# Giving in to terrorist demands-Why?



## casing (14 Jul 2004)

I'm dismayed that some countries are caving in to terrorist tactics.   First Spain, then Honduras and Dom Rep.   Now the Philippines is giving in.   It's easy for me to criticize, giving that I don't have a personal stake in the situation, but I still have a hard time believing that these countries think things will be better by their giving in to terrorist demands.   I can only see this leading to even more kidnappings and taped beheadings.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5669948


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jul 2004)

I wonder what our gov't would do?


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (14 Jul 2004)

Give in and send the terrorists millions or billions of dollars. so they look like heros in the end.

Considering top liberal officials, including paul martin have been to tamil tiger rallys. it wouldnt surpirse me if they gave in.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jul 2004)

Well in less then 2 years he will either be out or have majority gov't again.


----------



## karpovage (14 Jul 2004)

According to Iran's top official yesterday it's the U.S. and Israel who are behind all these kidnappings and beheadings. In fact he said he couldn't believe a Muslim would do such a thing! 

I'm still waiting for some American paramilitary group to go rogue and start giving the Islamofacists a taste of their own medicine by kidnapping, torturing and murdering an innocent Muslim or better yet have the U.S. government officially do it to a captured enemy combatant. Oh, and then posting the video all over the Internet to send the message we will go to any lengths to beat them too. I'm sure there is some right-wing fanatical supremacy group that would probably consider this. Maybe the Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) types. Maybe the family of one of the Americans who were beheaded or maybe the families of the 3,000 that lost their lives on 9-11. I guess that would pretty much justify to the rest of the world that we really are the infidel savages and evil satan worshippers that the world thinks we are. So, what's there to lose? But, I tell ya what. The Israelis and the Russians did it right back to Hezbollah during the 1980s Beirut kidnappings and got some amazing results when severed Muslim ears started showing up in the terrorist's mailboxes.

I guess my rant and my main hypothetical question is that the enemy is playing a dirty, shocking tactic that is having positive results for them in swaying and breaking up the Allied coalition. So, if America and is really serious about winning this Battle of Iraq and continuing with the War on Terrorism do we consider dirtier battle tactics to beat the enemy? And you have to remember that this enemy is sworn to cleanse and exterminate infidels who do not believe in Allah. This enemy has proven they would chop a head off anyone. So, if your survival of a people is being threatened then how far do you go? We dropped the A-bomb in '45 to send a message. So why would beheading an enemy combatant be any different than incinerating tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Japan to send the same message that we will go to any lengths to ensure our survival? .


----------



## SFontaine (14 Jul 2004)

Ah yes but if our enemies do it it's dispicable but a fact of life but if the US so much as fights back against it it's imperialism and oppresion. Oh and of course Halliburton is somehow involved.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (14 Jul 2004)

kicken ass and takening names...lol


seriously.. I am at the point where i am almost begining to think the states should pull out and tell the rest of the world to go F*&C them selfs. why because country after country cry for the USA to help, they come and then it gets thrown back into their face.

as sad as it is for the familys who have a someone who has been kidnapped and threatend to be beheaded, we cant negotiate with terrorists, even if that means loosing a life of an innocent person.

thess people are real Fu&k tards and deserve to die a excrutiating death for what they are doing, 
to us killing a terrorist is good, to them it makes them a Marter (spelling)


----------



## SFontaine (14 Jul 2004)

To quote Gordon Sinclair

"When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes. Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. "


----------



## casing (14 Jul 2004)

I often think to myself that western infidels should do little giving unto as they have been given, if you know what I mean.  This always brings with it some moral and ethical questions (treat others as you expect want to be treated, and all that stuff).  But I'm really starting to think that extremists should start getting a little of what they are dishing out.

Unfortunately, using the outcry regarding the prisoner abuses as an example, the world (ie: the vocal tree hugger types) will never put up with it.  Killing the terrorist quickly and painlessly is preferable to a little, non-lethal psychological treatment such as wearing a leash.  A double standard to say the least.  The media is a big factor in this.  What are you going to do, though?  Must adjust to the modern, highly pc world.


----------



## Crazy_Eyes (14 Jul 2004)

I dont know how anybody could tolerate this....I know if it was me personally i would only take so much with out being able to do anything back....I'd go F*****g nuts after awhile...I personally find it amazing nobody has snapped and started shooting....just my personal opinion. As for giving into terrorist demands....it wouldn't make a difference wouldn't they just keep going, Capturing people and making outrageous demands knowing that your going to give in?


----------



## Andyboy (15 Jul 2004)

What would our Gov't do? Here's what they did. I wonder what the $100 000 was used for?


Cash freed Canadian hostage
06/05/2004 20:19  - (SA)   

  
Toronto - The family of a Canadian businessman released by hostage takers in Iraq paid $100 000 in cash to win his freedom, a report said on Thursday. 

Naji al-Kuwaiti, who worked as an importer-exporter in Iraq, was released on Tuesday after being held by unidentified kidnappers. 

The Toronto Star newspaper quoted an unidentified federal official as saying that the family paid a ransom which was passed to the kidnappers by Canadian diplomats. 

Canadian officials have refused to comment on speculation that a ransom was paid, and have divulged little about how al-Kuwaiti's case was resolved, citing a request by the family. 

Al-Kuwaiti's family have declined requests to speak to the media. 

But on Monday, Dan McTeague, parliamentary secretary to the Canadian foreign ministry, said the case of al-Kuwaiti, who lives in Toronto, was being held by a band of "rogues" for motives which were not purely political. 

Al-Kuwaiti was the third Canadian taken hostage in Iraq. 

The first, Fadi Fadel, was freed April 16 after spending nine days as the captive of Shiite militias and an intense diplomatic effort to win his release. 

A third Canadian, Iraq-born Rifaat Mohammad Rifaat, 41, has not been seen since he left the Abu Gharib prison west of Baghdad in early April, where his Saudi Arabia-based company was doing a refurbishing project. 

Even though Canada did not take part in the Iraq war, officials here have warned that Canadians are, like other Westerners in the country in danger. 

Edited by Anthea Jonathan


----------



## karpovage (15 Jul 2004)

Take a read of Tom Clancy's new book, _The Teeth of the Tiger, _ which essentially lays out a plot of a rogue, off the books assassination agency that has been given authority by the outgoing president (Jack Ryan). In Clancy's book the same frustrations are being outlined here - how to deal with the terrorists threat and really the funding behind it. This agency sends out a hit team that assassinates the terrorists under the cover of massive heart attacks via a lethal injection from a pen prick.

Remember Clancy also wrote about airplanes flying into the Capitol building too.

So, the question remains. In an unconventional war where the adversary does not use Geneva Convention rules of war and has executed innocent civilians to gain the strategic advantage, should the U.S. do the same? I personally would not have a problem with this - even if it was off the books. If we started kidnapping Muslim leaders and demanded ransoms that would be fine by me. Heck, President Bush said there will be some things we will never know about how this war was fought. I would suspect the CIA and some of our Delta Force operatives are currently engaged in this type of warfare. Let's be honest, it's nothing new. If these "dirty" techniques bring results then it serves its purpose of deterring further terrorist abuses. 

The main problem is, the world HAS to know that we are doing this. We can't keep it secret. That the U.S. will stand firm and do whatever it takes. That we do have hit squads out there. and the message would be clear. You F with the American people you can expect any form of retribution.


----------



## casing (15 Jul 2004)

Well Karpovage, I agree with you. If these things are being carried out by the US (and the UK, as we know they aren't afraid to mix it up either) then it should be made public. Get that phrase of "you seriously don't want to mess with" them out there into the terrorists'--and anyone else's--common vernacular.

One thing I find rather interesting and it makes me shake my head, is that if these terrorists in Iraq are kidnapping and killing people for the purpose of driving countries out of Iraq, then what the hell are they thinking by doing it to citizens of countries that are not in Iraq (ie: Canadians)?   Really seems counter productive to their supposed end goals.   Maybe they'll get a clue when some countries start sending troops *into* Iraq as a direct result.   They probably realize something that I don't want to believe--that a government such as ours is too wimpy to actually take such a firm, decisive step.   Wouldn't be good for the polls.   We'd rather finance further terrorist activity by buying the terrorists out.

What would the terrorists do with their spare time if there wasn't a war going on?  The people doing these things enjoy it and would do it regardless.   The war just provides a convenient platform for them to spew out their BS just causes.


----------



## karpovage (15 Jul 2004)

An answer to your question as to why they would attack countries not in Iraq. One reason is that Canadians are in Afghanistan and therfore enemies to Islam. The other reason is because Canada and the U.S. are part of the "western culture" wish promotes freedom of religion and citizen's voices through public voting. These are two fundamentally infidel characteristics that Islamofascists do not like and will kill you for it. Remember that anyone who doesn't worship Allah is subject to death.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2004)

It's easy to see why people would say pull back all our troops, investments, humanatarian projects, companies, etc.. and say FTW.
Let the world go to hell while were safe in our borders.  That would never last. 

The US/west has been involved with the worlds affairs for so long that it would not work without them, period.   Who is going to research and fight aids? "Well it's not our problem what happens in other countries". Well it will be when boatloads of hiv infected immigrants start landing.  People see that theres big money in the kidnapping buisness. What happens when american citizens start getting kidnaped in their homes and brought to places like iran? It already happens with children caught between two parents.

I remember hearing a good line once. Something like 'An army at home will keep the enemy from comming through the gates but who will keep the enemy AWAY from the gates?'.  If we cut ourselves off from the world it would only be a matter of time before they came knocking wanting a piece of paradise.


----------



## casing (15 Jul 2004)

Karpovage, yes I'm aware of the reasons you mention.  It's just that to me, they aren't really logical and are flawed.  Any reason at all is reason enough for the terrorists.  Just my infidel way of looking at things, I guess.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2004)

I understand what your saying Ghost but I don't necessarily agree with you.

If you really want to strike fear into them then your find the head guys ie Osama, kill him, his family and his friends.   I can't believe there isn't some kind of sanctioned killings either, its just a matter of finding the individuals.   I guess it all depends on how far you want to go.

The Brits don't put up with any shit and have dealt with the IRA for years and has a ton of experience dealing terrorists.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jul 2004)

At first, I'm inclined to think of this oft-quoted bit of wisdom when contemplating potential courses of action:

_"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
-Friedrich Nietzsche_

But then, I consider these two quotes from a General of some stature in history:

_"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the 
sooner it will be over."

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them 
all they want."

-William Tecumseh Sherman_

Thoughts to chew on....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2004)

Did William Tecumseh Sherman say the "War is cruelty" quote?


----------



## Goober (16 Jul 2004)

The Philippine pull out is a token pull out. They were scheduled to pull out Aug20th, anyway. They only have 51 troops. Isn't this worth saving a life?

Skeptics will reply, stating in saving this one life, you are endangering 10 others. Maybe 100 others. In this instance I disagree with that. The terrorists know (if they didn't before, they do now) that the Philippians were pulling out on Aug20th, and if they were not, then they probably wouldn't have agreed to pull out. Skeptics wills say this encourages the terrorists to kidnap more, and demand more. I disagree with that, because I believe even if every single demand was ignored and/or turned down, the terrorists would STILL kidnap people, because, well... they are terrorists.

Look at the guerrillas in countries like Guatemala and Columbia, drugs are the #1 way of funding, ransoms are #2. People will pay. Ask yourself, if your mother was captured, and a 100k ransom put on her head, (if you had the money) would you refuse to pay?

As a note, I think all of these things are deplorable, but I'm just posing some reasons why these things happen.


----------



## RCA (16 Jul 2004)

Besides what drives the world is not military force but economic globalization, and who are the prime promoters of that. Three guess and it ain't Andorra or Albania. Isolation is no longer an option. At least the US has a strong military to back itself up.

As for govt caving to terrorist actions, it is easy to take the high road but who knows. Ho country is immune. Even the US pulled out of Beirut, Somalia, and a lessor extent Vietnam. They learned the hard way to stay. Canada did not pull out of Cyprus (1974), Yugo (our own hostage), or the Middle East when a plane full of peace keepers was shot down. Today who knows. I bet the Berg family would have moved heaven and earth to get him home. To the point of pulling out of Iraq, who know, but in retrospect, the is a good chance   they would have, only to get him back. There is already a small vocal minority who would pull the US out of Iraq because the price is too high.

And if a country joins the US in Iraq, not because of idealogy, but they rather reap the benefits of being for instead of against, what price is too high?

If it was your sibling, parent, or spouse, are you willing to say they can be sacrificed for the greater good. If so, you are a better person then me.


----------



## Military Brat (16 Jul 2004)

next time the phillipines needs the USAs help i hope the USA laughs in their face and tells them were to stick it.


----------



## RCA (16 Jul 2004)

And THANK-YOU Military Brat for your eloquent and insightfull contribution to the debate.

Ickee says "if head up ass, don't fart"


----------



## Military Brat (16 Jul 2004)

RCA said:
			
		

> And THANK-YOU Military Brat for your eloquent and insightfull contribution to the debate.
> 
> Ickee says "if head up ***, don't fart"



well..i aim to please.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jul 2004)

Well you are not pleasing us so grow up and watch your step. Otherwise you will be out of here.


----------



## RCA (17 Jul 2004)

Military Brat

Your aim, like your intellect is sadly lacking. A soldier hopeful is the most you can likely aspire to.

Until you can contribute, kindly stay in the sandbox.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Jul 2004)

Pres. Arroyo is on thin ice right now politicly,she barely won the election,they have three major rebel group's they are fighting,the M.L.F and Abu Sayef in Mindanoa and the N.P.A. on Luzon and I beleive they would be better fighting them instead of being in Iraq.
One thing the west can not afford is political unrest never mind the collapse of the Philippine Gov. no matter how unlikely it may be.
We need a stable and strong Philippines with out internal unrest that this hostage taking was leading tone must remember who sit's next door and with a strong and stable P.I. they can keep Indonesia  in check.Just because Indonesia is not in the news does not mean thing's are quite. 

That's where I'm coming from,looking at the greater picture in S.E.Asia.


----------



## SuperG (17 Jul 2004)

Howdy all,

Everytme a little country or minor steak holder gives in it makes it worst on the next weaker country trying to support.

In the big scheme of things they know the major players won't play that type of ball so that's why they are targetted.

Just my small observation.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jul 2004)

What kinda steak would they be holding, T-Bone or Ribeye?

 ;D

Sorry, I couldn't resist.  I just don't see the word steak pop up in international discourse to ofter.


----------



## commando_wolf63 (18 Jul 2004)

The Brits don't put up with any crap and have dealt with the IRA for years and has a ton of experience dealing terrorists




It doesnt really matter what we do our hands are tied.  If your give into the terrorists they will keep doing what they have been doing.  On the other hand if you step in and jail or exterminate them. There will be more that will take their place.  By the way not all muslims are bad it's just the fanatics who interpet the Koran to twisted levels. You'll find that in any religion.


----------



## Torlyn (18 Jul 2004)

I'm not sure that using Enlgand's dealing with the IRA is the best way to show how to deal with terrorists.  The net desire (IMHO, of course) is to stop terrorism...  Last I checked, the IRA was still active in England.  As well, the earlier mention of Israel's handling of Muslim terror groups by living up to the "eye for an eye" hasn't solved anything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning Spain or the Philippine's reaction to the specific terroist activities that have cuased them to pull out.  What I do believe is that we must respect those countries' wishes, and allow them to go their way peacefully.  However, this does not give them carte blanche in dealing with terrorism.  If they are unwilling to actively stamp out terrorism for the good of humanity, if they are too narrow-minded to realize that some sort of solution must be reached for the good of us all, so be it.  Should they allow any sort of terrist harbouring, or funding, or safe havens, then I belive they cease being part of the solution, and become part of the problem.  IN short, if they want to pull out, fine, but they cannot be so naive to think that just because they have stated they will take no part in the war on terrorism, that the war still won't be brought to their doorstep.  bin Laden and his ilk would love to have more "neutral" contries.  They grant more spaces for training and funding.

One question I'd like to pose on the route I'm following, is do you belive that we have the right/responsibilty to do anything regarding a country's specific non-involvement, if we know that non-involvement is helping terrorism?  I have never been to the middle east, so I am not certain if the news stories regarding prominent members of the Saudi's ruling family supporting al-Quada are true, (I'm not one to put my full belief in the media, for some strange reason   but if they are, should we be doing something about it?  The consensus that seems to stem from this thread is that terrorism needs to be stamped out actively...  If we can eliminate funding and training bases, wouldn't that reduce the ability for terrorism to succeed?


----------



## karpovage (19 Jul 2004)

Torlyn, good post. I read a book called Funding Evil by a leading international expert on terrorism and Yes! this is one of the most important solutions - stop the funding of terrorism. In her book all arrows point to Saudi Arabia as the source for this funding. There are definite dubious activities and stifling of investigations into these sources by "Our Friends the Saudis". I would also like to point out that Tom Clancy, well know fiction and nonfiction writer with incredible insight in world military issues has a new book out titled, The Teeth of the Tiger. This book is his solution to terrorism. Essentially, in the book the outgoing President clandestinely authorizes an assassination agency unkown to the other government agencies. Their mission is to specifically go after and eliminate the sources of funding of terrorists. Not freezing accounts. But actual assassination of the wealthy individuals writing the checks. Incidentally, Saudi Arabia is a key player in this book as well.

So I agree, take out the funding but also make sure to take out the wealthy individual behind it too. This is not the end-all solution because we have seen that all it takes to turn an airplane into a bomb was a $2.00 utility knife, but this is one of the solutions that could put a true dent into international terrorism.


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Jul 2004)

Karpovage,I've just started reading "The Kingdom,Arabia and the House of Sa'ud" by Robert Lacey but alas it was printed in 81.
I wonder If I'll come across anything on the funding they do?


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Jul 2004)

Its common knowlege thay Cdn and Aussies are in country doinf private contract work, so its just a matter of time until one of these contractors is taken hostage.

Australia has sent more ASLAVS and crews for them, and there are many hundreds of ADF personnel there doing their jobs, including one of my CPLs I had at AASAM last yr (Steve, if you read this.... hang in there).

I often wonder what John Howard would do if and when one of our lads in taken (sheesh-  imagine if a woman was taken and beheaded).

Currently or as when I left, a Aussie woman  journalist was taken hostage in Afghanistan, and I have yet to hear of her fate.

Life is truly cheap in that part of the world, and has been for a long time. I wonder how the Cdn govt will handle things if Cdns are taken hostage. In the spirit of the honour of our past, I hope they would not turn yellow like the above mentioned countries in an other post on this thread, and give victory to a bunch of godless murderers.

If leaving Iraq will save the PI, Spain, and others from attack and murder, they are wrong, and they will be looked upon as weak and easy for next time.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Jul 2004)

I have two friend's there doing humanitarian work and last was they were sand bagging and that was over a month ago.


----------

