On the oh-so-popular subject of terrorism

[Bernhard]

This entire "we don't bargain with terrorists"-attidtude. I mean, of course I understand the concept of it. If governments always do what terrorists tell them to, the logical conclusion is that this makes terrorists think that they always can get what they want. Which is.. less good, I suppose. But then again, where do you draw the line? In which possible scenarios should terrorists get their demands? Say that someone got a hold of some kind of nuclear weapon and placed it in.. Beijing. They demand an astronomical sum of money and if they don't get every penny of it, the city will be turned into smouldering ruins. You know, the whole Bond-jazz. Time for bargaining, neh? The interesting points for me is where to draw the line. What do you think?

[TheAbominatrix]

But more facts to take into consideration is what these people want. And then, if you give in to one nutjob with a nuke, will more nut jobs get nukes and try the same? And even if you give them what they want, will they desist or just blow up stuff anyway?

I guess I dont know, really. I couldnt do it, I wouldnt want to have to. But I suppose that its a case by case deal, and I'm positive that along with all the talks with the terrorists, they have special ops teams and whatnot sneaking in to get rid of the threat.

Interesting topic.

[Dr Unne]

Yeah, if someone said "Give me $20 and a sandwich or we'll detonate this nuke in Paris", and you knew the threat was serious and had very little chance of catching the person, I don't know if it's time to negotiate then, but I still don't think so. I can see the reasoning behind never negotiating with terrorists.

If someone is crazy enough to be willing to detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city, could you trust that that person wouldn't explode it anyways if he got his money or whatever he was after? You're placing your trust in the hands of the bad guy. I don't think that's ever wise.

[DocFrance]

Giving in to terrorists is like giving in to a little kid at a grocery store who throws a tantrum when you don't buy him candy, because, that is almost exactly what terrorists are. Except more lives are involved.

[edczxcvbnm]

Don't negotiate with terrorists....I guess that is about the smartest thing. You don't want to talk to them about their cause and crap and then set up a deal to only turn on them and take them out at the time. They might be prepared and then you are screwed or you will suceed and other terrorist will hear of it which in turn will lead them to never even want to talk to you and then they will just do what ever they were going to do in the first place.

I say you just have to locate them and nuke them(we have enough to waste a few)

[The Man]

Also there's the high possibility that they'll take the money and then do whatever it is they threatened to do anyway. Whoever said terrorists have to be honourable?

[War Angel]

The right way to deal with terrorists is to think like them. They don't care about human life? Well, neither should you. If they kidnap someone, you found out where they are, and send in an assault team. No negotiations, nothing, whatever the cost may be.

Terrorism should be handled with not roughly, but brutally. Islamic terrorists, for example, should be burnt wrapped in pork-skin. That was done by Russia, and it brought an end to suicide bombings there. Russia is a fine example of how one should deal with terrorism, of any kind. Sure, they get lots of criticism from the world, but in the end, they're doing the right thing for them. They deal with terrorism using the only way - force, and the more of it, the better.

[DocFrance]

Actually, I think the best way to take care of terrorists is silently and discreetly. If you make a big show of executing them, and make sure that everyone in the world knows of it, you're only going to make them martyrs. Don't even mention that they've been taken out, and make sure that no one knows who they are. That way, no one will know that they died "for a cause."

[eestlinc]

What if the terrorists have a valid argument and they have only turned to violence because nobody would listen to them otherwise? Maybe more effort should be made to find out why human beings would resort to such barbaric practices. More violence is not going to end the cycle.

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

I prefer the methods used by Germany right after 9/11....good police work(hurt al aqeada more than Iraq). Find them and give them their trial. No bragains.

[Dr Unne]

What if the terrorists have a valid argument and they have only turned to violence because nobody would listen to them otherwise? Maybe more effort should be made to find out why human beings would resort to such barbaric practices. More violence is not going to end the cycle. --eestlinc

Or maybe people who resort to such barbaric practices don't deserve to live, let alone to have a public voice.

Terrorists disagree with me about something, and so they threaten to explode a hospital or a bridge and kill innocent people; this is a "cycle"? The "cycle" would be to listen to the opinions of terrorists, thus validating their actions, which would lead to the same actions by other people in the future. Any time any lunatic with no regard for human life wanted to be heard, he'd just have to kill some innocent people, and there you go. That's not how this planet works. The cycle is ended when the bad guys are dead.

[The Man]

A war on terrorism is a pointless war, though, because terrorism has existed since practically the dawn of mankind.

[War Angel]

Actually, I think the best way to take care of terrorists is silently and discreetly. If you make a big show of executing them, and make sure that everyone in the world knows of it, you're only going to make them martyrs. Don't even mention that they've been taken out, and make sure that no one knows who they are. That way, no one will know that they died "for a cause."

A good, fair point. That's probably a good strategy. But, sometimes, it's also good to strike fear.

What if the terrorists have a valid argument and they have only turned to violence because nobody would listen to them otherwise? Maybe more effort should be made to find out why human beings would resort to such barbaric practices. More violence is not going to end the cycle.

You scare me. Very, very much.

A war on terrorism is a pointless war, though, because terrorism has existed since practically the dawn of mankind.

So? You're just going to give up. Let's give up on medicine as well. Bacteris were here LONG before us. Does that sound rational to you? Saying evil has existed since the dawn of mankind doesn't mean fighting it is pointless. It may be difficult and even impossible, but it's a lot better than to be slaughtered like sheep.

[eestlinc]

Look, there has to be a reason people are willing to kill themselves to destroy others. It isn't because they enjoy destruction. In the case of arabs, the huge problems in arab society have created an entire class of men who have no jobs (partly because they feel they are above menial labor) and feel hopeless. Then you have someone like Bin Laden come along who is angry for whatever reason and he can give these hopeless men hope (in the form of dying "honorably" for Islam). If you work to improve arab society then you can cut off terrorism by eliminating the supply of hopeless people willing to sign up. It's very obvious that violence doesn't solve the problem.

[DocFrance]

Originally posted by The Man
A war on terrorism is a pointless war, though, because terrorism has existed since practically the dawn of mankind.

So you're just saying that we should just let terrorists do what they want, killing thousands, perhaps millions of innocent people? Why - because there's no way to completely eliminate terrorism? That may be true, but it is certainly a lot better to have as little terrorism as possible that it is to do nothing at all.

Originally posted by eestlinc
Look, there has to be a reason people are willing to kill themselves to destroy others. It isn't because they enjoy destruction. In the case of arabs, the huge problems in arab society have created an entire class of men who have no jobs (partly because they feel they are above menial labor) and feel hopeless. Then you have someone like Bin Laden come along who is angry for whatever reason and he can give these hopeless men hope (in the form of dying "honorably" for Islam). If you work to improve arab society then you can cut off terrorism by eliminating the supply of hopeless people willing to sign up. It's very obvious that violence doesn't solve the problem.

Yes, improving the society that produces terrorists will help to eliminate the supply of terrorism. At the same time, though, the evil and violent portions of that society - the terrorists - need to be removed, or they will continue to manifest anger and hatred. You can't get a weed out of a garden by watering it.