Terrorism Discussion

We can often hear people telling never to discuss terms with gunmen. Their logic is obvious: it is awful to make deals with killers because it can cause considerable harm. In each case, those criminals receive what they want; moreover, they get additional opportunities to perform new acts of terrorism. For example, after obtaining a few million dollars, they can buy more explosives and bullets to kill more civilians. For the majority of people, it is clear and very simple, but they do not take into account many variables that can appear in each situation and they share it in Affiliate Program

If someone strategically important is in danger, it can be silly to avoid negotiations because the harm of losing that individual will be even worse than paying some money. For instance, terrorists can capture a general who has the access to specific strategic information. If they are successful to possess that data, criminals can put in danger millions of lives, which is not worth it in my opinion. Under such circumstances, it is better to think not as a politician and coin loud slogans, but to make strategic decisions to ensure peace for majorities.

Someone can tell that discussing a settlement is the only way to solve all the problems, but in the context of terrorism, it is not the right way. If someone captures a delivery boy, then requests money and guns, it is not the case to consider for negotiations. It can sound a bit cruel, but putting the life of one ordinary person and security of cities and even countries on the same weights is impossible. Sometimes we must make the sacrifice in order to keep everything in balance. The cost for not paying a terrorist can be one life only, but it will save thousands of unarmed people.

In my opinion, there must be a certain equilibrium in the decision-making in all the troublesome situations. For sure, reliable and mentally stable individuals must pass those resolutions. We cannot let impulsive politicians determine whom to save. In order to keep humanity in safety, we should know when to be aggressive towards terrorists and when is the right time to hold talks with them. Only the cold reason will lead people to the right decision.

Personally, I am not against negotiations. They can save more lives than the army with guns, but reaching a compromise is possible only in those situations where there is a real probability to protect people without losing them. In another case, the best way to interact with the killers is to eliminate them. There can be victims, but if there is a chance to guard the entire world from, at least, one outlaw organization, even at the price of a few lives, it may be worth it.

In conclusion, the main point is that no ultimate answer exists, and there will never be. Each conflict is unique and complex. It must be analyzed from different perspectives and evaluated in terms of threats. Only in this case, the right decision will be taken. Still, many people may tell that everything must be done in a different way, but there is no way to satisfy everyone’s needs. The resolution needs to be passed quickly and yet wisely. Thus, that is the only right way, which I can see.


{{ reactie.poster_name }}


Laat een reactie achter!

De volgende fout is opgetreden
  • {{ error }}
{{ reactieForm.errorMessage }}
Je reactie is opgeslagen!