How should we treat hostage situations?

[Ralph38449]

Should we treat hostage crisis like we do? I mean it gets everyone fired up yet look at all the time the terrorist get on TV. It looks bad for us and they get all over the news.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Ralph38449, Should we treat hostage crisis like we do? I mean it gets everyone fired up yet look at all the time the terrorist get on TV. It looks bad for us and they get all over the news.

We shouldn't, but we do. I believe that since all these cable news outlets are 24/7, they need to amplify everything they get to fill up time. Why should we be obsessed with a kidnapping in some small town (if you don't live anywhere near it), or some woman slapping her kid in a shopping center parking lot? If you'll notice, anything that the networks have videotape of, they will shove down our throats and pay little attention to anything they don't, regardless of it's importance. Of course, the other media feel the need to follow suit.

Another point is, IMO, the irresponsible networks actually support terrorism by their actions.

[bishop]

Should we treat hostage crisis like we do? I mean it gets everyone fired up yet look at all the time the terrorist get on TV. It looks bad for us and they get all over the news.

how do we treat hostage crises?

[Sonart]

Hate to sound cold, but I think we should treat them as casualties. If we negotiate for hostages, it just makes hostage taking a weapon to use against us, and therefore encourage more hostage taking.

Saint Ronald of Reagan had it right. We DO NOT negotiate with terrorists. Which I was so friggin' PISSED OFF when he went behind our backs and did exactly that.

If we can mount an offensive operation to rescue them, that'll work too, of course. Otherwise....[sigh] hope they get treated ok.

[Ralph38449]

Scribbler1 "It is not the news, it's what you make the news."

bishop- We slap it on every news cast on every station, interview the families, make everyone show compasion, and give terrorist free air time so they can spread their word. Next time their is a hostage taken watch the news on different stations for about a week, listen to people talk, find out how many people know about it. It is always highly talked about. Next time their is a hostage taken (American hostage) stop and observe.

IMO if we stop paying attention it could get better, fewer hostage situations, or it could get worse, other ways to get attention.

[bishop]

i have a better idea - if we leave iraq, we won't have americans taken hostage in iraq.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Sonart, Hate to sound cold, but I think we should treat them as casualties. If we negotiate for hostages, it just makes hostage taking a weapon to use against us, and therefore encourage more hostage taking.

agreed. show no mercy with hostages. doing so will only encourage them.

i can't agree with restricting media coverage, free media is vital to any democratic nation. while they can be asked to be responsible about it, it is legitimate news.

[bishop]

yeah.. definitely hard to admit though. watching that guy's family on tv yesterday was rough. the feeling of desperation and all... i know if i was in their shoes i'd be wishing the same thing.

[Sonart]

I can't agree with restricting media coverage, free media is vital to any democratic nation. while they can be asked to be responsible about it, it is legitimate news.

Agreed. The press can really fug up at times, but either they're free or their not.

With one BIG exception. During ongoing combat operations, the military runs the show. In an age of instant satelite communications and live TV, the media has become a part of the battle field environment and it's not just the military's right, it's their duty to our troops to control that environment. A war zone is under martial law, and the Constition does not apply.

[castille]

Terrorists have the upper hand. Authorities have the lower hand.

Advantages of being a terrorist:
-You run the show. You take the hostages, you tell the feds what to do.
-You don't care about civilians. Killed a baby? Who cares. The feds have to worry about the TERRORISTS killing babies; every time a civilian dies, the government gets another bad media review.
-Terrorists (in 90% of cases) have no lives. They aren't worried about living or dying. Most are going to heaven to fuck 72 virgins anyway.

As the feds:
-You get better trained guys. However they will usually be more scared, because they aren't eager to die (unless they're fanatical).

[Comrade]

Originally posted by bishop, i have a better idea - if we leave iraq, we won't have americans taken hostage in iraq.

And we also don't fix the problem. I'd prefer a few kidnapping executions to another 9/11. Al Qaida isn't the only enemy, it is fundamentalism itself, and the best way to destroy fundamentalism is to go into the Middle East, and replace a repressive regime with a liberal democracy. Iraq is definitely going to be the hard one, because the only way we can acheive this is through force (i.e. killing terrorists and destroying Saddam's government)

As for kidnappings, I have a very simple solution.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists."
If you ever give them what they want, negotiate at all, well, I guess kidnapping works, then.
Here's a good story...back in Iran, when the hostage situation began, 3 Soviet citizens were also taken hostage. The KGB grabbed a local chief of some Iranian terrorist organization, castrated him, put the testicles in his mouth, shot him in the head, and left him where the Iranians would find him. The Soviet citizens were released the next day.
Sometimes to prevent the worst from happening, you have to do the worst yourself? That could be the possible lesson there. Hey, I think that's called deterrence! It also helps being as ruthless as the KGB...

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Comrade, Al Qaida isn't the only enemy, it is fundamentalism itself, and the best way to destroy fundamentalism is to go into the Middle East, and replace a repressive regime with a liberal democracy.

islamic fundamentalism lives in saudi arabia, not iraq.

funny that dubya is falling over himself to defend the saudis, and invaded iraq.

[bishop]

Iraq is definitely going to be the hard one, because the only way we can acheive this is through force (i.e. killing terrorists and destroying Saddam's government)

democracy was never created by foreign aggression.

not all of the people fighting us are terrorists of saddam-loyalists.. some really just believe that we're there for ulterior motives and want us out.

[Comrade]

No, islamic fundamentalism lives in the Middle East.

Falling all over himself to defend the Saudis? Is that why we removed all our troops?

Also, doesn't an Iraqi democracy, and even more than a democracy, an Arabic liberal society, increase our chances of causing changes in Saudi Arabia?


What? Democracy was never created by foreign aggression? Japan isn't a democracy? Or Germany? South Korea stopped being a democracy?
You have subscriped to one of those "it sounds nice" theories, like "peace can't be won through violence." which is very much incorrect. You also caricature our involvement in Iraq.

Bishop, you are 100% correct in that some people believe America is there for ulterior motives, because the Middle East has a long history of seeing America as Satan, as it were, because we are successful. I don't mean this in the "they're jealous," way. I mean this in the Khomeini calling us in league with Satan way, because according to Islamic fundamentalism, that is the only way we can be successful. We break a lot of the moral laws of Islamic fundamentalism, and we are successful, they (their leaders force them to) follow God's laws, and yet they are among some of the least successful countries out there. That is what we need to FIX. Before Islamic fundamentalism made it our business, it wasn't, but now it IS our business, as a counter arguement for people who believe otherwise.
THere is also the added threat from us of subverting their "holy ways" which is yet another way to make America a scapegoat. I believe I already commented on the symbolism of the Barbie dolls...

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Comrade, No, islamic fundamentalism lives in the Middle East. Falling all over himself to defend the Saudis? Is that why we recalled all our troops? Also, doesn't an Iraqi democracy increase our chances of causing changes in Saudi Arabia?

saudi arabia is the home of islamic fundamentalism, where wahhabism is rampant. saddam instituted secular rule.

the reason he recalled the troops from saudi arabia was because there are now bases in iraq, kuwait, etc. bush has tried his hardest to obstruct investigations in saudi arabia, ludicrously calling them 'close allies' when in fact the majority of funding for al qaeda flows from that country.

an iraqi democracy doesn't make any real change to the US's ability to reform saudi arabia. breaking US dependence on saudi oil will allow it to push for reform. securing iraqi oil supply will allow that to happen. i believe this is cheney's plan.

[bishop]

from what i've read, the latest security council resolution was positively received by iraq's neighbors. it moved back towards the status quo that existed when saddam was in power..

the kurds certainly feel cheated.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=861

Bishop, you are 100% correct in that some people believe America is there for ulterior motives, because the Middle East has a long history of seeing America as Satan, as it were, because we are successful.

it isn't quite that simple... our support for israel is exploited by the arabs. and our former support for various unpopular and repressive regimes is another. the largest reason for their hatred against us is that the arabs are largely ignorant and cannot come to grips with modernity.

your intention of excusing america and painting all the blame on the muslims is a gross distortion of reality.

[Comrade]

No, I was countering your arguement. Excusing America of...? I never said we never supported Israel, another popular scapegoat for the Arab world, or that we didn't supported unpopular repressive regimes. We did, and we did it because the Cold War was a bigger problem for us then, and it was an ugly thing.
What would be the problem with undoing the damage by removing those regimes, then?

edit-- also, your quote of me is a bit misleading, it cuts out the rest where I reject the mantra of arab jealousy...

[grandpa]

* = Initial comment
= Grandpa h.



No, I was countering your arguement.*
Excusing America of...?*

Iraq was an example of America taking the aggressive action.

I never said we never supported Israel, another popular scapegoat*
for the Arab world, or that we didn't supported unpopular*
repressive regimes.*

But we do not see the s o l u t i o n when we support unpopular repressive regimes, do we? So why do we do it when it obviously only creates more problems?

We did, and we did it because the Cold War*
was a bigger problem for us then, and it was*
an ugly thing.*

And the United States, like the Soviet Union, took a stand against every teaching of peace. We are still doing so today.

What would be the problem with undoing the damage by*
removing those regimes, then?*

I fail to see how our experiments with repressive regimes are better than Russia's experiment with communism. Both inevitably led to tensions in the world that otherwise probably may not be.

Grandpa h.

[Comrade]

Your post has very little to do with mine.

You are saying we are putting in a repressive new regime in Iraq?
That the Middle East wasn't a front in the Cold War? (That is, by the way, where we get the "our vicious sunuvabitch" quote from, the Cold War)

You know what, the United States IS just like the Soviet Union, I just never saw it before. If we went against every teaching of peace we would prosecute wars where they weren't needed, like Europe, or Canada. You are one of the people who assume all war is bad and that the status quo is good.

I don't understand what you mean about our "experiments" with repressive regimes. What were we experimenting?

[bishop]

i agree, our support of the shah was motivated by the cold war. and our support for saddam was motivated by khomeini's militant rhetoric. our support for saudi arabia... entirely motivated by oil.

have you ever heard of the term "blowback"?



now which regimes are we cozy with? egypt's, pakistan's, saudi arabia's, kuwait's... the hypocrisy couldn't be any clearer.