No, you actually got the point....

The argument against negotiating with terrorists is simple: Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it.

Yet the simple truth is, although many governments say that they will not negotiate with terrorists, in practice they often do.

In 1988, the Spanish government sat down with the separatist group Basque Homeland and Freedom (known by its Basque acronym ETA) only six months after the group had killed 21 shoppers in a supermarket bombing.

The British government maintained a secret back channel to the Irish Republican Army even after the IRA had launched a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street that nearly eliminated the entire British cabinet in 1991. 

In 1993, even the government of Israel strayed from the supposed ban by secretly negotiating the Oslo accords even though the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) continued its terrorist campaign and refused to recognize Israel's right to exist.

When it comes to negotiating with terrorists, there is a clear disconnect between what governments profess and what they actually do. 

You are quite right about identifying terrorists....have you ever heard the expression, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" ?

There was a group of conservative, far right extremists who wrote a declaration of their beliefs, they staged protests, they recruited others in their comunities and when the ruling military came to call, they fought back...and they fought back hard....not always in traditional military ways...they were far to outnumbered and outgunned for that...

Did you ever stop to think, by today's definition....the founding father's of the United States were terrorists?

There are many groups labeled as terrorists that I cannot, with good conscience, call terrorists. Some are black, white, yellow, red....differing nationalities, different religious beliefs, different EVERYTHING....but they share one common thread....they want to live in their homes, in their communities, in their lands, practice their religion and feel safe to walk down the street with their children....and they can't do that...whether it be due to an occupying military force, or a occupying dictatorship, or a drug cartel or a literally oppressive government.

Different perceptions and world views abound throughout our history. If we learned anything in Korea, in Vietnam, it is that peace and justice cannot be achieved in a battle, unless the the parties involved are totally committed to TOTALLY annihilating the opposing side...that may be peace, but I am not sure it qualifies as justice and there will always be another party who wants to butt in and deal with the "naughty boys" who are "winning" through this means...Oh wait...that nosy nose is usually the US and when we are the bad boys...it's the United Nations... But despite our “toughness” neither peace nor justice were achieved in Korea, Vietnam, nor has it been been achieved in the Persian Gulf. Because we need to obtain and preserve both peace and justice, we owe it to ourselves and to everyone else to do the hard work of negotiation whenever we possibly can.

Negotiation is not an option, it is a necessity. We must negotiate. And really, we must learn to negotiate with who ever it is on the other side of the issue...calling them names really doesn't change the fact that there are opposing isses that need to be dealt with.

The point of my blog...to make my readers think and hopefully get them to state an opinion....YOU , I knew I could count on.

In short, should government's negotiate with terrorists? Yes. They should have NEGOTIATED long before it ever became necessary to define the group as  terrorists.

BTW....King George was in favor of NOT negotiating with terrorists....he lost a good chunk of his empire over it. It's called the US.

Have a great night.