World, Writing, Wealth discussion

9 views
World & Current Events > Negotiating or not negotiating with terrorists?

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13063 comments It's a very difficult dilemma in situations involving hostages, as human life is clearly at stake here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_nego...
The main argument against negotiating , as I understand is that heeding terrorists' demands, encourages further kidnappings..
On the other hand, saving hostages' life is imperative.
At the time Israel agreed to trade over 1K convicted terrorists many with blood on their hands for release of 1 captivated soldier and the deal was largely supported by the population.
In other cases, hostages were killed or perished in an operation aimed at their release.
What's your opinion on this ?


message 2: by Michel (last edited May 26, 2017 08:42PM) (new)

Michel Poulin This is the kind of decision any top politician or military commander dreads the most, as it is too often a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. Unfortunately, there will always be armchair experts with 20/20 hindsight who will criticize whatever decision was taken. Those 'experts' and critics are hypocrites who only deserve to be ignored, in my opinion. Every hostage situation is different and calls for its particular response, be it talking or assaulting, or a mix of both.


message 3: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13063 comments Michel wrote: "This is the kind of decision any top politician or military commander dreads the most, as it is too often a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. .."

Undoubtedly.
So do you think there should be an ad hoc decision rather than a predetermined policy? Or maybe a public policy of 'not negotiating' to discourage attempts while a specific approach if, god forbid, anything like that happens?


message 4: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2100 comments The US has had the policy of no negotiation, but I think we have to decide what a "terrorist" is when we look at individual situations...I'm thinking of the prisoner swap to get Beau Berghdal back. Obama took a lot of criticism from the right for "negotiating with terrorists," but before the invasion, the Taliban was the ruling entity in Afghanistan. By all rights, they are an enemy combatant, so we need to ask ourselves what is different that we should treat them differently and not negotiate for a prisoner swap, as we might have, say, with Hitler during WWII?


message 5: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin Many European countries have an official policy of 'no negotiations', but are ready to conduct discreet negotiations when they judge that it would be more beneficial. I can live with that.


message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9199 comments I agree that every situation should be discussed on its merits, but I think "no negotiation" is a good starting point if made public. The Somali pirate problem undoubtedly got a lot worse because insurance companies paid up. But as with Michel, I would hate to be the decision-maker, because whatever you end up doing, you will always end up with the possibility of something not turning out right and the hind-sight critics will be into you.


message 7: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Never negotiate with terrorists!


back to top