Would you negotiate with terrorists?

[Godscreated]

---

Then how are you any different from them, first you give them incentive to go and do the same thing to someone else then you would take matters into your own hands and treat them as you were treated. There are reasons for the rule of law. I will admit when I read the scenario my first thought was to take them out but, with some thought I realized that's not the right choice in this situation. The situation as presented leaves one with no control and at a great disadvantage.

GC

---

Bolded mine.  Are you serious?  You're equating grief-stricken loved ones paying a ransom in an attempt to save a life with the kidnappers?

I did not come close to saying that and you know it, if you don't you either didn't read the post or you are fairly illiterate. Let me explain this to you slooooowly so you can grasp what was said. I. stated. that. to. take. the. law. into. one's. own. hand. to. have. revenge. would. bring. one. down. to. the. level. of. the. kidnappers. because. one. would. become. a. criminal. too.
Was that slow enough for you to understand.

GC

---

---

Read my post to "abaris." I didn't say it would be an easy thing to do, it would be heart wrenching. Where is the logic in paying when the result will be that the kidnappers are not going to leave witnesses behind, they've already threatened to kill them if they don't get the money so we would have to assume they would have no problem with killing them if it means they can't be identified. Self preservation is just as important to them as it is to you wanting to save a loved one. The money becomes useless if they can't spend it.

GC

---

My question to you is, based on what you literally just said, you think those paying a ransom aren't any different from the kidnappers?  You really believe that?  This isn't a question about how hard the decision would be, this is a question about how you view the people involved.

I answered this in the slow motion statement above.

GC

---

---

Then how are you any different from them, first you give them incentive to go and do the same thing to someone else then you would take matters into your own hands and treat them as you were treated. There are reasons for the rule of law. I will admit when I read the scenario my first thought was to take them out but, with some thought I realized that's not the right choice in this situation. The situation as presented leaves one with no control and at a great disadvantage.

GC

---

Because I'm not going after them fucking unprovoked.

Of course I'm going to pay to save one of my loved ones--but they better fucking hope I don't find out who they are because if they do, I'm going to destroy everything they hold dear.  What makes me different is that I'm not going after them for money.  I'm going after them because they did something to me--so they deserve whatever they fucking get.  I'm a vengeful motherfucker.  Deal with it.

If the rule of law means no more to you than it does to the kidnappers then how are you different from them in the terms of law, it doesn't. I'm not the one who will have to deal with it, it's the young child you have left behind while you sit in prison. The child will have to deal with it's peers say your parent is a jailbird. Now what did you really accomplish with your revenge. I'm just looking at this from a stand point of the law when it comes to revenge and the consequences that come with breaking the law to the degree of vengeance.
The chances of you getting a child back is small and to pay is rewarding criminal behavior, so the most likely thing to happen, you lose the child and reward the criminal. Don't think that's true, Obama paid Iran extortion money and Iran turned around within days and took more captives, how do you think that made the families of the new captives feel about Obama? His actions caused more misery because more have been taken than the number released.

GC