Dealing with terrorist

Contributors offers insight into the non-physical side of the Martial Arts, often ignored when discussing self-defense.

Moderator: gmattson

Dealing with terrorist

Postby gmattson » Thu Dec 30, 1999 12:57 pm

At breakfast this morning I read about the ongoing attempt of the Indian government to deal with a militant hijacking of an airplane.

Now I realize that 160 hostages are involved, but I'm wondering if a successful conclusion to this situation, involving any kind of compromise on the part of the government, will encourage other highjackings.

The government appears to be brokering a breakthrough in negotiations by agreeing to some of the highjacker's demands.

Any thoughts on this?

------------------
GEM
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Mount Dora, Florida

Dealing with terrorist

Postby mugaku » Thu Dec 30, 1999 1:32 pm

Unless the government wants the forum of terror to become the rule of law, I don't think they can acquiesce to the terrorist demands.

They can, however, offer a venue of justice that allows the legitimate concerns of the people to be heard and acted upon. Indeed, this must be done or terror will reign with horror at its side.

In this way, the government may bow to the higher authority of truth and justice WITH the terrorists and all creation, and much suffering will be avoided.
mugaku
 

Dealing with terrorist

Postby gmattson » Thu Jan 06, 2000 2:06 pm

Noticed today (1/6/2000) in the newspaper, that one of the terrorist released by the Indian Government as a result of a negotiated settlement with the hijackers, was leading a big demonstration, calling for the destruction of the United States and India!

You don't negotiate with terrorist!

------------------
GEM
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Mount Dora, Florida

Dealing with terrorist

Postby Lori » Fri Jan 07, 2000 12:26 am

Just wondering if certain acts of rebellion couldn't be construed as terrorism - or does the term "terrorism" strictly refer to the taking of hostages? Even so, history shows some instances of "rebellion" that, if looked at from a different perspective or if they would have had a different outcome, could have been referred to as terrorism by some definitions.

What really determines a "just" government? Protection of personal freedom is a given, but this right is abused even on some so-called democratic societies. So what is to be the recourse for objections to unfair government practices if there is no system that makes government criticism approacable? We are allowed to be critical here without fear of disappearing in the night - and we can elect our officials (for the most part anyway - for those who care enough to vote - yes JD - even the women!) but some countries have a much less approacable system.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating terrorism - and hostage taking is an act of cowardice - I'm just raising the philosophical question as to the boundaries between rebellion and terrorism.

Peace,
Lori
Lori
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am

Dealing with terrorist

Postby paul giella » Sat Jan 08, 2000 1:21 am

there are specialists in the various police departments who deal with terrorists. It is not so simple a manner as to say "deal with terrorists" or "don't deal with terrorists"... it is a complex and delicate issue that often involves hours or days of careful work. The basic goal of these specialists is to humanize the hostages or potential victims, attempt to maintain some basic connection or alliance with the terrorists while trying to figure out what the best response will be. In some (rare) cases the best response will actually be to meet some of the demands. In most cases it won't be... but it is no simple matter to decide because the stakes are so high.
paul giella
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 1998 6:01 am

Dealing with terrorist

Postby gmattson » Sat Jan 08, 2000 3:56 am

Makes sense Paul. However, wasn't there some kind of agreement among most nations not to make bargains with terrorist?

I would sense that 1. giving in to demands and 2. allowing the terrorist to escape, sends the wrong kind of message to future hijackers/terrorists.

Seems that this is the first one where the negotiators gave in on both 1 & 2 items.

Since the 'get tough' rule went into affect years ago, there has been relatively few hijackings. The knowledge that there was no upside took away most of the incentives for this particular brand of terrorism.

I found it interesting that the terrorist released as part of the deal, is allowed to campaign for the destruction of the US and India.

------------------
GEM
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Mount Dora, Florida


Return to Mind-Body-Spirit Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron