How does the "no negotiating with terrorists" rule apply?

It's difficult to phrase exactly what I'm trying to ask without providing an example so here goes:

Say a bus full of school children are taken hostage by a group of extremists who demand a celebrity (or any popular figure for that manner, could even be the president) to harm themselves/pay a ransom/or even humiliate themselves publicly. Is that person forced to abide by their demands?

In my opinion, it shouldn't be the case because that would make anyone vulnerable at any time. Anyone could kidnap a child/person and demand anything out of anyone on any given day.

But I am not the general public, and that's just my opinion so how would this work in real life?

Also this question was inspired by the first episode of Black Mirror; the one where the prime minister is forced into having intercourse with a pig to save the Princess of England.


5 Answers

  • ?
    Lv 6
    2 years ago

    Every time I've heard this phrase, someone is bullshitting.

    In the 1980's it was a popular mantra from UK governments with regards to the IRA, but they

    happily sold arms to their favoured terrorists around the world, including the UDA and UVF who were at least as bad as the IRA.

    What it means is that if someone threatens to bomb a city unless the government agrees to their demands, the government ignores their demands.

    However if the public keeps getting bombed, they may well grow tired and demand that the government do something to make peace, which usually means giving into at least some of the terrorist's demands. Pablo Escobar's bombing campaigns made the public reluctant to support measures to bring him to justice,

    In the case of the IRA, negotiations were held with Sinn Fein, who were ostensibly a political party, although clearly linked to the provisional IRA. Negotiations with Sinn Fein took place when the IRA had declared that they had put their weapons "beyond use" (which did not mean handing them in). Some renegade factions of the IRA such as the "Real IRA" continued to commit acts of violence, although it was claimed that this was not authorised by the provisional IRA or Sinn Fein. The IRA continued to commit occasional murders, and offer their services as advisors to other terrorist groups such as FARC, but large scale bombing campaigns ceased.

    The result of negotiations was eventually peace, but the idea of "no negotiating with terrorists" was fudged to allow negotiations with "ex terrorists" and people linked to terrorists.

    Personally, I think the negotiations which led to peace in Northern Ireland were handled well under the circumstances. It was realpolitik.

  • 2 years ago

    On a case by case basis. Essentially neither side must not be seen to win anything other than not being terminated.

  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    The onus is always on the crimes being committed by the terrorists/hostage takers.

  • ?
    Lv 6
    2 years ago

    It is selective. In Canada, Trudeau stated that they don't negotiate with Terrorists when 3 canadian white men begged for their lives and the Canadian government to save them. The result was the beheading of the 3 men. Yet, a year or so later, Trudeau gives 10 million to a convicted terrorist. Allows over 150 Isis fighters to return to Canada without any charges being laid and throws millions to "rehabilitate" them. And fast forward to this year, where it was found out that Trudeau was secretly funding Hamas (A terrorist organization) and trying to bring Jihadi Jack to Canada who isn't even a Canadian Citizen.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    Unfortunately you can't pay ransoms, or everyone would get kidnapped. You try to break them out, sometimes you can't and hard luck. I agree with your opinion, some things you just can't do no matter how much it seems to make sense because you'd open a can of worms.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.