Comments on: Engaging Extremists Doesn’t Mean You Agree with Them

By: Pajamas Media » Group Cries Foul after Terror Connections Noted

Pajamas Media » Group Cries Foul after Terror Connections Noted — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:09:38 +0000

[...] Douglas Johnston’s response to my article exposing his partners’ ties to Islamic extremism raises more questions than it answers. April 26, 2008 – by Patrick Poole [...]

By: Ken Hahn

Ken Hahn — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:42:03 +0000

I am sorry Mr. Johnston. You are wrong. You are simply enabling those who are beyond reason with your “diplomacy”. In Sudan, the south is relatively peaceful, not because of your efforts, but because the murderers in Khartoum are busy in Darfur. In Kashmir and Pakistan, you mistake the words of those who would cheerfully kill us for progress. You are to use another dedicated enemy of the West’s words, a useful idiot. Lenin knew his greatest resource was those who would not oppose his evil. The Islamic extremists know this also. Lenin expected his enemies to sell him the rope to hang them. You won’t even charge our enemies, you’ll give them the rope.

By: Yaakov Watkins

Yaakov Watkins — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:27:31 +0000

Johnston makes arguments that would sound good if I knew less than I do. The work he cites is in a country with an unstable Islamist government which is in turmoil. It his hard to assess whether he knows what he is talking about and how much success his organization is having.

His real weakness is that he sounds like generations of failed peacemakers starting (going backwards) with Carter, the failed peacemakers during Bosnia, the disaster in Darfur, Hanoi Jane Fonda, peacemakers from the 60’s, Tibet, the failed UN approach in Korean which resulted in a permanently divided country, the Pottsdam Conference, Neville Chamerlain, and the 1927 Treaty of Paris.

I’m not saying that he is wrong. I just find it difficult to believe that he is right.

By: JohnMc

JohnMc — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:35:30 +0000

Doug states — “What is needed is an asymmetric counter to these asymmetric threats, one that displaces the ideas behind the guns. This, in turn, requires engagement with those who can communicate with the extremists, if not directly with the extremists themselves.”

How’s that working out for you?

By: John Samford

John Samford — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:21:24 +0000

“John, your analogy is flawed… there are simply too many unknown variables to make such a blanket comparison.”

Nonsense! 3500 years of military history prove you wrong. If you are interested in rectifying your ignorance, “War in the Shadows” by Robert B Asprey is a good place to start. Asprey, like most English historians is a Socialist/Communist and also like most English historians his research is impeccable. His facts are correct but his dogma prevents him from reaching the correct conclusions.
4th generation warfare is based on the fact that there can be no neutrals in certain types of conflicts. If neutrality was possible, there would be no Insurgencies, no guerrilla conflicts, no revolutionary warfare. All these types of conflict ( grouped together as 4th generation warfare by modern military thinkers)
use the principal of ‘no neutrals’ as a force multiplier.
Most people don’t want to get involved. So the anti-government forces use that to their advantage.
Guerrillas cannot stand up to government forces in direct combat, so they have to hide and strike from the shadows. So anyone who sees a guerrilla fighter and doesn’t point them out (get involved) to the government has helped the G.
Just like you helped the bank robber make his getaway. You may not think so, but the bank robber and the cops do. If there was a video camera that caught the robbers running past you, in some states you will be charged with ‘aiding and abetting’.
Unwitting aid is still aid.

By: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:04:07 +0000

Western powers tried negotiating with Adolph Hitler, too. The ‘piece of paper signed by Herr Hitler’ peace accord in Chamberlain’s hand was nothing more than a prelude to the conflagration that was to engulf Europe.

Hitler’s manipulation of the German electoral process to seize power in Germany, gave him or the Nazis no credibility. In fact, had western European nations eliminated Hitler and his thugs, 50 million lives would have been spared.

The Nazis understood the evil they were to unleash. They went to great lengths to hide their evil and what their ugly ideologies were to birth.

Like or not, many in the Muslim world cannot even be bothered to hide their intent. To believe we can negotiate with then in the same way we negotiate with civilized nations is absurd.

You cannot negotiate with anyone or society for whom ‘We’ll finish what Hitler started’ is an acceptable form political expression, taught in schools, broadcast in media or preached from the pulpit.

Not even the inheritors of Chamberlain, et al, could possibly believe that.

By: Tom W.

Tom W. — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:55:23 +0000

“The International Institute of Islamic Thought.”

Man, does that give you the creeping willies or what?

This organization has just about the most sinister name I’ve ever heard.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:55:19 +0000

John, your analogy is flawed… there are simply too many unknown variables to make such a blanket comparison.

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:10:07 +0000

Your use of “in any way associate with an organization or person…” near the head of the article is an inaccurate understanding of the original essay. Also, “engagement” is a slippery term, almost infinitely elastic. I see the point you are trying to make, and it is not unreasonable at one level – a competition between ideas does necessitate that the good ideas actually get to the table. You take this general and rather obvious premise to claim that what you are doing must be an effective – or even the best – way of doing that. That does not follow.

I would love for terrorists to encounter western ideas, but I am now convinced you and your organization should not be the ones doing it, due to lack of clarity of thought.

By: John Samford

John Samford — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:18:31 +0000

Doug, you are walking past a bank on main street and suddenly two men come running out of the bank. They are waving guns and have bags that money is falling out of. They jump in a car at the curb and speed off, taking a right at the corner.
You realize that you have just witnessed a bank robbery when a cop car pulls up at the curb and a cop asks you “Which way did they go?”
You now have 3 choices; Right, Left or I didn’t see. Two of those choices help the bank robbers.
So it is with 4th generation warfare ( or insurgency, guerrilla, revolutionary, what ever you wish to call it). There are no neutrals in 4th generation warfare. That is it’s strength. Anyone trying to be neutral is actually aiding the enemy. The act of not getting involved gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
This is a fact and has been true for thousands of years.
Nothing you can do will change that. Anything except fighting the enemy will help them. Negotiating is treason, because you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. One day you will grow up and realize this. How will you feel then about having helped terrorists murder innocent people?