mentioned once in the peace negotiations

Those with more sophisticated knowledge of these issues know that such peripheral matters are not really central in the terrorists wish to bomb and maim.

In reply to CuriousJ, I'm not going to write an essay but Al Qaeda aren't the ones you negotiate with - the more extreme wings of the IRA were threatening bombs till the end but were marginalised without moderate support.

Okay, I don't want to write an essay but the groups you could negotiate with inc. Hamas and Hezbollah. You also negotiate with states such as Iran (remember Shia Iran opposes Sunni Al Qaeda).

To pre-empt the obvious fatuous replies:
As I mentioned in my Q, terrorist groups make all kinds of absurd claims and demands, such as the destruction of Israel - these are not really central to a negotiation.
Until you speak to Hamas etc you don't how many actually really want a viable Palestinian state - probably a majority.

Londonminx:

Eg "slags" in nightclubs - this was almost a direct quote from one of the convicted of planning the Bluewater bombings:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2005442.ece

As for Hamas bombing Israel, the IRA was still bombing London when negotiations started - did they get their united Ireland?

Answer 1

You are wrong re. who the British Government negotiated with in Ireland. There were no 'extreme wings' of the IRA. There was the IRA. The Government negotiated with them directly - much against the advice of the Irish Government at the time, who realised such action would sideline so-called moderate elements in Irish nationalism. The IRA adjusted its aims and objectives in accordance with its assessment of its supporters' a) appetite for war and b) tolerance for more gradual change. There is no such assessment going on in Al Quaida.
Sean D is deluded if he believes the IRA were manipulated by the British. That's old disappointment coming through. If you are going to point the finger at anyone, sean, shouldn;t it be Adams and McGuinness rather than Donaldson and Scappaticci? But you won't want to go there.
But negotiation with terrorism, as you put it, must be done directly with the extremists. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. hence eventually Israel with negotiate with Hamas once Fatah is overthrown in the West Bank.
Currently, the government in N Ireland is made up of the two most extreme versions of politics there - IRA and DUP. More moderate versions failed.
So, if you are intending to negotiate with terror, you must do it with the scariest lot out there. That means Al Quaida. No point wittering on with Jordan and the Saudis and the Egyptians.
Problem is, the aims of Al Quaida are so wide-ranging and so tied in to a theological view of the universe - probably uniquely in the history of terrorism - that the only bargaining position is surrender to a theological state alien to British/European culture.
And I don't believe most British Muslims are up for that one. So, the answer is no. No negotation in this case, because it isn't possible.

Answer 2

Unfortunately I don't believe it's that easy. The difference is that by the time discussions started with the IRA that organisation was already committed to the dual approach of the ballot box and the armelite. If the discussions had been proposed five years earlier they wouldn't have got anywhere.

I believe discussion is the way forward, but both parties have to be ready for it, and I don't believe Al Quaeda are ready yet.

EDIT 11.40am
I disagree Me, if the recent elections in NI show anything it's that you have to negotiate with the people engaged in violence if you want to bring about real change. Alliance and the SDLP were always willing to talk, but they weren't the people involved in violence and politically they have gone by the wayside. Until the UVF and the IRA came to the table the violence continued. It just so happened that the leadership of those organisations realised that they would have a better chance of success if they changed tactics and so started to talk. One can't ignore Al Q and focus only on the moderates. If the violence is to stop then we have to speak to the people perpetrating the violence, but that will only happen when there is an incentive to do so. Now, what that incentive is .... well that's a whole other conversation.

Answer 3

is negotiation the answer do we get our self's into that type of act as then when they ask do we provide as an ex squaddie who was in Ni for 18 mths i say do all you can to put an end to meaningless death and destruction Tuesday 6people arrested re FAILED bombs in London and Scotland 2 doctors working in the hospital were the injured would have gone to if the bombs had gone off what the hell do these people think that they are playing at what did they want to do watch as they died sad sad sad .the IRA had some form of plan get the British out of Ireland the so called Islamic terrorists want Britain to be none British that we will not stand for (i hope) I'm for all faiths inter grating in our country but taking over as Islam is trying to do then do i start to think that the BNP are the right way to go after all the trouble i am starting to wonder .My mum and dad 60 year olds always voted labour then to my surprise last time they voted for the bnp believe me that makes me think as they are the most tolerate people i have ever met so something is wrong with this country do we fight fire with fire do we stop immigration kick all none nationals out what is the answer?????????

Answer 4

The IRA had a political aim which was to achieve a United Ireland. We could negotiate with them on that after they stopped the violence.

Al Qaida have the political aim of making the whole world live under Shariah law. We cannot negotiate with them on that.

You need to understand that these puritanical Islamists actually celebrate suffering and misery. They think that suffering is holy and brings people closer to their God. We can't negotiate with these perverts. We must destroy them.

I'm sure people like you were saying we should negotiate with Adolf Hitler during the Second World War. And I see that you think it's a trivial matter that the Islamists want to kill women who go to nightclubs. That is part of British culture - the culture of freedom and sexual equality.

Answer 5

Hamas, for example, don't just make 'absurd claims' with regard to attacking Israel. Hamas actively attacks Israel on a regular basis, by sending suicide bombers into Israeli towns, and aiming to slaughter as many civilians as possible.

I am British, but I would not be happy about the government that represents me negotiating with any terrorist group that is at the same time carrying out terrorism in Israel or any other democratic country.

Radical Muslims seek nothing less than the destruction of liberal democracy, and they aim to introduce sharia law into all non-Muslim countries. They make no secret that this is their long term objective.

Of course, the IRA had blood on its' hands, and nobody would deny this. The difference is that they had one objective, with regard to a united Ireland, and they did give 'warnings' before their attacks.

The Islamic terrorist groups have as their objective world domination, and they never give warnings.

EDIT: cheers for the abusive email you just sent me. Really shows your true colours. Don't bother sending me any more abusive messages; I've now blocked all emails.

Answer 6

No, in spite of the fact that there have been nonetheless empty 'bomb sites' in efficient London as previous due through fact the Seventies, yet they have all been geared up on now. quite contained in the city of London, there has been plenty rebuilding over the final 40 or fifty years that lots of the homes placed up contained in the Nineteen Fifties and 60s have now been demolished and replaced with the aid of latest ones contained in the Nineteen Nineties and 2000s. you will discover places the place older (Victorian/Edwardian) homes have been destroyed contained in the conflict, and later, diverse form homes have been geared up to swap them. There are additionally some places in London which nonetheless have the scars from bombing - next time you're close to the outdoors wall of Barts wellbeing facility or the Victoria and Albert Museum, see in case you could spot them. additionally, Cleopatra's Needle, next to the Thames, continues to be scarred with the aid of a bomb dropped with the aid of a zeppelin lower back in WW1!

Answer 7

I don't think you can negotiate with the irrational and I would hazard a guess that most bombers are a tad irrational!

The IRA, Al Queda, Hitler - all thought (or think) that they had a perfectly good reason for doing what they did and do and had access to people who were stupid enough to carry out their wishes. Ever noticed that the man in charge is never the martyr???

Answer 8

The difference between the IRA and Al Qaeda was that the IRA bombs aimed to destroy as much property as possible, Al Qaeda aimed to take as much lives as possible. This is why the IRA's attacks on England involved massive car bombs in commercial districts with warnings given, Al Qaeda plant bombs on public transport causing massive loss of live but very little financial damage. Unfortunately at times civilians were killed by IRA bombs but this was avoided if possible. A masterpiece by the IRA was the 1996 Manchester bombing which flattened the center of Manchester without killing a single person. If you check the facts you will see that only 30% of those killed by the IRA were civilians, the rest were members of British crown forces and Loyalist terrorists. Stricktly speaking the IRA were not terrorists. I dont believe the Brits negotiated with them, what happened was that the British placed agents deep inside the Provisional IRA and from the late 1980's were able to direct the IRA. Part of this was shown by the exposure of senior Sinn Fein members Freddie Scappaticci and Dennis Donaldson as British spies. What happened is that politically the Brits moved the Provisional IRA into accepting the legitimacy of British rule in the North and ending their campaign. In return all the Brits had to do was allow prisoners out of jail and allow ex IRA men to take full part in thir electoral system. If the Brits and Americans can infiltrate these Muslim groups dont be at all surprised if you see these groups changing their political direction and the Brits and Americans making what look like major concessions, but in reality are minor concessions that they were prepared to give all along, in order to accomodate this.

To Dave, I am not saying that civilians were not killed in the IRA's campaign I am saying that civilian deaths were avoided if possible. This was not the case however when Loyalist terrorists or British Crown forces plied their trade in Ireland. Events such as McGurks Bar, Bloody Sunday, Dublins and Monaghan 1974, Greysteel 1993, Loughinisland 1994 were all designed to murder as many Irish Catholic civilians as possible. If you check the facts you will see that 80% of Loyalist victims were civilians and nearly 60% of British Crown forces victims were civilians. These facts show clearly who the real terrorists were

Answer 9

The British didn't negotiate with the IRA terrorists, only the political wing of the legitimate Irish arm. It was Sein-Fein that had to negotiate for disarmament with the IRA.

Answer 10

any Muslim who is radical about his religion will tell you there true goal is an Islamic Earth. They wont be happy until we are as miserable as they are. If we don.t stop these people now this country will go to dog's or is that pig's. I think most terrorist's have a cause that you could relate too,these people do not give a damn what we think that's what's scary.
It is them or us what do we do?