Open question about negotiating with terrorists.

Submitted by Adam (United States), Jul 12, 2005 at 18:24

This may be a really dumb question but the line about Paris standing firm made me wonder something. What would happen if governments agreed to (in this case) reverse the ban or agree to withdraw from Iraq and then renege on that decision. When the "ransom" can be instantly withdrawn after the deal why shouldn't a govenrment stick it to a terrorist group and go back on their promise after they recover the abductees. They know there will be more kidnappings regardless. I have a gut feeling this would be a bad idea but I can't decide why. Any thoughts would help. Thanks

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".