Jump to content

To what extent do we NOT negotiate with terrorists?


Recommended Posts

The UK and USA have a policy of NOT negotiating with terrorists, but how concrete is this policy?

 

Just humour me with this one:

If a hostage was taken by a terrorist who's only ransom request was a cute puppy, would our government budge on their policy?

 

Or SLIGHTLY more realistic:

If a terrorist organisation took several hostages and their ransom request was for someone to build them a well providing drinkable water for their village, would the government budge on the policy?

 

(assuming that there was no safe way to save the hostages, as is often the case)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK and USA have a policy of NOT negotiating with terrorists, but how concrete is this policy?

 

Just humour me with this one:

If a hostage was taken by a terrorist who's only ransom request was a cute puppy, would our government budge on their policy?

 

Or SLIGHTLY more realistic:

If a terrorist organisation took several hostages and their ransom request was for someone to build them a well providing drinkable water for their village, would the government budge on the policy?

 

(assuming that there was no safe way to save the hostages, as is often the case)

 

If you gave them the puppy or dug the well there would be more hostages taken and more demands, if you give in to blackmail all you do is encourage more blackmail. There is nothing wrong with negotiating as long as you don’t give them what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But didn't we negoiate with ira ?

 

Not until after they'd declared a permanent ceasefire. (Of course, such declarations can always be rescinded if the negotiations don't go the way that the former terrorist group wanted them to go.)

 

 

This is by Rudyard Kipling:

 

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation

To call upon a neighbour and to say: --

"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,

Unless you pay us cash to go away."

 

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,

And the people who ask it explain

That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld

And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

 

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,

To puff and look important and to say: --

"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.

We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

 

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

But we've proved it again and again,

That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld

You never get rid of the Dane.

 

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,

For fear they should succumb and go astray;

So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,

You will find it better policy to say: --

 

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,

No matter how trifling the cost;

For the end of that game is oppression and shame,

And the nation that pays it is lost!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK and USA have a policy of NOT negotiating with terrorists, but how concrete is this policy?

 

Just humour me with this one:

If a hostage was taken by a terrorist who's only ransom request was a cute puppy, would our government budge on their policy?

 

Or SLIGHTLY more realistic:

If a terrorist organisation took several hostages and their ransom request was for someone to build them a well providing drinkable water for their village, would the government budge on the policy?

 

(assuming that there was no safe way to save the hostages, as is often the case)

 

Back Channels are always open (a la Northern Ireland in the 70's and thereafter)

 

The no negotiation policy is for the consumption of the masses only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.