On the oh-so-popular subject of terrorism

[Shadow Nexus]

Machiavelli incarnate is perfect, yes. Now you give me an idea.

[Dr Unne]

If you choose (2), then there's a good chance that your loved one will survive, and the criminal will flee, allowing the authorities to set about apprehending him before he can strike again. --Big D

Like I said, you're relying on the honor of a criminal. It's just as likely that he takes your money and demands more. Or takes your money and kills you both anyways. In which case fighting is the only option. It's only logical to assume the worst, because the person you're dealing with has already proven to you that he has no morals. Assuming and hoping for the best is just wishful thinking.

Garland makes a good point too. How much are you willing to give? Because once you prove that people can get whatever they want through force, do you think they're going to stop trying to get more?

[Peegee]

Bling-bling, if I'm not mistaken, means flashy jewelery. Just wanted to point that out, because the bad guy wanted 'money'. I found it funny that Big D is using ebonics though. (Has idea for new thread)

Not negotiating with criminals is often the best course of action imho.

[Kahless]

I think it depends on the reason they became terrorists. The IRA *only* wanted the brits out of Northern Ireland. Al Qaida wants to destroy the west or make us muslims. Usama wants to destroy america altogether.

Negotiations work with IRA types because they want to achieve a political goal and that's all. If they get all that they ask for they'll stop. For that to work with al qaida all of the us government would either have to commit suicide or form a new sharia based government. I don't think america could become islamic enough fast enough, so there's really nothing to negotiate.
:magus:


just in case you think I'm making this up:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cg...had&ID=SP65504