Never negotiate with terrorists?

[JohnDubYa]

Adam, using your logic no policy could ever be violated, because as soon as the policy is violated it could be said to never exist.

"We have a policy of no smoking in the men's room."

"You have no such policy."

"Why do you say that?"

"I'm smoking in the men's room right now. So no such policy exists."

 

[Omid]

Please let me know who provided Saddam with the best weapons in Iran-Iraq war ?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Saddam wasn't known as a terrorist at the time. And he was fighting the people we considered at the time to be the real terrorists. The lesser of two evils, or so it appeared at the time.

Besides, we had no interest in either an Iran or Iraq victory. We supported Iraq just enough to keep the Iranians from winning.

But the answer to your question is "mostly the French and Russians." I am not aware of any US made tanks or aircraft used in the war, although I have not studied it.

 

[Adam]

Adam, using your logic no policy could ever be violated, because as soon as the policy is violated it could be said to never exist.

"We have a policy of no smoking in the men's room."

"You have no such policy."

"Why do you say that?"

"I'm smoking in the men's room right now. So no such policy exists."

Are you incapable of reading? I clearly said that the policy exists. I also said that it is false, since the government with that policy does not abide by it.

 

[studentx]

So the policy exists but is false... right... Let's just keep it at the policy exists and get back on topic.

 

[jimmy p]

Saddam wasn't known as a terrorist at the time.

Not to the Americans anyway. I'm sure the Iranians could have said a few things about him. A terrorist should be a terrorist to every nation.

 

[Njorl]

Please let me know who provided Saddam with the best weapons in Iran-Iraq war ?

His tanks were Russian and his jets were French.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Not to the Americans anyway.

Ummm, nor the English either sir.

 

[loseyourname]

2) Yes, I have. History shows that the answer is "yes".

The question isn't would the US violate the policy. The question is should the US violate its policy in the hypothetical situation introduced? Do you even have an opinion on the matter? If not, what the hell are you doing in this thread? Aren't there enough threads for you to spread your hatred of the US?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Adam, if you are going to be blunt, choose your words carefully. A statement like "the policy is false" makes little sense.

Thanks, loseyourname. Expressed my sentiments exactly.

 

[Adam]

loseyourname: You also must have a reading problem. My opinion has been stated. And no, I do not hate America.

JohnDubYa: I always choose my words carefully. I said precisely what I meant.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I always choose my words carefully. I said precisely what I meant.

Then the problem resides in your unclear thinking.

Sorry, but the statement "The policy is false" makes no more sense than "The policy is true." What the Hell is a false policy? A true policy?

 

[loseyourname]

loseyourname: You also must have a reading problem. My opinion has been stated. And no, I do not hate America.

You must have a problem with being a little a-hole with nothing constructive to say. I re-read every post you made to this thread. You continually say that the US does and will negotiate with terrorists. The question is should they in the situation presented, something you have yet to address. Instead you've turned the thread into yet another fight between you and everyone who doesn't hate the US. As if there aren't enough of those already.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually I have been 100% ON topic. The topic is whether the USA negotiates with terrorists. They do. Simple.

No, Adam, rerad the first post. The question was should we, not do we. Besides - most of us will stipulate that at some times we have. It just isn't relevant to the question of whether or not we should.

---------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I couldn't this thread back for you, wasteofo2 - did you read my response?

What if they gave the terrorist $100, and they still killed the hostage? Then what happens next?

An issue I didn't address and another good reason why you shouldn't negotiate with hostage takers. Whether the hostage-takers get what they want or not, a hostage is a witness whose existence is dangerous to the hostage-taker. There isn't much incentive to let the hostage live. The next hostage-taker, seeing this, will follow suit.

Now, you may try to bluff the hostage-taker. That's fine. But you shouldn't ever actually give into their demands.

 

[Adam]

Then the problem resides in your unclear thinking.

Sorry, but the statement "The policy is false" makes no more sense than "The policy is true." What the Hell is a false policy? A true policy?

A policy espoused by a state, which is not adhered to by that state. It's really quite clear.

 

[Adam]

You must have a problem with being a little a-hole with nothing constructive to say. I re-read every post you made to this thread. You continually say that the US does and will negotiate with terrorists. The question is should they in the situation presented, something you have yet to address. Instead you've turned the thread into yet another fight between you and everyone who doesn't hate the US. As if there aren't enough of those already.

1) Please refrain from such ad hominem attacks in future, they say more about your own character than about anything else.

2) Let me quote the opening post of this thread: "I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all?" The answer is yes. We must base our answer to "What might happen?" on what has happened, not on what patriotic mumbo-jumbo might make us wish would happen.

3) Once again, I don't hate the USA. Continually repeating such a nonsense remark (that I do hate it) will not make it true. All it will accomplish is reveal your reactionary state of mind.

 

[russ_watters]

"What might happen?"

You put that in quotes, yet I don't see it in that opening post...

 

[Adam]

Russ, go slap your parents for me.

 

[loseyourname]

Russ, go slap your parents for me.

loseyourname: You also must have a reading problem.

1) Please refrain from such ad hominem attacks in future, they say more about your own character than about anything else.

And even still, you haven't answered the actual question: What should happen?

And another question, yet again: Where is the moderator for this forum?

 

[Shadow]

I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?

Yes the government would be hated by the public but every little sum of money given to a terrorist can go to future terrorist attacks, kidnappings, and weapons. Or, a terrorist group could just continuously kidnap and threaten the lives of soldier after soldier, and continue asking for, as you said "$100" each time. After a while that money would pile up and, the US would be unable to do anything about it. The public would be pretty... "pissed off" if they didnt pay the hundred dollars but the money would continue to pile up and the terrorists have many troops and civilians to kidnap over there... so there is no clear answer, just what one believes is right.
Is the loss of an innocent person due to the lack of 'negotiating with terrorists' worth it? No but although it is terrible, perhaps it is worth potentially saving the lives of millions at home... in the end negotiating with terrorists is risky no matter how you look at it and the consequences of negotiating, or NOT negotiating are both sad and painful, and neither option is good. I wonder if there will be found a third option: not negotiation and not leaving an innocent person in the hands of terrorists because of refusing to negotiate.

 

[studentx]

they could equip westerners with explosive belts in the middle east, in case they get kidnapped

 

[devil-fire]

the usa would more then likly get a third party to do the negotiating. any country would do as long as they don't have the same policy. the usa could recover any financial loses by doing some kind of favor or service

if acountry could not offical negotiate it basicly means they can't directly use tax payer money. more so in a situation like this, i mean the soldiers at the barracks would collect up some change and pay a taxie driver to go pick their friend up. it would just have to be done durring their off hours

 

[Dagenais]

Russ, go slap your parents for me.

He said that to me once. :rofl:

they could equip westerners with explosive belts in the middle east, in case they get kidnapped

A more realistic scenario is that more Westerners will be armed in the middle east due to these kidnappings.

And if the terrorists kidnapped one of them - well, they'd be sorry.

 

[studentx]

what about cyanide capsules. Everythings better than beheading