Why there is no negotiations with Islamist terrorists

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
Another little piece from our favourite head lopping group of brave Mujahadeen. Now I think that this may help get the concept that these groups are beyond the stage of negotiation through.

“What is laughable is the insistence of the ministers of all infidel nationalities on the phrase ‘no negotiations’. As if there was any question of negotiation. Far from it - they must obey the demands of the Mujahadeen. If you refuse, we slaughter.”
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1127282004

They will murder, they will place outrageous demands on the table that cannot be met just so they can fufil their bloodlust. No negotiation - ever.
 
Anyone who is willing to murder completely innocent women and children shouldn't e trusted. Period.

Only a fool would trust a terrorists.
 
When these groups make their demands, will they be happy if we concede? NO.

Negotiating or conceding with the terrorists only strengthen their methods.
 
Thats my opinion, nbcrusader.

On the other hand, I heard the news today which said that the 2 italians got free and have returned to Italy, inofficially after the payment of money, Berlusconi welcomed them etc.

Anyway, I think you shouldn´t negotiate with terrorists. The question is rather, if there is any use. In the italian situation, it seems to be useful, at least for the hostages.

Hmm, I dont really know what to make of this.
 
If the Italians reallly payed off the terrorists then it suggests a different situation, i.e. thugs motivated by money and not religious hatred - but nontheless that money could be counterproductive.
 
It is true, the Italian hostages were freed, there has been rumor of money being involved which certainly alters the situation - generally speaking the likes of Zaraqri are not motivated for monetary gain.
 
i think 2 lives for a million is rather cheap actually.


i still agree 100% on negotiations, dont get me wrong. but i am still struggling with this price tag or value we've been allowed to put on human life. it is revolting. i think it is the terrorist's greatest victory over the west and europe.
:sigh:
 
There was an interesting quote about this from Putin. People were asking him why he wouldn't negotiate with the Chechyans and he said something long the line of "You wouldn't consider negotiating with al Qaeda. why should we negotiate with terrorists?"

Of course, that opens a whole new can of worms when dealing with the situations in Israel and ireland.
 
There must be a distinction between nationalist and purely religious terrorism. The two do overlap in many instances but one must consider that nationalist groups ambitions are the motivation and their attacks are usually more targeted, purely religious terrorists are in it for the kill. One does not see a group like ETA commit homocide bombings against buses filled with schoolchildren or crashing letliners into buildings. The cost-benefit issue is important.

I just wish that the Italians told the terrorists that the money was right inside that darkened room, then knock them over the head with a lead pipe and keep them locked away for a long time.
 
Klaus said:
Well giving them money increases the risk for the future.
Now it's not only the extremists who hijack people down there but also the ones who do it for comercial reasons :(

"well done" italy

True that, but imagine the situation that one of your loved ones was held as a hostage. Would you stick to the (possibly right) principle of not paying, or would you rather wish your government pays?

If someone of my family was held as a hostage - and I pray to God this will never happen - I would not care a dime about principles of what benefits terrorists generally. I would just want the people who I love to be free, regardless of what has to be paid.

So, it´s not that simple, or is it?
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

Well it's pretty simple - do you value the wishes and needs of (few) individuals in general over the wishes and needs of everone?
If not, why do you change your mind if you know them personally?

Seems like money can be earned by taking italian civilists as hostages - i'd be surprised if that wouldn't result in new hostages.
So would you be happy to exchange the life of one of your family against the life of 10 other persons? ..100.... 1000?
 
A_Wanderer said:
There must be a distinction between nationalist and purely religious terrorism.

"Common" criminals would be a fine 3rd group, though whether we should call these people terrorists is up for debate I guess. Yesterday there was a businessman on tv who's got a company working in Iraq. He said up to maybe one hundred people a week are kidnapped in Baghdad alone. Usually employees from Western companies who try to keep it out of the media and pay the ransom.
 
Klaus said:
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

Well it's pretty simple - do you value the wishes and needs of (few) individuals in general over the wishes and needs of everone?
If not, why do you change your mind if you know them personally?

Seems like money can be earned by taking italian civilists as hostages - i'd be surprised if that wouldn't result in new hostages.
So would you be happy to exchange the life of one of your family against the life of 10 other persons? ..100.... 1000?

Ach Klaus.

Yes, I guess I would value the NOT-general (but personal) life of my loved ones (not "just a few individuals") more than the general wishes and needs of everyone. I would change my mind if I knew them personally, because like mentioned above, it is personal - not general.

You have the right of accusing that thought, because maybe man should value the danger of life to the unknown neighbor just the same like the life of your own father or your mother. I see your principle in that.

I can not say I would be happy to theoretically - not practically - exchange the life of one of my family against the life of 10 other persons, but there is no doubt I would.

Practically, the situation is different. To pay money, is not to condemn someone else to death. If the terrorists would want 10 new hostages in order to let one of my family free, I would not choose that solution, because then it is about the concrete life of 10 new hostages. But whatever you think the outcome of dealing with terrorists is, money is just money - it is not life.

Theoretical implications of what would happen if other terrorists jump on the train now that they see their principle is succesful, don´t count for me a bit, if it is about my loved ones.
 
But it wouldn´t be an exchange. I could "guess" the same like you, but there is a difference between payment and exchanging hostages. I would not consider the "what would be if" - factor if its about people who I love. I would say "yeah, the world is a cruel place, well what do I care about what is going to happen, I only care about the freedom of my child". In that case, I do not care how much money "can make" whoever to a hostage-taker. I have explained you that this is what I´d do, whether you like it or not, whether you think it is right, or wrong.

What about you then? Do you think you would stick to your principles in any case, or are there any exceptions?
 
be careful, guys-
The Red cross was involved in the process to set the Italian girls free-
It's not sure money were paid.
 
Back
Top Bottom