negotiating with terrorists - Page 3

View Poll Results :Should we negotiating with terrorists?
Yes 3 5.45%
Sometimes 13 23.64%
Never 39 70.91%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

April 18th, 2005  
Charge 7
Do you honestly think that if they somehow got a nuke in NYC that any amount of money would stop them? These people flew planes into buildings killing thousands. Money wouldn't mean anything to them. They might demand we get out of the Middle East though.
April 18th, 2005  
Whispering Death
That is extremely b******t reasoning.

The reason the United States has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists is because if we give into the demands of 1 group, then more groups will sprout up to take hostages and make even more demands which will inevitably lead to more hostagetakings. That's the theory, and in pracitce it has worked very well, now the only hostages terrorists take are the ones they plan on executing anyway. So in short, all the hostagetakers that where doing it for demands are gone and the ones that are around cannot be negotiated with even if that was our intent.

Of course, would there be a nuke in NYC or however someone had us by-the-balls I'm sure America would negotiate because it isn't like every terrorist group and their dog can run out and grab a nuke and plant it in NYC like they can grab an American citizen at gunpoint in a foreign land.
April 19th, 2005  
Off-topic posts removed.

This topic is about "negotiating with terrorists" in general, not Japan/Korea..

And Slugboy, check your PMs and read the forum rules ASAP.
This is your final warning, next rule violation will lead to a temporary ban!
April 19th, 2005  
Originally Posted by KC72
my gut reaction is to say no, but looking to northern ireland it seems talking produces the best results and while the peace process isnt perfect (now theres an understatement) the bombings have stopped and that can only be good.
I think there is a difference here between talking to terrorists who want something for the realise of a hostage and talking to a group to end violence in a way that will suit all. You can't beat terrorists simply by military means. All you can hope to do is hit them hard enough that they will want to talk, so you have them over a barrel not the other way round.
April 19th, 2005  


Originally Posted by slugboy2005
Just like everybody,Terrorists are humankind, too.

They have the same feeling like us at the bottom of their heart,

when a hostage is being killed.


The lives of hostages are much more important than anything else!!!!!!

Released prisoners may be captured again.

Stolen cash may be got back.

Assaulted women may go on living.


HOW can you make a killed hostage, RELIVE??????


just imagine, if you were hijacked by terrorists,

Not if it meant succumbing to terrorists and extreme difficulty for my country. Besides, if i died, my country would rise up over my death. so it would be a death worth dieing
April 19th, 2005  
Negotiation and terrorist seems to be pretty close to an oxymoron. The negotiations stopped on 9/11.
April 19th, 2005  
For me it stopped at OK city bombing. I would say 1st WWTC bombing but i was to younge then.
April 19th, 2005  
Whispering Death
We had the policy well before 9/11. It was in response to the rash of kidnappings and such in the 70s-early 80s.
April 20th, 2005  
I feel negotiating with terroists is similar to appeasement to Hitler preWWII. When you give in, even slightly, to power crazy people, they will always try to get more. Terroists are power hunger and will never stop to get power. If we negotiate with them, we are just making them stronger. It also could be shown through propoganda that the United States has weakened and has started to give in.
April 20th, 2005  
I'm not sure, both yes and no. In other words i took Somtimes as my choice.

The thing is. You wont stop a terrorist by not complying and negotiating, but you won't stop them by doing so either (althoguh both can come false in some situations and on some groups)

The defination of a terrorist is very wide. A person taking a hostage to get his kid some medical treatment to treat his life threatning illness is a terrorist even though hes not always mentioned as it. Some terrorist are even anounched heros for what they did even though they in the bottom sense are categoriced and defined under the word terrorist.

A person who uses other people as weapons for their sake, which might be to take out revence or just to gather money for their own personel winning is a terroris by defination aswell (this which is most widley defined as a terrorist by the public)

A group of people, a guerilla warfare team trying to protect their country by blowing things up to protect their country and their belifs, is usually or often defiened as a freedomfigher but is in fact a terrorist by defination.

And by the defination of terrorist, all countrys do negotiate with them. Think about it, think about ordanary day issues and you might discover the true meaning and defination of terrorists and how different terrorist situations is sorted dayly.

Just my thoughts on the issue.