The Solution (terrorism in Iraq/etc)

[PTE Gruending]

Just reading a news brief regarding the recent execution of a S. Korean civilian in Iraq by terrorists. This type of behaviour seemingly will become quite common in the future if I had to guess, rightousness of the Liberation/Invasion aside - perhaps a possible solution for countries wishing to send troops to Iraq (who were not necessarily involved in the initial part of the campaign, such as S. Korea) - but why not send more troops in response? I believe that the whole reason the terrorists killed this civilian was because South Korea pledged ~3000 troops to Iraq in the near future. So in response, why not ramp that number up? A direct retaliation of this measure may show these militants that further action will only result in the exact thing they are trying to prevent.... opinions?

 

[dano]

A direct retaliation of this measure may show these militants that further action will only result in the exact thing they are trying to prevent.... opinions?

Theoretically that can have merit. But it takes a rational mind and we're dealing with illrational people.

 

[Military Brat]

It's a lost cause with these animals.

They will find any reason to kill an innocent person. This South Korean businessman because South Korea pledged to send troops to Iraq, the American in Saudi Arabia because he worked on Apache helicopters, and I don't even know the reasoning behind the Nick Berg killing.

But if a country sends more troops than they originally plann to, it should be to chase the terrorists down, not as some sort of propaganda tool.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Gruending,

I agree with you completely.

If their intent was to accomplish "Objective A", then punish them by doing the alternative.

It's unfortunate the Spaniards didn't use this logic....




Matthew. 

 

[SFontaine]

I don't even know the reasoning behind the Nick Berg killing.

He was an Israeli spy dontchaknow? Just like Daniel Pearle and any other Jewish man, woman or child in the world.

 

[Jascar]

I believe that the whole reason the terrorists killed this civilian was because South Korea pledged ~3000 troops to Iraq in the near future. So in response, why not ramp that number up? A direct retaliation of this measure may show these militants that further action will only result in the exact thing they are trying to prevent.... opinions?

It could also be argued the other way. Why don't the terrorists bomb a building in Seoul to show that further action by the S. Korean government will only result in the exact thing they are trying to prevent? The terrorists behead a S. Korean in retaliation for the troop commitment, S. Korea sends more troops in retaliation for the beheading, the terrorists retaliate for sending more troops........and on and on. Retaliation doesn't seem to be an effective way of combating terrorism.