Please Vote (for the sake of my Current Politics project)!

[Encrypted]

Ya.

 

I thought that the primary goal was to bring back to justice Osama bin Laden for his attacks on 9/11. Now we rarely hear about him. Where is he, and what is the coalition doing?

 

Encrypted

[Callipygous]

I voted yes because' date=' no one has the right to go into any country.

There were no nuclear nor chemical weapons (for masive destruction), so the ****ing terrorist at my eyes are the ****ing american army and the ****ing british army and spanish one, and the people that supported that.

 

Then who are the terrorist.

That topic make me sick.

Why did american army did not search for "Bin Laden" and that stuff....?

because..... the petroleum....[/quote']

 

i disagree with you on much of this, but most of it cannot be proven one way or another so ill just ignore it.

 

but one thing to keep in mind, a terrorist is someone who tries to weaken the opposition by means of terror, or fear. its a tactic used by the weak against the strong, because thats the only way for a weak country/organization/whatever to fight a strong one. none of the armies you mentioned are weak, none of them used terror as a tactic. they are not terrorists. they may be unethical, but they are not terrorists. also, please remember that the troops dont make such decisions. if you want to be mad at someone be mad the the guys at the top, not those who actually make up the armies.

[Encrypted]

Sort of like the KKK?

 

Encrypted

[Callipygous]

sort of like every organization on the planet. so yes.

 

well... that may be a little too broad, but any similar organization.

[AtomicMX]

used terror as a tactic

so steping in a country and killling soldiers is not terror. uhm.. IRAQ didnt send to US any shit.

 

The one was Bin Laden and was from afganistan another very very different country.

Where is the terror.... in my eyes steping on the soberany of another country is terrorism..

In the other hand, a soldier must protect the inocent, and keep the peace, soldiers can neglect orders and be judged and if their reasons are tall enought then they can make it out of the trial.

The armies are not blind, they are actually taught to think. (military school).

 

Then... tell me where is Osama Bin Laden.

US doesnt want peace and as far as the facts neither does England.

France can be more suceptible to attacks from middle orient and was against that war.

Can you explain that, did your country (the people who disagree did something important in orrderr to stop it.. NO).

[YT2095]

alot of the hostage takers are little more than common criminals sometimes helped out by a few of the corrupt police in Iraq, they have no political motives per se, and sell the hostages back for as little as $10,000.

 

although this doesn`t appear to be the case with those that have Ken Bigley, a good percentage of the cases are Just Criminals capitalising on an already bad situation.

[Callipygous]

so steping in a country and killling soldiers is not terror. uhm.. IRAQ didnt send to US any shit.

 

The one was Bin Laden and was from afganistan another very very different country.

Where is the terror.... in my eyes steping on the soberany of another country is terrorism..

 

thats right' date=' killing soldiers is not terrorism. as i said before, it may be wrong to go into a country and attack them unprovoked, but the way the US and others did it cannot be described as terrorism. they used no tactics specifically designed to incite fear. it may be wrong, they may be terrible people, but not every unethical act is terrorism.

 

 

The armies are not blind, they are actually taught to think. (military school).

 

your making very large jumps here. military school teaches soldiers to think on a tactical basis, not an ethical one. your thoughts on soldiers being able to make their own decisions is correct for certain circumstances. you are absolutely right when it comes to decisions on who to shoot. but we arent talking about warcrimes, were not talking about soldiers shooting women and children and unarmed people. were talking about the basic decision of whether or not to invade. soldiers do not decide whether to attack or not. they go to war because their countries tell them to. on that level it is not their choice. the leader says "were shipping out tomorrow" and they all get on the ships and leave their loved ones behind to go to war solely because their country ordered them to. they cannot be blamed for the decisions of their leaders.

[JohnB]

This is faulty logic. If for not other reason then because they have already kidnapped, and beheaded people, and did not get their way. So they try it again, and again, and again.

Actually it isn't. They are operating from the premise that there will come a point (a number) when the West will give in. From their POV, the West doesn't have the moral fibre to accept too many of this type of casualty.

 

Basically they are trying to find that number. One Hostage? Two? Twenty? Thirty? They believe that such a number exists and that we are lying when we say it doesn't. To give in proves them right.

 

By analogy, I tell you to do something and you refuse. I punch you in the mouth and again tell you to do whatever. You do it. What does this prove? That you will do what I say if I hit you. It doesn't matter if you give in after the first or twentieth punch. If I hit you often enough you will do as you are told.

 

And that would be a sad state to be in, wouldn't it?

[Encrypted]

More people need to vote!

 

Encrypted

[Guest Imnothere]

Hmm...

 

But it is only female prisoners.

 

Encrypted

 

After all women are totally useless

 

After this sarcastic remark a more elaborate opinion.

On principle I agree that you can't give in to demands like this because it wil solicit similar situations in the future. However I think there's another reason these hostage situations happen. It's the pleas from the hostages and their families that will also produce hostage situations like this.

 

Unfortunately there is enough room to negotiate behind the scenes, and I suspect that this does happen, so basically hostage taking will remain a valid way of getting something.

 

My guess is that if hostages, family and the government, in all hostage situations, would say something like "get lost" and actually move on to normal business without looking back, then hostage taking will quickly loose it's apeal to potential hostage takers.

This would however take a great deal of courage especially by the hostages and their family.

A problem with this is that although most people will agree on this point, they'll only agree as long as it doesn't involve them or any of their family

[JHAQ]

Any participating nation in the Iraq conflict should respond to any sort of kidnapping or attack by ADDING signifiacantly to its support ; perhaps by sending more troops . Encrypted is right .

[Spaceman]

I voted yes because' date=' no one has the right to go into any country.

There were no nuclear nor chemical weapons (for masive destruction), so the ****ing terrorist at my eyes are the ****ing american army and the ****ing british army and spanish one, and the people that supported that.

 

Then who are the terrorist.

That topic make me sick.

Why did american army did not search for "Bin Laden" and that stuff....?

because..... the petroleum....[/quote']

Thank goodness the majority of iraq's people,and most of the free world dont agree with you.Dont take france/russia moaning as objections,they didnt want us finding out they had not been complying with sanctions.And dont mistake crowds of iraq people screaming at our troops on the street as objections to occupation,there emotional screams of grief when there family and children have been killed in crossfire etc.There screams are for us to get the ****ers and kill them all now!! most of the assholes fighting in iraq are not iraqis,there extremist nutters who deserve to burn in hell aslong with there imaginary 1000 virgins,scum ,filth arab shitwipes,

You should get a job out there insighting the crowd and helping to get our boys out...so i can enjoy your beheading on the internet when the ****ers kidnap you

[Sayonara]

You are rapidly losing any credibility on this forum.

[Ophiolite]

insighting the crowd

If you are going to talk drivel can you at least learn to spell. I can readily accept poor spelling from those for whom English is not their native language, for those who have contributed a lengthy and complex post, or our younger colleagues who are still acquiring the skills. It is a stretch to accept it from someone who claims such superior intellect and knowledge as yourself. Should you not be setting an example?

[crazybean]

The government can't risk putting more people into the position of Ken Bigley.

[Aardvark]

I voted Other.

 

we should waste them and publish it on the internet too' date=' it seems to be the only language they understand, and if they they want to play hard ball, maybe they`ll think twice if we play back!, it`ll shock the crap out of them for a start!

 

 

ok, so maybe 2 wrongs don`t make a right, I know this, BUT it`ll buy "pause for thought"![/quote']

 

A temptation. I know i should be outraged yet for some reason i find myself thinking, what if....................?

[Germanium]

i voted other. I don't live in the UK and for some reason we never heard anything about this in the papers and on the news. This is a hard thing to decide and honestly, i don't know what i think. Certainly anything possible should be done for the hostage to be released (i assume Ken Bigley's a hostage), but i have no idea what should be done in this case.

[radiohead]

People need to learn that it is best to lose one life and save many than save one life and end many. I voted no.

[AzurePhoenix]

my opinon? It's simply stupid to trade one life for the freedom of many potential killers who would then go on to possibly aid in bringing about the deaths of many..

[timo]

In the of the 70s there was a group of terrorists that called themselves "Red Army Fraction" (RAF) that frigtened a lot of people with kidnapping actions and bombing (and perhaps a bit because of the lot of attention they got in the press). Believe it or not: Those people weren´t even muslims (sry, I couldn´t resist this statement )!

 

The first time they kidnapped someone (Peter Lorenz, perhaps there were other occasions before, I´m no historian) the german goverment agreed to exchange him for some terrorists that were held captive. The 2nd time the RAF tried to pull this off the german goverment refused to negotiate with terrorists and made this attitude an official one. The hostage (Hanns-Matrin Schleyer) was shot. To my knowledge, no one tried to free fellow terrorists by means of kidnapping since then.

 

Afaik many people regard this change of attitude as a turning point in dealing with the terrorist. The RAF announced its disbandmend in 1998 after not having been recognized for years, anyways.

 

You might guess that I voted "no". If you´re interested in the RAF stuff better read up on it and don´t trust my words too much. In the active time of the RAF I was still a child and all I can remember from then are posters in the post offices showing the most wanted terrorists.

[Benjamin753]

I said other... they should release all the female Iraqi prisoners, (as they shouldn't have invaded the country anyway) and the Iraqi's should get to keep Ken as a very small beginning to the reparations for a hostile and unwarranted invasion of a soverign country... Hell, they should give them Tony Blair too.

[silkworm]

It's stupid to negotiate with terrorists because it makes them feel they have more power than random mass murder. Then you'll just have more of the same, only much more. In short, consistently ignoring terrorists who want to negotiate saves more innocent lives (bystander hostages) than the other route.

[bharatiyedu]

i want them to leave who are innocent