ForumGarden

In order to negotiate, one has to know what the terrorists want..

So,

What do the terrorists want?

K.Snyder wrote: In order to negotiate, one has to know what the terrorists want..

So,

What do the terrorists want?


Talk to them and find out!

Bryn Mawr wrote: Talk to them and find out!


Having the need to talk to aggressors is a direct result of the aggressors making no attempt to talk themselves, which should prolong conceding anything.

K.Snyder wrote: Having the need to talk to aggressors is a direct result of the aggressors making no attempt to talk themselves, which should prolong conceding anything.


It takes two to talk, agreed. Talks can and have taken place - saying we won't talk 'cos they won't talk gets nowhere.

The only ways to a long term solution are either to talk or total subjugation / genocide - which way do you waant things to go?

Bryn Mawr wrote: It takes two to talk, agreed. Talks can and have taken place - saying we won't talk 'cos they won't talk gets nowhere.

The only ways to a long term solution are either to talk or total subjugation / genocide - which way do you waant things to go?


I didnt say that We shouldnt hold talks...

I said if the aggressors didnt make an effort to talk before we talked to them means that they obviously are not willing to negotiate therefore proving that they will not sacrifice their practices through negotiation, and ultimately proving fatal for us to concede anything.

K.Snyder wrote: I didnt say that We shouldnt hold talks...

I said if the aggressors didnt make an effort to talk before we talked to them means that they obviously are not willing to negotiate therefore proving that they will not sacrifice their practices through negotiation, and ultimately proving fatal for us to concede anything.


And therefore we shouldn't talk to them until they are willing to talk to us.

And if they're taking the same stance?

An offer to talk is never wasted.

Bryn Mawr wrote:

And if they're taking the same stance?




There cant be 2 aggressors...

Aggressors without willingness to negotiate means their motives in aggressions go unjustified, therefore shouldnt be any compromise from the opposition.

K.Snyder wrote: There cant be 2 aggressors...

Aggressors without willingness to negotiate means their motives in aggressions go unjustified, therefore shouldnt be any compromise from the opposition.


Absolute rubbish!

Have you never seen a fight where two guys rack up the anti until the fighting starts - they are both aggressors because they are both aggressive.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Absolute rubbish!

Have you never seen a fight where two guys rack up the anti until the fighting starts - they are both aggressors because they are both aggressive.


I suppose both just happenned to look at each other and decided to kick the sh!t out of each other then, right?

One couldnt have been more aggresive than the other to start the whole thing....:wah:



:wah:

:yh_rotfl

Oh,

That was quite funny...

One has to make the decision in all instances...

then the other becomes the defender.