Do you negotiate with terrorists?

[Brighteye]

The only thing I can offer is money, since I don't have any prisoners or troops. I would pay a ransom, and then I would offer at least twice as much to anyone who either turned the kidnappers to the police or brought me their bodies. It depends which country they're in which would happen.

If I was in charge of a country with prisoners or troops, then I would have to tell the terrorists that it is not up to me to make such decisions on my own; that whether they have my family or not will not affect such decisions, but that unless they release their hostages the full force of my country will search them out and eliminate them.
The options are
1. kill and be killed
2. live and let live
and in both situations the prisoners or troops stay.

 

[Leonel]

I would be as cruel to them as they have been cruel to my nation. i.e. if they held hostage some citizens, I would hold their families hostage to give them a taste of what they're doing. If they have some humanity in them, they might give it up. If not they deserve death.

 

[MobBoss]

No. For this scenario, assume that the terrorists' intentions of negotiation are genuine, and that if they are given what they want, or at least a reasonable compromise, they will release your loved one unharmed.

You just changed how terrorists actually operate. If in reality terrorists were genuine, then perhaps more nations would negotiate with them. But they are not.

 

[Masquerouge]

If terrorists were holding hostages that were close to me, and if it was in my ability to negotiate their freedom, I would.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Absolutely not! I'd retaliate instead.

 

[Gogf]

The reason that negotiating with terrorists is a bad strategy is that it makes us a target for future terrorism. That's not a compelling argument on a personal level, because not being a target is irrelevant if you've already lost what you care about.

 

[The Ninja]

I'd prefer an option to go Rambo-Ninja on the terrorists and wipe them out in a really cool fight sequencear15: ), but as that isn't an option I'd be forced to choose negotiation. (In this circumstance.)

The Ninja

 

[frob2900]

Personally? Yeah, probably. Though even if I get her back safe, I'd very likely adopt a life's mission of revenge against them.

Really? You'd spend the rest of your life seeking revenge fo that incident? You'd quit your job etc.?

I think I'd just try to spend more time with my family, having faced a situation where I might have lost them.

 

[IglooDame]

Really? You'd spend the rest of your life seeking revenge fo that incident? You'd quit your job etc.?

I think I'd just try to spend more time with my family, having faced a situation where I might have lost them.

Quit my job? No, revenge is mostly a weekend thing, with a couple weeks during the year.

 

[frob2900]

Quit my job? No, revenge is mostly a weekend thing, with a couple weeks during the year.

You must be one heckuva counter-terrorism operative if you can successfully wreak havoc on a bunch of terrorists just as a weekend job

 

[Norbert]

Yes, all the time! It's one of my favorite activities! Why just the other day, I had a lovely conversation with my buddy Osama, and we negotiated up a storm!

...But seriously, I would love to think that there would never be any reason to negotiate, but practically, there probably would be. Of course, negotiation is usually seen a means to buy time, from the counter-terrorism perspective...

 

[Mango]

This hypothetical scenerio is stupid. You do not negotiate with terrorists, but kidnappers do not = terrorists, at least not in the same sense that you see in the news. The Taliban kidnappings were acts by terrorists, but if someone kidnaps your daughter from her daycare I'm not so willing to call it an act of terrorism. The goal isn't to promote fear as much as it is to get money. The difference with the Taliban example is it is a quasi-terrorist act by a group of terrorists (in this case it can be viewed as an act of suppressing foriegn pressence in their country through fear as well as kidnapping for ransom). Thus, you follow the tried-and-true motto of not negotiating with them. That is what my answer would be.

But if it was a simple kidnapping and the person wanted money... I'd probably give it up.

 

[wicshade]

yes ill negotiate with a terrorist, but only for oil.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

You just changed how terrorists actually operate. If in reality terrorists were genuine, then perhaps more nations would negotiate with them. But they are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_South_Korean_hostage_crisis_in_Afghanistan

 

[Ansar]

The hypothetical and therefore mostly useless scenario: terrorists have abducted your wife/girlfriend/mother/whatever, and threaten to kill him/her if their demands are not met within a timely fashion.

Would you want the terrorists to negotiate? Or would you tell them to go have intercourse with themselves?

For this scenario, assume that the terrorists' intentions of negotiation are genuine, and that if they are given what they want, or at least a reasonable compromise, they will release your loved one unharmed.

Poll coming.

This has happened in my family.

The kidnappers always request money (since they pick people/families with a lot of money) in exchange for the human. Until the money is delivered, they keep the human.

 

[mrt144]

some guys would gladly negiotiate away their wife

 

[Ayatollah So]

if the hostages are your family you shouldnt be allowed to make the decision.

Agreed. But if I'm allowed to negotiate money for my hostage loved ones I will. I don't control any troops nor can I release any prisoners, so those questions are moot.

A modest proposal: each nation should have a policy that sets a press-coverage limit for any terrorist hostage situation. If coverage goes above that limit - if the terrorists are getting good mileage out of their hostages - the government is legally obliged to either rescue or kill its own hostages. Gotta be cruel to be kind, in the long run.

 

[rkade8583]

The only way I would negotiate with terrorists is in the "eye for an eye" fashion. If I have his wife and he has mine then an even trade will be made. If he wants money or a withdrawl, he can go fornicate himself with a wooden spoon.

Now if I ran a country, that'd be different. Nobody messes with my country!

 

[MobBoss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_South_Korean_hostage_crisis_in_Afghanistan

So? The terrorist killed two people. They were not negotiated with, nor were their demands met...and yet they released the other hostages. That kinda proves my point instead of yours. Perhaps you need a better example.

Again, terrorists are not trustworthy. They are murderous scum and shouldnt be dealt with. Giving into their demands only empowers them and provokes them into more such acts since they then think they can be successful at it.

 

[frob2900]

They are murderous scum and shouldnt be dealt with. Giving into their demands only empowers them and provokes them into more such acts since they then think they can be successful at it.

But the question is not a general one, it is "what you would do if it was your family that was hostage". Would you seriously hold a "no negotiation" line?