sending people to kill and be killed as a terror act?

Just seen the attack on obama’s admin regarding the release of a us soldier captive for five years by the taliban.

What do the opponents of negotiating with terrorists imagine? They claim it will cost more lives in the long run, but how?
Say i was a taliban and just about to capture a soldier – if i know keeping them alive will benefit me, might i not consider saving a bullet or two?
Say i was a taliban about to be captured – if i know an exchange is possible, will i fight to death – of me and others – or rather live to fight some other day..?

Or perhaps the thinking is about being a soldier – if i was a soldier, would i not fight more ferociously if i knew its better not to be captured? Is that what really people of “no negotiation with terror” imagine? To terrorise their own soldiers’ minds?

Leave a Reply