@MetalSlimeHunt
So, what if we're not dealing with immoral lunatics? What if we're dealing with, say, grief-stricken people who've turned to the only organization who seems to share their disgust for the military that murdered their family, who expect to be shot down in cold blood, who in fact hope for it because they have nothing left, and want to serve as yet one more example to motivate their people into action against the monsters who refuse to accept that they're anything more than collateral?
What if there are no hostages? What if the lives we're hypothetically saving are the civilians who'd be killed by crossfire? What if they're soldiers? What if they're the next people to have their families taken from them?
Because, seriously, you're arguing for helping the immoral lunatics who actually set out to make terrorism a thing. And those people aren't usually the ones on the streets, killing and dying for the cause.
@DWC
You're assuming a lot there. Most importantly, you're assuming terrorism is a decision arrived at rationally. Trust me, blowing yourself up in a crowd (to list a dramatic example) isn't something you do because you've carefully weighed your options and chosen the best strategy in the long run. This is an emotional problem - if solving it makes terrorism attractive to people looking for a logical way of creating policy, then a different solution needs to be adopted for those people, yes. But right now, those people are so rare as to be negligible.