Should __________(Insert your country here: United States, e.g.) negotiate with terrorists?

No. I understand this rule, although I sometimes don’t like the specific results. However, once you start down that path it is like setting up a kidnapping for money business.

No, never. It sets very bad precedents.

The terrorist is the guy who gets on the plane and blows it and all the passengers as well as himself, to bits in order to get his 28 virgins and satisfy his god. Or blows up subways and whatever or anyone who aids and abets those who actually do the dirty work.

But the U.S. already does.

If a Muslim flew an unmanned plane over a US city and dropped a bomb on it, that would be considered terrorism.
When the US takes an unmanned plane and flies it over a village in Pakistan and Yemen., I also consider that terrorism.
I guess it’s all a matter of perspective and which news you follow which determines who is a terrorist, but by it’s own definition, the US is a terrorist, but it has a bunch of media on it’s side to promote it’s talking points.

Should Germany negotiate with terrorists?

No.

It would only encourage more radicals to become full-fledged terrorists.

@chris6137 – I cannot agree with you. Look at this definition:

“Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear and terror, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.” (Source: Wikipedia)

When the US takes an unmanned plane and flies it over a village in Pakistan and Yemen it does not disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Guerrilla fighters target opposing combatants, e.g. FARC in Columbia. They fight Columbian military and police forces. Guerrilla fighters can either be criminals or freedom fighters, depending on whether their opponents are mandated by a democratically elected parliament and government (upholding democratic principles) or not. So this makes FARC criminals, while the German Resistance movement led by Claus von Stauffenberg in 1944 were freedom fighters. Hitler’s “democracy” ended in late 1933.

It becomes more complicated when a democratically elected parliament and government creates laws and condones actions that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. A good example is Hamas. They clearly are terrorists.

Hell no. We shouldn’t give in to these bullies demands because it will never be enough and they’ll expect us to keep doing it.

No negotiating with terrorists.
Terrorist are anyone who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political and/or religious goals. That may include the taliban and hamas but it isn’t limited to them.

Sure, the negoation should go something like this:

Terrorist: We demand <whatever> or we are going to kill the hostages.

Country: Hand over the hostages unharmed or suffer the consequences of your actions. This will be your only warning.

Terrorist: But…

Country: <KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!> (Anybody else feel like taking hostages?)

If they were willing to negotiate peacefully and use words instead of weapons to get what they want…then sure.

But then they wouldn’t be terrorists, they’d probably be politicians.

There is an important difference between opening lines of communication with your enemy and surrendering to them. No peace ever comes to be until the sides start talking and listening.

The British did eventually start talking to the IRA and nothing but good came out of it. Martin McGuinness is now Deputy First Minister at Stormont. It is difficult to talk to people who are violent but if a cause has popular support I think discussion is the best way forward.

Actually if (Insert your country here: United States, e.g.) didn’t meddle so much in the affairs of other nations and start wars all over the world all the time, it wouldn’t have a problem with terrorists to begin with…

Let the flame wars begin…

It depends… is there an organization? Is there any reason to think the person/people who might offer to be negotiating on the terrorist side actually represents the terrorists and can effect whatever promises are made on their behalf? If not stop right there. If so (rare exceptions such as excellent example of the later IRA @flutherother) you can help that group grow out of being terrorists into a useful civil organization. Hamas might be another example if people stopped supplying them with rockets and they stopped using them (damned arms suppliers!)

@mattbrowne Funny, most of the informed statistics (from human rights groups and such) I’ve heard about the predator drones in Pakistan say that most of the people killed are civilians. There’s huge evidence for a general disregard for the safety of Pakistani civilians.

The original term “terrorism” only referred to actions undertaken by governments.

@incendiary_dan there’s an embarrassing can of worms. Even if those predators worked perfectly there’s the criminality of assassination. And they don’t.
And from the perspective of the innocent folks getting blown to bits in the name of security there isn’t anyone to negotiate with. They have some right to respond to crime as they can.

I say terrorize the terrorists and their home countries/suppliers. Anyway the world could do without a few less mouths to feed. And I bet that that would surprise the shit out of them. And just to rub it into their faces, I say drop porno mags all over their countries as well. (Sorry feeling rather ruthless, assholes killed two friends of mine over these past two weeks while I’ve been discharged due to pre-existing medical conditions).

@incendiary_dan – What would the US gain from a general disregard for the safety of Pakistani civilians?

It’s not as though the US intentionally targets civilians. Quite the contrary, they do their best to avoid civilian casualties. However, the major goal of terrorism is to generate public awareness of one’s cause while at the same time giving a political black eye to one’s target. Often times terrorists purposely house their operations in the very center of densely populated areas, preferably near a “hands off” target like a mosque, day care center, or hospital. That way if so much as one stray fragment of shrapnel hits a civilian they can scream about how that big evil bully has no regard for the safety of non combatants.

Frankly, (and I’m sure to catch no small amount of flack for this opinion) I believe we allow our own rules of engagement to be used as a weapon against us. Let’s face it folks, war is ugly and innocent people get killed. Now here’s the really ugly part, IMHO, while we should at least make a good faith effort to avoid civilian casualties, we should do a much better job in the press to focus blame for such collateral damage on the terrorists and the countries that give them haven. Thus rather than being perceived as the “big bully” in the eyes of John Q. Public because of the inevitable collateral damage caused in the course of defending ourselves against an act of war it is the countries giving haven to these terrorists that must shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for not doing more to ensure that such organizations are not operating in the midst of their otherwise peaceful population.

@mattbrowne An excuse to continue funding the military industrial complex and continued hegemonic control of vital resources and/or strategic positions.

Well said @YoBob!

what’s wrong with controlling vital resources and/or strategic positions?

@Winters Do I really need to go back and point out how it’s achieved by murdering civilians as “collateral damage”?

No… it’s achieved by killing those who try to interfere. Sometimes you gotta have to focus on protecting a few to to be able to protect the whole in the end.

“If they run, they’re VC. If they don’t run, they’re well-disciplined VC”