"Intense" Negotiations with terrorists should happen

Hi, Jokerdude, I assume this is part of the debate tournament? I'm a little fuzzy on all the details. Anyhow, I, too, wish you good luck, and I hope for a pleasant, insightful debate. It seems to me your title and thesis for this debate is a little messed up. Jocular references in movies aside, I have never seen "negotiations" taken to mean, "let's blast the hell out of them." I will address your points one by one. You bring up the example of Neville Chamberlain and the Nazis in the 30s. This is, in fact, an excellent example, but there are several distinctions that need to be made. The Nazis were much more powerful than the terrorists today are. Chamberlain wanted to avoid the fight, and he tried to, but in the end it only gave the Nazis a head start on conquering Europe. This hesitation proved fatal politically, and today it would seem better if we had invaded, but as they say, hindsight is always 20/20. Let's define terrorism: quite simply, it means attacks against civilians, to achieve ideological goals and create fear. So, the attacks on 9/11 targeted innocent civilians because the terrorists sought to create fear. They sought to create fear because they wanted attention. They wanted attention because they think they have been persecuted. They think they have been persecuted because that is the natural tendency of minorities and they--terrorists, not Muslims--are a serious minority. Terrorism should be met with force: caving in, obviously, does not do any good. However, to wage all out war, or "intense" negotiations as you call them, on terrorism would be impossible. Who's a terrorist and who is not? Is it anyone who wears a hijab? Anyone who fasts at Ramadan? How do we know? Frankly, this policy of destroying anyone who thinks terroristic thoughts or wears the clothes worn by terrorists is an awful way to deal with the problem. Let's sum up my stance to your arguments: 1: Negated. The terrorists and Nazi Germany are not equivalent. 2: You say that killing terrorists is the only solution. Well, frankly, we have the resources to lock 'em up forever without their blood being on their hands. You say that imprisoning terrorists makes them martyrs. Killing them doesn't, huh? 3: Agreed. That is not at issue. 4: You say terrorists don't listen to rhyme or reason, and so we have a moral obligation to kill them. This is probably your strongest argument. The terrorists really DON'T listen to rhyme or reason. At heart, they're unreasonable cowards, kidnapping civilians as much as killing soldiers. And let's not forget 9/11. However, I'll get to this later. Your extremist view is that we should exert our full ability to do so and kill every effing Muslim on the face of the earth. This is completely outrageous. We have no way, until they strike, of knowing who is a terrorist and who is not. Come on, admit it. We can only guess what's going on in their minds, and we can't infringe on their freedom of thought. And they are terrorists, even if they haven't killed anyone yet, and so we are left at an impasse. We are doing, in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, the best we can do. We have found the middle road between Chamberlain's appeasement and Nazi genocide. Right now, at this moment, we are following the only course for the eradication of terrorism that works: letting them wear themselves out, trying to win moderate Muslims, having a military presence in their spawning ground, and killing or imprisoning terrorists. This is not, however, "intense negotiation." If we strike at every person suspected of terrorism, we are killing civilians and THUS we become terrorists ourselves. Thanks for the debate, Jokerdude, and good luck!