LogFAQs > #935150672

adjl posted...

Negotiating with terrorists means offering them things to prevent them from terrorizing. Sitting down and talking with a terrorist to settle ideological differences isn't negotiation, it's conversation.

That, and as nice as "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is as a slogan, it's really quite silly to take such an absolute approach to anything. Generally, it's a bad idea because you're trading short-term safety for long-term harm (since giving them what they want tends to result in them using the same tactics again when they want something new), but sometimes it can actually be best for long-term safety. Ruling it out absolutely for the sake of patriotic posturing isn't the most intelligent idea.

I don't disagree with you. But, as Trump learned (the hard way) back in 2019, you can't always give people who have sworn to unravel western civilization the benefit of the doubt. THANKFULLY, the Taliban showed their true colors the day before their scheduled Camp David visit (which caused Trump to cancel the meeting, as explained in the article I linked earlier).

Trust is a difficult thing to earn (like Kim Jong-un trying to be "diplomatic" with Trump, after so many years of vicious threats). But, at least Kim Jong-un has an actual country where his livelihood is at stake. Diplomacy can still work, even for selfish reasons. But when hatred has been fostered WITHOUT anything to lose (e.g. suicidal terrorists focused on twisted ideology, not just self-preservation) diplomacy tends to fail.

I guess that's the dividing line (the personal motivations of the other party you're negotiating with). You can extend olive branch after olive branch in the name of "diplomacy," but until there is some reciprocated integrity (which, let's face it, is extremely rare from indoctrinated martyrs), your diplomatic efforts aren't merely in vain, they are an immense risk to your own people's safety (which, again, Trump learned the hard way).

---

Money is overrated...