News Should the USA Ever Negotiate with Terrorists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of the U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists, particularly in hypothetical scenarios where a reasonable demand could be made, such as a ransom of $100 for a hostage. Participants explore the moral and strategic implications of adhering to this policy, weighing the potential loss of lives against the risk of setting a precedent that could encourage further terrorism. Arguments are made that negotiating, even for small amounts, could undermine U.S. credibility and embolden terrorists, while others suggest that not negotiating could lead to unnecessary loss of life. The conversation highlights the difficulty in determining the reasonableness of terrorists and the subjective nature of such assessments. Ultimately, the debate reflects the tension between saving lives in the short term and maintaining a firm stance against terrorism in the long run, with no clear consensus on the best approach.
  • #51
loseyourname said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Adam said:
"What might happen?"
You put that in quotes, yet I don't see it in that opening post...
 
  • #53
Russ, go slap your parents for me.
 
  • #54
Adam said:
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?
 
  • #55
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.
 
  • #56
they could equip westerners with explosive belts in the middle east, in case they get kidnapped
 
  • #57
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
 
  • #58
Adam said:
Russ, go slap your parents for me.

He said that to me once. :smile:

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.
 
  • #59
what about cyanide capsules. Everythings better than beheading
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
325
Views
34K
Replies
144
Views
18K
Replies
41
Views
7K
Back
Top