Exactly what I am talking about. The terrorist organizations that do not actually disarm and completely renounce violence are impossible to make peace with. These organizations don't want peace they just want a way to stay in power and regroup. The IRA disarmed and completely renounced violence and that is the only reason peace came. But in my OP I specifically talk about making peace with a terrorist group that does not disarm or in most cases even renounce violence.

Pakistan is one of my best examples. The Government every year or so attempts to end the conflicts within the country by signing cease fires and peace deals with not only the Taliban but many other terrorist groups. But every time within weeks to at latest months the terrorist group breaks the cease fire in an attack on the Government. Yet only months later the Government tries yet again to get a new cease fire.

As for the expectation that extremist groups would be imprisoned , tortured and killed if they disarmed. That is unlikely to happen in places where the UN or international forces are active. Somalia for example the UN lead Government would never condone executing all the Al Shabab members in fact most wouldn't likely face arrest either. In Afghanistan I can't say they would get as good treatment but if the Taliban completely disarmed they would likely be welcomed into the Government. Karzai has brought in tons of former war lords who surrendered weapons or joined the Government in defending the country. I can't see why the Taliban could not give up its weapons without much worry of being slaughtered, though I must admit many would likely still face arrest and some torture but I am betting the International community would do a lot to protect them. In Pakistan unlike Somalia and Afghanistan the UN and International forces are not present in a big way. But if the terrorist groups negotiated peace and gave up weapons I am pretty sure they too wouldn't face complete destruction.

Fact is if the terrorist group doesn't disarm and the Government is determined to beat them. Chances are the fighters and members will face slaughter and torture in far larger numbers. It is far better for the terrorist organization to renounce violence and disarm.

Now some would bring up Israel and Palestine. Well Hamas could disarm the reason they have needed weapons other then Israel is the fact that they can't control the streets without brute force. But Fatah proved that they could begin disarming and renouncing violence without the country going to hell. The Palestinian Authority is capable of controlling the streets if it continues to be built on schedule. Hamas over ran the Palestinian Authority in Gaza as well as Fatah's forces but if Hamas gave up its arms to the Palestinian Authority and renounced its intentions to destroy Israel peace could be acheived within 10 years!

But no cease fire with Israel will ever last. Hamas has no interest in a cease fire their end goal is to obliterate Israel and until that goal is changed and true peace is a goal Hamas will never stop fighting and being attacked!

Al Qaeda was created by the CIA and terrorism in general is propaganda.
The only real "terrorist" group is IRA in Ireland but they are fighting for independence.
And the native army in the middle east are soliders defending their country from western invasion. They fighting stile is guerrilla, but how could they go face to face with the larges army of the world?

They're too radical, I don't think they'll make amends with anyone!

its funny that it isn't considered terrorism when america or the european countries bomb other countries repeatedly to catch a single person resulting in "collateral damage" or in other words the deaths of several innocent people and the destruction of their homes... well i guess it just depends on what perspective you have

The difference is one of psychology. Criminal intent when the western countries attack a so called single person and inflict civilian casualties it was not their intent to kill civilians. Most often the reason civilians are killed is because the terrorist or terrorists are using them as human shields. Like launching rockets from the roof of a school, how can a western country stop those rockets without hitting the school? Obviously the western country doesn't intend to kill innocent students but the terrorist launching the rockets from its roof knows full well that children are going to die because of his actions.

Extremist groups (Terrorists) on the other hand fully intend to kill civilians. Almost every move they make will kill civilians it isn't simply guerrilla warfare it is terrorism. Terrorist groups feed off of fear. A. they want the people in their country or region to fear them to do this they often brutally crack down on the civilian populace. B. They want the people to hate the Government they are opposed to, in order to do this they purposely ensure civilians get killed.

A terrorist group fully intends to harm innocent civilians. They don't have moral boundaries they will kill anyone and destroy anything to reach their objective. This means men, women and children even if the people are there own supporters. Al Qaida for example has no problems in blowing up a Mosque full of devout Muslims of their exact sect.

Guerrilla warfare is a lot different then terrorism. The goal of guerrilla's is to attack the Government and cripple it. They almost always target Government installations and try to avoid civilian deaths in many cases. Their is a major difference between an armed Guerrilla group and a terrorist organization.

lol dropping bombs bears no "intent to kill civilians"? how so? how can you drop a bomb on an area and not expect to kill people with in its blast radius? i'll tell you how because they do expect civilians to be killed... thats what they call "collateral damage" look it up

"Most often the reason civilians are killed is because the terrorist or terrorists are using them as human shields." i'm sorry but thats bullshit 

Again, you have to have a really trustworthy partner (or a partner whose hands are really tied by their own problems) to even think of doing that. In most guerilla/terrorist conflicts in the world today, laying down your arms means you're all going to get arrested at best, with other alternatives being summary execution or genocide of your homes and families

Why exactly should you surrender your only bargaining chip (that is your ability to make random violence and terrorist attacks) to negotiate? It's like if, in divorce proceedings, the husband says "here, you can have the house, the car, and the kids, now let's start the trial"

I believe expecting to kill civilians and intending to kill civilians are two different things. Killing them as a side effect is different from killing them intentionally, although the end result is the same. Not that either of them really are acceptable...

Umm knowing that you might kill civilians is not the same as having the intent to kill civilians. When Nato bombs a target it is because they are targetting a military threat to them or at least they believe it is a military threat. They don't say "Hey lets go bomb this Mosque full of innocent civilians for the hell of it". Unlike terrorists the western Government's generally kill civilians accidently or out of necessity.

My example of the rocket launcher on the roof of a school is a great example. This actually has occured in mutliple different countries. Sometimes it is a rocket launcher other times an RPG other times heavy weapons or Anti-AirCraft guns. But terrorist groups love to use schools as places to fire weapons from. So what is the western army supposed to do? Allow the weapons to continue being fired and wait for them to be killed one by one? Or return fire which may kill a civilian or two?

As for the absurd remarks "is because the terrorist or terrorists are using them as human shields." i'm sorry but that's bullshit " I'm but you are completely out to lunch. I actually have friends who have served in Afghanistan with the Canadian Forces and a friend from America who served in Iraq with the US. I have heard first hand accounts of attacks on US and Canadian forces and they almost always occur in heavily populated areas.

One friend said his group was handing out candies and school supplies to a group of children. Their were parents and other civilians in the group when suddenly a group of men from within the crowed opened fire on the troops. They tried very carefully to only hit the terrorist targets but weren't able to defend themselves. They ended up pulling back after some of their men got hit by incoming fire. Fact is the group of Taliban fired from within a crowd of Children who were getting candy and school supplies. They fully intended to see children killed in the cross fire. They used the crowd as a shield to protect themselves from the Canadian forces.

My friend from Iraq told me of a story that happened not to him but another unit. He said a child had rushed a convoy of American troops surrounded by other children. A soldier noticed that the child had a bomb and had to shoot him dead before the kid could detonate it, if the child had detonated the bomb all those kids and the American soldiers would have died.

Both of my friends came back from their perspective war zones completely fucked up. They were so shell shocked that they have night mares every evenning and don't often want to talk about what happened because they said what they saw and heard fucked them up big time.

Then if you actually read the news you will note that many of the terrorists use human shields on a regular basis. like the time the Israeli Army had a huge group of terrorists surrounded inside a Mosque. The group of terrorists dressed in Burka's and demanded the women of the mosque exit, they merged in with the crowd of women using them to escape from the Israeli's. Some were noticed but they used the women as human shields preventing the Israeli soldiers from taking action.

Terrorists almost always use civilians as shields. If not directly holding a child or women in front of them they choose to fire from civilian cover. Instead of wearing a uniform or targeting a military instillation they attack from school's and mosques they attack from crowds of children and from houses which they ensure are occupied.

So many reports have come out of the Taliban seizing a home full of civilians. They then keep those civilians in the house until they leave. They do so to ensure that if Nato attacks that they will kill civilians in the attack. Other times the Taliban and other organizations get civilians voluntarily to occupy the houses ensuring that they are never alone in a house. This acts as a deterrent because if Nato is to attack them they know that Nato will inflict civilian casualties.

I can't see how you can say terrorist organizations don't use human shields, whats next saying that Taliban and Al Qaida don't target civilian targets? I mean all those schools that are burnt to the ground with the staff and children inside those were all accidents. The attacks on Mosques filled with innocent Muslims yah those were legitimate military targets.

I'm sorry but I have never heard once of the Canadian Army in any recent war having killed an innocent civilian out of anything but defence or in an assault on a terrorist target using a human shield. Every time any civilians have been killed it has been legitimate, even when civilians have been killed and no terrorists were among them they were killed out of self defence.

Example a story awhile back about a car that was shot up by the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Forces had a road block with an armed convoy. They had a sign out and supposedly even a yellow line that said stop hundreds of meters from the road block. A car approached the road block at a high rate of speed. The Afghan Translator yelled to the car to stop immediately the vehicle passed the yellow line and sign without reducing speed. When the car refused to stop and got to close to the convoy the troops opened fire.

Now was that killing innocent civilians or self defence? It was self defence so many times Taliban and Al Qaida drive civilians vehicles packed with explosives into convoys. They kill hundreds of soldiers each year with suicide car bombs, the Canadian Forces warned the vehicle multiple times to stop they had adequate signage and the vehicle had plenty of time to stop. How could the Canadian soldiers have possibly known that the car wasn't a car bomb?

In the end the terrorists are the reason for 90+% of civilian casualties. If they didn't kill the civilians themselves they made it impossible for Nato or western countries to defend themselves without killing civilians. Also we know that in many cases such as air strikes the Taliban remove weapons from dead comrades and claim that they were civilians. This means that many of the dead civilians weren't civilians at all but it is impossible to verify which ones were and which ones were not. In fact since Al Qaida and Taliban have used female suicide bombers and children bombers its impossible to even rule the women and children out as civilians! Each and every operation carried out by the Canadian Forces is done so with every effort made to preserve civilian life. While I do know some American units have killed unarmed civilians those soldiers responsible have all been punished either by the native countries Government or by the military themselves.

Even in cases where American forces have killed allied soldiers in almost every case I know of it was done so because the American forces thought they were under attack. If the terrorists didn't attack from civilian cover or dressed as civilians then they wouldn't kill nearly as many!

If you don't count peace when one side turns on the other... then you can't really say anyone can have peace with anyone else short of unification (and even then). Countries turn on each other all the time as well.