Amazon.com Widgets

Negotiating with terrorist groups: Should governments negotiate with terrorists?

  • Governments should negotiate with terrorists

    Any government’s primary responsibility is to save lives. History has shown that military solutions have little chance of succeeding: it is almost impossible to defeat an organisation composed of individual people with guns and bombs without unbearable restrictions on the freedom of the innocent. In the case of prolonged internal campaigns of terrorism, the promise of negotiations can be used as a bargaining tool to end violence, and will almost always lead to a ceasefire. This has been seen in almost every case where terrorist groups have been brought to the negotiating table. In the case of more isolated incidents, such as hostage-taking, it is worth making concessions in order to save the lives of civilians who the government has no right to sacrifice on a stubborn point of morality

  • Governments should not negotiate with terrorists.

    No, governments should not negotiate with terrorists. They should not have to negotiate with terrorists. I think they should arrest them and bring them to justice if possible. Negotiating with them does not lead to anything positive. When a government tries to negotiate and settle with terrorists it sends the wrong message to criminals.

  • Don't Negotiate With Terrorists

    Negotiating with terrorists does not lead to any positive outcome. If anything, negotiating with terrorists causes more people to think terrorist activity can be a successful or lucrative enterprise. This only causes more people to commit terrorist acts in the future. We should not establish incentives for such behavior to continue or increase.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.