So let's recap:

The question is: Should we negotiate with terrorists?

The answer is maybe, depends on the situation.

Islam is not a violent religion, but it does reserve the right to defend itself from the world's one and only terrorist nation, US_Israel.

Therefore, the message to the world's one and only terrorist nation, US_Israel:

Stop your Holy War on Islam.

Vacate the occupied Muslim holy land in Palestine and Iraq.

Vacate the 5 Million jews from Palestine and bring them to Texas.

Don’t worry so much, you will love Texas. We will partition it so that your half is contiguous, while the other half is divided into separated quarters.

You will have the prime real estate including the Dallas-Fort Worth and Crawford areas.

You will have control of the fresh water supply.

You can keep your Army, Navy, Air Force and nuclear weapons. We will back you up with the full power of the world’s last remaining super power.

We will immediately stop all federal aid to the native population, while continuing your $3 B annual aid.

Feel free to launch all the settlements that you wish in the native half’s real estate.

Assassinate the opposition leadership to create chaos on the other side.

See, it will just be a Grand Old Party.

I’m sure that you will get along famously with our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite in the White House.

Dear Miklos Vamos [my ex-compatriot]
Everybody seems to forget that the Moslem religion is expansionist. They want world domination. They want to achieve this goal any way they can. It is true historically as we [Europeans] know so well. According to their belief killing Christians is serving Allah.
How to counteract them? I am afraid the elimination of the superradical section is the only solution. I think the American Military is being restrained by policy makers to do the job effectively. I believe the West is waging a defensive war, which is a mistake.
I am glad that I had a chance to read your thoughts.
Best wishes, Laszlo

Paul:

I am baffled by your world view. For example, the 'Dutch' were not evicted from South Africa -- their descendents, the Boers still live there, and they dominate the economy the way the Jews used to dominate the Arab economies until the Arabs drove them from their homes.

Paul of Kaula Lumpur said:

"If we're really serious about fixing the middle east, start with Israel. Restore Palestine, pay reparations to those evicted from their homes, and stop funding the Saudis and for God's sake, abolish the World Bank or at least inject some oversight. Finally, and most important, grant freedom of religion and abolish sharia courts."

American Observer replies:

Even if we wanted to 'restore Palestine' -- and I don't -- the problem is that the Israelis would never go along with it. If we tried to 'restore Palestine', then the Israelis who were being evicted might well object, and they would be in a good position to explain their point of view with their six hundred nuclear bombs. And we don't fund the Saudis; the Saudis are rich with oil money, and they fund us -- as they did during Desert Storm. As for abolishing Sharia courts and granting freedom of religion, that is exactly what we are trying to do in Iraq, and you can see how much trouble we are having. None of your suggestions have even the most remote chance of taking place.

You are intelligent enough to know all of that, so I am trying to understand your point of view. Are you merely saying that the Arabs are so stupid and vicious that negotiation with the Arabs can never be more than a waste of time? If that is what you are saying, it has been said before. If you are saying something else, you might drop the mask of sarcasm and give it to us in a clearer form.

Neville Chamberlain anyone? Game theory holds that equilibrium will exist only if all parties cheat or if all parties play by the rules. Negotiation is the logical choice for rational, trustworthy parties but pursuing negotiation with those unlikely to honor such agreements leads one down a naive and misguided utopian path.

I've learned after having spent most of the past 7 years in an Islamic country that the Muslim world is in the midst of a dramatic reformation; Koran vs. Haddith and clergy vs politicians and people. However, this reformation is not being acknowledged and instead compartmentalized as "moderate" or "fundamentalist" Islam.

I've also learned that without exception, no Muslim will every forgive the West for partitioning the middle east and evicting nearly 1 million Palestinians from their homes. This is 100% non-negotiable. Forget the NYT and Wash Post propaganda; "they" don't hate us because of our freedoms and lifestyle. They hate us because of Israel!

Negotiate? They want Israel abolished and Palestine restored. Acceptable? Why not? The Dutch were evicted from South Africa so why not the fictional state of Israel. Once one steps outside of the "why do they hate us" rhetoric and understands what "they"really want the idea of negotiation sounds less appealing.

The Federated Malay States tried negotiating with Japan as did China. The Brits tried a little chat with Hitler as well. Memory's a little foggy - how did that end up? With all due respect, there is a time to negotiate and a time for war. I'll never forget what a dear Iraqi friend of 15 years said to me recently, "It took you 20 years to rid us of a madman and now you're going to leave because you might lose an election back home?"

My friend is right but we turned our backs on Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan and many more so why not abandon Iraq. Let's let the UN negotiate the hell our of Darfur, that'll fix it. Besides, the Democrats have too much to gain to risk a success in Iraq.

If we're really serious about fixing the middle east, start with Israel. Restore Palestine, pay reparations to those evicted from their homes, and stop funding the Saudis and for God's sake, abolish the World Bank or at least inject some oversight. Finally, and most important, grant freedom of religion and abolish sharia courts. Really pretty simple - how's that for negotiation?

Almost forgot - send money to Iraq? You're serious. You mean like the money we send to Africa? I think you mean send money to the Saudis and a few dozen tribal chiefs with accounts in the Caymans. Or maybe let the World Bank and a bunch of NGOs "manage" or "administer" the aid and maybe if we're lucky deliver about 10 cents of every dollar to those who need it. Remember, gotta deduct for first class air travel, new Range Rovers, extended stays at the Four Seasons when compiling those country reports, and can't forget the "free" concerts where we cover all the entourage costs for Madonna and Bono.

Mr OBrian, your thinking is a classic example of naivete and ignorance of the law of unintended consequences. Sure, in general negotiation is a good thing. It's perfectly reasonable to allow the representatives of terrorist organizations to voice their viewpoints. It's even reasonable to discuss those views with the political arms of those groups (think Sinn Fein and the IRA). What is not reasonable, however, and must NEVER be engaged in by the representatives of nations of good character is negotiation for the return of hostages. This is for at least two reasons that should be obvious. First, the one that's been beaten to death on this forum - paying for the safe return of hostages guarantees more hostages being taken. It's simply good business sense on the part of the hostage-takers. Second, every penny that you pay to hostage-takers improves both their standing in parts of the world opposed to the US, and provides significant amounts of funding to expand their operations.

Foolish extremists on the far left of American politics, and naive idealists always believe that reasonable people can come to a mutually-beneficial accommodation. Unfortunately, terrorists, kidnappers, and extortionists make a living (and sometimes a very good one) by victimizing other people. From their perspective, no accommodation is reasonable which does not result in them receiving money for victimizing others. If you want hostage-taking to stop, you have to stop making it profitable. For the third time (by my count) on this topic: "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute." If you pay the dane-geld once, you are guaranteed to have to pay it again and again, and to more and more Danes.

Stop welfare for terrorists. Don't negotiate with hostage-takers.

Mr OBrian, your thinking is a classic example of naivete and ignorance of the law of unintended consequences. Sure, in general negotiation is a good thing. It's perfectly reasonable to allow the representatives of terrorist organizations to voice their viewpoints. It's even reasonable to discuss those views with the political arms of those groups (think Sinn Fein and the IRA). What is not reasonable, however, and must NEVER be engaged in by the representatives of nations of good character is negotiation for the return of hostages. This is for at least two reasons that should be obvious. First, the one that's been beaten to death on this forum - paying for the safe return of hostages guarantees more hostages being taken. It's simply good business sense on the part of the hostage-takers. Second, every penny that you pay to hostage-takers improves both their standing in parts of the world opposed to the US, and provides significant amounts of funding to expand their operations.

Foolish extremists on the far left of American politics, and naive idealists always believe that reasonable people can come to a mutually-beneficial accommodation. Unfortunately, terrorists, kidnappers, and extortionists make a living (and sometimes a very good one) by victimizing other people. From their perspective, no accommodation is reasonable which does not result in them receiving money for victimizing others. If you want hostage-taking to stop, you have to stop making it profitable. For the third time (by my count) on this topic: "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute." If you pay the dane-geld once, you are guaranteed to have to pay it again and again, and to more and more Danes.

Stop welfare for terrorists. Don't negotiate with hostage-takers.

Vamos is absolutely right. I couldn't agree more.

Those who refuse to "talk" with terrorists become unfortunately complicit in terrorism, for they leave terrorists no recourse but to resort to violent means to be heard. Talking can lead to legitimate concerns being constructively addressed, and misconceptions and misjudgments being reduced.

In the upcoming US elections of new leaders, it is imperative that we elect a president and administration that will not be "afraid" to talk with representatives of terrorist groups.

s President Jefferson put it: "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.

When the goal of the enemy is complete domination, is complete destruction of the West, is a worldwide caliphate; when the methods of the enemy include horrific acts of torture, murder, and destruction; when their enemy is anyone who doesn't believe exactly the same way their cult believes - what is there to negotiate?

To follow Mr. Vamos' position to its logical conclusion, we will be bowing to Mecca five times a day or we will be dead.

As President Jefferson put it: "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.

When the goal of the enemy is complete domination, is complete destruction of the West, is a worldwide caliphate; when the methods of the enemy include horrific acts of torture, murder, and destruction; when their enemy is anyone who doesn't believe exactly the same way their cult believes - what is there to negotiate?

To follow Mr. Vamos' position to its logical conclusion, we will be bowing to Mecca five times a day or we will be dead.

I strongly disagree. The mentality of terrorists is such that negotiation is viewed as weakness. Giving in to terrorist demands makes them think that a country is weak and can be bullied by further terrorist acks. Take the South Korean situation, the goverment gave in to the demands and so taught the terrorists responsible for this act that it is OK to restrict religious freedom by resorting to acts of terror.

The only language that terrorists understand is the language of violence. Talking to mad dogs will get you nowhere.

No Way, they Missionaries were there against SK policies, and they betrayed the whole world by paying a ransome to the worst of the worst. As a Result I know where we can get more troops for Iraq, With draw every single US troop, tank, plane etc from the Korean Pen, and move them to Iraq. With 35K heavily armored troops, the surge might have a 20% chance of working to some degree.

@ Dumbstruck

Perhaps the argument about killing and torturing victims is not best advised right now. The US is currently fighting a war that has left an atrocious number of civilian casualties, and it now appears that our government, under the two worst attorneys general since Ed Meese, has been torturing not only captives taken in war zones, but also those abducted in sovereign democracies around the world. Not our finest hour, to be sure. But your core point is correct. Be sure, we will see this money again - it will come back to us in RPGs and Kalashnikov rifles and 7.62 mm bullets. And when it does, we should send a bill to the South Koreans for every penny of the shameful blood money they paid to buy back the lives of the foolish and morally-retarded missionaries they allowed to wander into a war zone.

Thank you, Neville Chamberlain. That worked really well with Hitler too. The only thing sociopaths like them understand is a sharp stick in their face. The concept of negotiation, and ransom, as better ways of solving dangerous situations over any kind of violence is frought with peril. It only foments harsher demands by the blackmailers who are now emoldened with a weak response and places us all in greater jeopardy. History has repeatedly born this out.

It is a naive assumption to believe that if something looks and acts human it is. Anybody willing to kill and torture vicims to achieve their aim belies it. They are wolves in sheep's clothing and should be treated like any other dangerous animal: kill them before they kill us.

First what is there to gain? Israel has long been intolerant but not nearly so unyielding as they were during the plane hijackings in the 70s. I have always believed that had the US done more about PLO, Libya, Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian, Italian hijackings we wouldn't have the problems we have today. It works, it's easy and the West actually values lives. As for the most recent return of captives, everyone should be happy. I believe after the fatal outcome for the two men at the hands of terrorists money changed hands. And money is what they want. The theory was tested and the terrorists won. What is the dilemmna? Eventually you are too afraid to go out because you have already given the enemy the right by force to kill you. That is the reason they kidnap. So when do you fight? The Israelis have fallen on hard times for the last decade. They have refused to use the military might they have. They continue to provide electricity for Hamas in the Gaza. They have built apartments for PLO/PA terrorists for years. And fully the West has drawn the line on the Arabs side by declaring that terrorists are entitled to the freedom to kill us. We have lost the moral perpitude to claim our own lives. So I believe it is a better world knowing what we face now to clear the air and prevent hostage crises, homicide bombings and a potential nuclear war by devasting the lands of Iran and Syria.

The most noble thing that the United States has to offer Mankind is the second paragraph of the July 4, 1776 Action of the Second Continental Congress. In the U.S., no Power that contravenes the Principles underpinning the Declaration of Independence, i.e., the Great American Promise, has Lawful Authority. (Lawful and legal are not synonyms. There is an ethical element in "lawful" that is absent in "legal".)

Tinsley Grey Sammons
bastiatlaw@aol.com

To quote two wise men:
"Millions for defense; not one cent for tribute"

and

"Once you have paid out the dane-geld, you never get rid of the dane."

Perhaps the writer Mr. Vamos should read a bit of world history and the literature it spawned, instead of writing such naive drivel.

So, you can't see how paying a ransom would encourage the problem? When someone takes a human being and holds their life forfeit they have gone beyond the point of negotiation.

In all honesty most of these terrorists are nothing more than thugs and petty criminals. Opening a line of dialog is about as useful as throwing out all moral and societal law.

Personally, I am in favor of non-violence whenever possible. However, I think it only takes a bit of insight to realize that when you give the bully your lunch money you can expect to see them again. Sadly their is really no authority figure that can step in and talk to the terrorists parents. The stakes are life and death, because the terrorists made them life and death. The focus of blame rests solely with them. Not any country that gets caught in their web.

Now, as for you mild jab that other countries have to kowtow to US pressure not to negotiate you have again stumbled blindly past any relevant point. Most countries that are put into the situation of dealing with terrorists have outspoken policies against negotiating with terrorists (as this is a sensible stance.) So the US is guilty of asking countries to put their money where their mouths are. OK, sorry, well, since you are ok with public deception their is no point in arguing this with you.

Lastly, I'm not now, or would I say that first world countries are not in many ways responsible for some of these issues around the world. ANd I would gladly agree that every / more effort should be made to change the conditions in countries that allows this cancer to be fostered. Of course this is all before a violent act has been undertaken. At that point it is every countries right and expectation to take the steps necessary to defend itself. The worlds "richest country?" would break itself upon the rocks of nationalism, deceit, manipulation and entrenched ethnic mistrust if it were to spend all of it's resources attempting to soothe the unquenchable thirst for destruction that these terrorists represent. Much of the seeds for todays violence were sowed long before the US was a nation... What of wealthy European countries that sit back and condescend us while taking laughably self righteous positions on human rights and interference while acknowledging little or no moral responsibility for the havoc that they have created. Their corporations continue to profit in these countries while watching the residents lives decompose.. What of these wealthy nations?

Is the US guilty of many things large and small? certainly? and it can't be easily mitigated, but perhaps the biggest thing we are guilty of is wanting to change a status quo that sentences countless to the cruel lives deprived of freedoms. We are the brash youngster who willfully cut their ties to the 'superior societies' in an attempt to find something new and more worthy of the efforts of mankind. We are guilty of hypocrisies and many things worse, but at least we attempt to change things... You can continue to blame us for not doing everything right (to your way of thinking). I'm proud to support you in that. The sad and impossible truth is we may have to suffer for our beliefs for our actions and our inactions but that would never mean that we are wrong. I don't think that a rational society can ever bend it's knee to those who want nothing more than to burn the pillars of belief that we hold dearest.

A wise man once said, "You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never negotiate in good faith. A tyrant is a terrorist who got what he wanted."

You'd think after the horrors of World War II, people would have figured that out by now.

Engaging dialogue with terrorist groups to try to bring them into the political process is a good thing, and should be done, however, paying money for hostages is not. It creates incentives for it to happen again, and finances the groups to have their actions continue.

Engaging dialogue with terrorist groups to try to bring them into the political process is a good thing, and should be done, however, paying money for hostages is not. It creates incentives for it to happen again, and finances the groups to have their actions continue.

The various bad actors (anti-govt forces)in Afganistan are taking ransoms to support their bad behavior. If the outside world continues to pay ransoms, there are 2 reasons why kidnapping will continue: 1) It proves very profitable. 2) It gives money to bad actors that helps them do more bad acts.

Ask yourself what will be done with the money that the South Korean govt gave to get the hostages released? Will they use it to provide food and clean drinking water to widows and orphans? Obviously not. They will use it to buy more guns, hire more gunmen and commit more bad acts.

Where will it stop? Well first, well-meaning but clueless missionaries ought to stay out. That is just stupid. The people that allowed them & encouraged them to go (both the South Korean government officials & the church officials) ought to have been exchanged for the hostages.

Second, the people of Afganistan need to be provided basic infastructure that most of the world takes for granted. Roads, running water, sewage systems, electricity, telephone service, free (non-radicalized), public education.

Once people see that the westerners have a plan to make their world better, they will be less likely to support the folks that want to stop the westerners.

It is all about improving lives and giving people hope.

I like this negotiating tactic: If you attack any American interest or the interest of our friends we will blow up one of your beloved mosques. It will cease to exist. Test me.

How can this approach work in the world that we live in?

"The results of negotiating—saving hostages’ lives, for one—are more important than the fact that there was some contradiction between statement and action."

What are the implications of negotiating or not negotiating?

Negotiate: Potential for hostages to be returned alive. Probably a greater chance than non-negotiating.

Non-Negotiate: Potential for never having the hostages returned alive or dead.

Of course something must be given in exchange for the negotiation. Do we supply terrorist with additional resources (weapons, money, people, etc...) that will potentially harm future citizens? In an ideal world, the terrorist would be satisfied with the exchange. Unfortunately we're talking with radically different beliefs that often are at conflict with our own beliefs. In many cases these beliefs do not tolerate each other and we have conflict. Terrorism is not a modern concept and will not be solved unless both sides are willing to accept the rights of others.

You are correct though that the current military options are not the solution but what do you propose? Giving cash incentives will not work as it isn't the reason for the conflict. The belief differences are the issue and if terrorist are willing to die for their beliefs, how to you change them? Maybe the solution is to give into their belief system to stop the violence, but I imagine that you'll find people capable of terror in countries typically not associated with terrorism.

Jim