By now everyone knows what happened in the James Foley abduction and execution by the terrorist group ISIS, so there is no need to recount those facts.

But now the debate is whether the United States should consider negotiating with terrorist groups in order to possibly prevent horrific acts.

There are countries that currently negotiate with terrorist groups, including Europe and along the Persian Gulf. 

And then there is the United States and Great Britain, who refuse to negotiate, and instead fight back.

Countries that negotiate feel they are preventing these types of barbaris acts from occurring.

Countries that do not, feel they are refusing to finance these groups, and thereby in the long run are hastening their deminse.

There are issues with each school of thought.

By negotiating, countries are allowing the terrorists to not only collect money to finance future acts of violence, they reassure them that those people will not resist.

By fighting back, countries are showing the world two sides. Some may see the measure to resist as bold maneuvers to end the tyranny. But when homicides take place they may be viewed as uncaring.

While that is certainly not the stance of America and Britain, they certainly don’t want the murders to take place, a new method may need to be considered.

Killing the terrorists has proven to be a short-term answer. 

Each time a terrorist is slain, a new regime steps into their place. 

Bombing the entire region is also a bad idea, because many innocent people would suffer for the actions of the few.

So what is the right path? 

How does the world deal with terrorist groups who demand a ransom in exchange for the release of prisoners?

There are no easy answers.