What if the "no negotiation with terrorists" policy does not work?
If accepting a negotiation can save the lives of hundreds or thousands or millions, or the world, even temporarily until we stop them, it may be sometimes the wisest thing to do.
You seem to be really upset about something, seemingly that I've hit a nerve with you, and that you have to come raging onto my Yahoo question with an insecure vengeance to prove something. Using derogatory terms in your sentences is a very immature thing to do.
If an individual or a group commits to a cause and does not care whether they live or die, then they we have a psychotic problem to deal with. To ignore this problem by putting a mental wall up on the world - by deciding for the world or a country that we will not deal with it makes it a bigger problem. The problem does not go away if we ignore it - the end result? The world goes boom. But if we deal with it at the moment and succumb to the demands of a terrorist, we are playing strategic, we are offering them a cosolidation, a temporary one, to buy us time to stop them.
Are you really sure you want to blow us up without thought?
On a further thought, think of it this way. We are playing a game of chess, the members on our battlefield represent our country or out world, the opposition (the black pieces) represent the problem, or the terrorists or whatever you wish to know as an enemy. If the goal is to live, or to win, or to merely stay alive, we must do so with wit and strategy. If the black piece moves his knight and does so with the intent that his next move, whatever it may be will definitely checkmate your King, you need to now think wisely. To kill that knight now or to allow it to kill your King - in result? The game ends, and in this analogy - life ends, they win.
Hi new posters,
The question is "What if the "no negotiation with terrorists" policy does not work?", more precisely, will the "no negotiation" with terrorists policy always work? The question means if we can always say "No" to terrorist negotiations, and I have submitted an example of one worst case scenario where a terrorist has the ability to detonate and cause significant damage to the human population, e.g. the deaths of millions of people, so the question is, do we still say "No"?