Would you negotiate with terrorists?

[TenthRegeneration]

(sorry if this has been done.)

Would you negotiate with terrorists? Discuss.

 

[runtheplacered]

Kind of hard to answer that without circumstances.

 

[TenthRegeneration]

Kind of hard to answer that without circumstances.

Alright, for you personally (not for anyone else, just for the sake of you and this thread), a group of militant munchkin clowns with monkey eyes and a transexual nurse named 'Bo Bo' have your mom, your dog, and your favorite video game character in a building, and they want all munchkin clowns and transexuals released from prison, or they will kill everyone you love in the room.

How's that?

 

[Flying-Emu]

As long as their demands are reasonable, of course. Refusing diplomatic processions is as bad as damning their hostages AND turning into an arrogant, holier-than-thou type. Displacing diplomacy is what they did; doing the same is just irresponsible.

 

[Owned by 3 year olds]

Depends on who or what you're trying to get.If it was the world's biggest A-Bomb stockpile explodes or criminals get released back to their country, then I would go with the latter.

 

[Avatar Roku]

As long as their demands are reasonable, of course. Refusing diplomatic processions is as bad as damning their hostages AND turning into an arrogant, holier-than-thou type. Displacing diplomacy is what they did; doing the same is just irresponsible.

Quoted For Truth. If we want to keep claiming the moral highground, we have to be better than them in some way.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

No, that is what rainbow 6 is for... Oh wait they don't exist... Still no, kill the bastards.
They threaten violence? End them with violence. Terrorism can't be allowed to be a viable means of acheiving an end for anyone.

 

[Alex_P]

Oooh, oooh, can I get a personal scenario, too?

Maybe one that makes a bit more sense and doesn't demean transfolk quite as much?

-- Alex

 

[sidhe3141]

Of course. One should always go with the talk option when given a choice between talking and fighting. You can always fight later if that turns out to be the better option; but if you fight first and it doesn't work out, you are SCREWED.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

hmmm take a page from Margaret Tatcher's book : "Send in the SAS."

 

[rokudan]

I would negotiate whether or not I should shoot them in the head, and then do the opposite. Any group that uses children as sucide bombers deserve nothing.

 

[TenthRegeneration]

Oooh, oooh, can I get a personal scenario, too?

Maybe one that makes a bit more sense and doesn't demean transfolk quite as much?

-- Alex

Sure!

There's a building made of trannys where a group of your favorite trannys are being held by militant trannys that will kill everyone if all trannys are not released.

(pause...)

(pause...)

Wait...

(pause...)

godDAMMIT!!

_________________________

Ok, here's a second try:

There is a one armed man that killed your wife, that is going to frame you for murder and blow up a small country unless you give him what he wants, go.

 

[Merciless.Fire]

Not negotiating is just accepting violence as the only answer.

 

[Arcticflame]

Quoted For Truth. If we want to keep claiming the moral highground, we have to be better than them in some way.

Or we just have to not get caught.

We need to teach our children how to be ninjas.
That'll teach those terrorists.
:|

 

[Adam Jenson]

Negotiated with a mugger once so I guess I could give it a shot if I was the only hostage and I knew I could handle it.

 

[Flying-Emu]

I would negotiate whether or not I should shoot them in the head, and then do the opposite. Any group that uses children as sucide bombers deserve nothing.

And threatening to kill them is totally going to get them to stop strapping dynamite to babies.

Yay, democracy!

 

[DoctorNick]

As much as I'd like to say one should take the moral high-ground and negotiate, its always seemed to me that negotiating with them often only sends the message that they can actually get away with this kind of shit and encourage further attacks in the future.

So unfortunately no, fuck em, cluster-bombs away.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

I would negotiate whether or not I should shoot them in the head, and then do the opposite. Any group that uses children as sucide bombers deserve nothing.

And threatening to kill them is totally going to get them to stop strapping dynamite to babies.

Yay, democracy!

Your logic is flawed, if they die they can't strap anything to anything, but it may piss off others and encourage them to do the same.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Kind of hard to answer that without circumstances.

I agree. Circumstances is the key word.

Would I negotiate with them if they were threatening to blow up a drug lords house in Columbia? No....

Would I negotiate if they had all my friends and my pet iguana strapped to a block of C4? Yes.

 

[Flying-Emu]

I would negotiate whether or not I should shoot them in the head, and then do the opposite. Any group that uses children as sucide bombers deserve nothing.

And threatening to kill them is totally going to get them to stop strapping dynamite to babies.

Yay, democracy!

Your logic is flawed, if they die they can't strap anything to anything, but it may piss off others and encourage them to do the same.

Right, and your logic is perfect. Go and try to kill them when you have little idea where they are, give them an obvious insight into the fact that you don't plan on giving them your demands, and have victory?

Now if you knew exactly where they were, rather than throwing darts at a map of the Middle-East, I might understand.