Give in to terrorist's demand, or sacrifice citizens?
August 27, 2009 5:33pm CST
This is a question I have been asking now for almost 10 years. There was the Kandahar incident. To save people on hijacked plane the Indian government shelled down an amount that was really jaw dropping. The same amount was deployed by the terrorists to kill 10 times the people that were there on the flight. So did it amount to really saving citizens? Would killing the bait be the option u would have taken?
29 Aug 09
Hi vandana, there's another question inside this question. The people in authority who have the power to make this judgement call in furture instances would I believe be willing now to sacrifice the life of the little people (in their eyse) on the plane. However if one of their own was on the plane I would expect that negotiatios would begin very quickly. I think a double standard would be most defintely be implemented.
29 Aug 09
That is true thea. :-) As things stand - it is history. So i was asking people to reflect - should Indian government have forgotten its citizens on that plane, instead of releasing funds that were used to finance killing of more people in India and abroad. Yes or No. So far nobody is answering. :(
28 Aug 09
No, I would not give in to any terrorist demand..it is a sign of weaknesses to bow on their demands. Once, you give in to their demands..You think they will no repeat the same things hurting many people? My replies is a big, big..NO!! If it need to sacrifices life just to stop their cruelty to human kind. Then, I am approving, but if the terrorist insist and never seem to afraid of any negotiation or never like any compromises. I will still continues to fight with them to fear the government troops instead of approving their demand..This is the way to show to the citizens of any country that a strong government is the dominant authority and never ever bow to the demand of terrorist. Giving in to their demands only encourages their mad activities to continue and it is a means of tolerating..
28 Aug 09
Let me get this straight, u would have let the people on flight die in the hands of the terrorists rather than pay or u would have paid and let the terrorist plant bombs in many places killing 10 times the number of people that were on the plane. Lives of people on plane, or lives of people outside?
1 person likes this
27 Aug 09
This is a very difficult question to answer and takes a good leader to make things go well. Some times it will be better to give in to terrorist's demand than to let other die. But imagine 9/11 attacks, in my opinion it would be better to take down the planes than them hit their targets and kill much more people than it would kill if the target had been eliminated. This is why this is a difficult question to answer because it depends in which situation you are, and most of the time it will be difficult to understand in which situation you are when dealing with terrorists.
27 Aug 09
Hey, that is the reason I asked? I do think the funds were routed to finance 9/11. That is why I am asking. I of course dont have in depth knowledge of how the funds moved. But financing terrorists outfits or yielding to their demands is not the right way to go about it I think. But u tell me, if u were the head of a country like India, and suppose another plane was hijacked, and u know it could be anything like 9/11 that is going to be financed with extorted sums, what would u do? Let the citizens on plane die, or allow more citizens to be killed?