Aurielius Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 It seems that the new MO of terrorism is to demand release of convicted terrorists in exchange for very large amounts of cash. The other variant is to threaten decapitation of hostages for the release of their compatriots. Simple question...in the past we (the west) refused to negotiate with terrorists now it seems if you can do it without too much media backlash you proceed.Should governments deal in any manor with ransom / release demands from groups such as ISIS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 No. Not ever. Not even talk to them about it, other than to say: "We will treat our prisoners of war, the same as you treat yours." If they behead a prisoner, we should shoot one. No payments of ransom. No exchanges. No nothing. If you start down that road, all you are doing is letting them know that capturing folks can get you something you want, and the whole idea here is to NOT give them what they want. Certainly not money.... that's flat out stupid. (here, let me hand you a fat wad of bills, so you can go out and buy weapons, and use them to capture yet more folks you can hold for ransom......) I think Obama is going to find that his 'negotiations' to get Bowe Berghdal released is really going to bit him in the ass when Bowe is charged with desertion, and possibly treason....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 No, it only encourages more of it and puts more people at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I'm OK with prisoner swaps with foreign militaries in a time of war. But with terrorists like ISIS? Hell no. Sucks to be the one captured, but why encourage them to continue doing it by providing them with favorable outcomes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Man's indignities to man. What a waste that we don't value each other more than these petty ideals. Maybe we should have 4 year olds running the world. They seem to be just fine with other 4 year olds of any color or heritage.The quicker we run out of material objects to fight over the quickly we can get on to things we fabricate. It's more easier to carry around an ideal than it is to carry around a couch or a tv set. It takes less effort an the human imagination can assist in dismantling humanity for the greater glory of principle. Why should we exchange human beings for any human beings, since it is their mindset which is valued instead of the person. We need more people on our side, because we must destroy those on the other side, since thy are the evil ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 Man's indignities to man. What a waste that we don't value each other more than these petty ideals. Maybe we should have 4 year olds running the world. They seem to be just fine with other 4 year olds of any color or heritage.The quicker we run out of material objects to fight over the quickly we can get on to things we fabricate. It's more easier to carry around an ideal than it is to carry around a couch or a tv set. It takes less effort an the human imagination can assist in dismantling humanity for the greater glory of principle. Why should we exchange human beings for any human beings, since it is their mindset which is valued instead of the person. We need more people on our side, because we must destroy those on the other side, since thy are the evil ones.I have read this through twice and frankly your point escapes my cognitive ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Man's indignities to man. What a waste that we don't value each other more than these petty ideals. Maybe we should have 4 year olds running the world. They seem to be just fine with other 4 year olds of any color or heritage.The quicker we run out of material objects to fight over the quickly we can get on to things we fabricate. It's more easier to carry around an ideal than it is to carry around a couch or a tv set. It takes less effort an the human imagination can assist in dismantling humanity for the greater glory of principle. Why should we exchange human beings for any human beings, since it is their mindset which is valued instead of the person. We need more people on our side, because we must destroy those on the other side, since thy are the evil ones.I have read this through twice and frankly your point escapes my cognitive ability. Sorry. my point is that the world is a shitty place and human being make it so with their own ideals. What is important is not that the person is an individual, since they demonize those who don't agree with them. Would these people have demanded the return of a simple goat herder who wondered into their enemies area if he had no beef with those enemies or people such as major Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter? People are valueless to those who fight idealistic wars, because it is a sacrifice to a cause and only by adherence to that cause will anyone be counted as necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 As far as the topic goes all you do is finance them, either by the money you give them or the people you swap. People such as Isis have no desire but to build upon itself with everything they can get their hands on. They are a virus and they need to be eradicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgeburner Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 In my opinion, when you swap prisoners and negotiate with terrorist, you are justifying their terror tactics. One can only imagine the conversation around the tables of ISIS and other such organizations " See, we have humbled them, drug the infidels to the table, in spite of their commitments!"They see such tactics as weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgeburner Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Would these people have demanded the return of a simple goat herder who wondered into their enemies area if he had no beef with those enemies or people such as major Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter?Hassan's killing spree in the name of Islam was qualified as "work place violence" Not terrorism. Can you imagine??? No wonder they see our commitment as weak....We are pandering to PC semantics instead of realizing an enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now