Is it wrong to negotiate with terrorists?

Question

a) would we have more to gain from granting them an audience than we have to lose by granting them an audience?

b) Do you think our tactic of "not negotiating with terrorists," in an effort to discourage terrorism, is working?

Answer 1

It's completely counter productive, so if by "wrong" you mean "fails to accomplish anything" then yes it's wrong.

If someone threatens you, and you negotiate based on that threat, then that person always has an incentive to threaten you to get what they want.

Negotiation requires a good faith willingness to resolve a dispute. Duress and threats of violence are not an indication of good faith.

True terrorists are fanatics. Rational discourse, logic and negotiation have no place in their worldview. They want what they want, and they are willing to use force to get it.

So, the only way that negotiating with terrorist would accomplish something is if they are first willing to stop the violence, and stop the threats, in order to get to the table. That would would be rewarding peace and non-violence, and that has a chance of working.

Answer 2

No, in fact it could probably help a lot. But i guess it depends if you are using terrorist to mean one crazy bugger with a bomb strapped to him in a bus, or 'terrorists' as a blanket term that Americans use for the groups working against them.
Don’t negotiate with the bomb guy, that’s what snipers are for, but the best form of negotiating with general terrorists would be to change the U.S.'s foreign policies that got them in this mess. That’s what the majority of them really want. There are the fanatical religious ones, im not gonna try and deny that, but most of the recruits have felt the bad end of American Foreign policy and just want to set some things right in the world.
Negotiate to end terrorism by stopping the things America is doing to help perpetuate it.

Answer 3

"Not to negotiate with terrorists" interesting! Who is a terrorist? then we can decide to negotiate or not. Any thing creates fear and hardship at unexpected time and place to a common person or human being is considered terrorism. Even the whole majority of UN members in UN (supposed to be safe place for any common person or human) dosen't want the invasion of Iraq, the two major countries (believed to be democratic countries) went in to action and terrorized the people of Iraq. Though it is a form terrorism because of its power and money it become a accepted action by many nations it slowly become okay to do it.

Answer 4

No!

they say that they didn't negotiate with terrorists but almost all of them did that to rescue the hostages their keeping...

well it is working anyway...

Life is more than a money or a grants...

But keeping the terrorists alive is not good in our country or in the in the others...

Like the immunity that is given to them in the piece talks...

There is always a piece talk sets in different country but for the benefit of everyone...

but terrorists didn't stop there...

We must continue negotiate for benefit of everyone...

as other says... talking is better than fighting...

if possible... if not do the necessary action...

Answer 5

a) No. It is like disciplining a child. When you cave every time they pitch a fit, they learn to pitch more fits to get what they want. Putting up with the first one is crucial.
b) I don't accept your premise that this tactic is to "discourage terrorism". They believe what they believe, and they will act on it. I think it is aimed at preventing them from using leverage against us. Terrorists will continue to test our policy and we will continue to show them that they can't control us.

Answer 6

YES, there is no Negotiating with terrorist, even if we wanted to it would be imposible.

Answer 7

Yes, negotiating with terrorists is wrong.

I would like to use an analogy to expand on this answer:

Let's say I walk into your house and demand that you allow me to live in your living room. You refuse to let me do so, so I punch your child. I then tell you I will continue to punch your child until you agree to let me live in your living room, so (because you feel sorry for me since I'm obviously poor, uneducated, and have probably had a horrible life) you capitulate and agree to let me live in your living room instead of calling the cops.

The next day, I tell you I want you to feed me. Since I know you do not want your child hurt, I already have your child in my grasp and I'm ready to hit him. Now, you know I will punch your child since I have already done so before. You know that if you agree to feed me, I will just continue to ask for more things, so you do not want to give in. However, since you didn't call the cops yesterday, now you feel too embarrassed to call them. So, instead you ask if we can negotiate. You will let me get one thing from the refrigerator if I release your child. I refuse and instead I tell you I now want you to feed me every day. You counter by offering to let me eat breakfast every day. I punch your child, and tell you I want you to feed me every day and I will give you a list of the foods I want. You beg me not to hit your child and agree to feed me anything I want, but only for breakfast every day. I punch your child harder and tell you I want you to feed me what I want every day in bed. You beg me not to hurt your child and agree to feed me every day. I release your child.

The next day, there are two of us. I am now demanding that you get me a new wardrobe. I have your child in my grasp. My friend has your pet and is demanding that you allow him to move into your guest bedroom.

We would gain NOTHING from granting terrorists an audience, what we would accomplish is encouraging other terrorists to act.

Answer 8

yes