BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 09:58 PM

The density of your thought processes, DR, sometimes muddles mine. Reread Keith's posts and see if you got it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 09:24 PM

Hostage taking in one form an another has frequently been a part of conflict everywhere. The nature of media coverage has a significant effect on how things are played out - whichever side is involved they are conscious of the effect of what they do on the box. That can mean being deliberately horrific to achieve maximum effect, or the reverse.

As you say, Shanghaiceltic, an occupying army would be unlikely to threaten in press conferences to carry out certain kinds of actions, especially ones which would count as war crimes. That even applies in the case of armies that are actually carrying out war crimes. (This was demonstrated at Srbrenica, for example.)

Brendan Behan wrote a great play called The Hostage. It's got some fine songs. Maybe someone should revive it. Here's a summary from this site:

It depicts events that surround the execution of an eighteen-year-old IRA member in a Belfast jail. The audience never sees him - he has been accused of killing an Ulster policeman and sentenced to be hanged. A young British soldier, Leslie Williams, is held hostage in the brothel. After the IRA prisoner has been executed Leslie is eventually killed in a gunfire, when the police attack the place. Before it a love story develops between Leslie and Teresa, a young girl, who promises never to forget him. In the finale Leslie's corpse rises and sings:

The bells of hell
Go ting-a-ling-a-ling
For you but not for me.
Oh death, where is thy sting-a-ling-a-ling
Or grave thy victory?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 09:16 PM

I'm with Larry on this one. Look at it as a blessing, say yer sorry fir being brow-beat into Bush's farce, apologize and get the heck out.... with yer hostages. Then maybe the other brow-beat countries will follow until it's just the folks that Bush has ordered to be there... Hmmmmm?

And then the election....

And inspite of Diebold's promise to deliver the election to Bush, when the exit polls show Bush loosing by 10 or more points Diebold is gonn a have a fight on their hands on getting Bush another 4 years of *rulership*.....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:54 PM

"They have a mind set that is totally alien to most negotiators.What's "alien" about taking hostages? "

Even if the allied forces did take hostages I very much doubt they would parade them in front of cameras and threaten to burn them.

The kidnapping groups are using the media to spread their terror. The terrorist groups use bombimg methods never thought of until a few years ago, and again all on prime time media.

Yes hostage taking has always been a part of a conflict in the Middle East but out and out threats to kill by burning are another nasty new twist indicating the mindset of the extremists being deealt with.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:32 PM

One man who turned up on the news during this, making sensible comments about what it's like being a hostage, and what they'd be hoping was happening, was the journalist John McCarthy, who was for some years a hostage in Lebanon, along with Brian Keenan.

The last time he'd been on the TV was only a few weeks ago, when he was talking about the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, after a few had been released after a couple of years in there, with no charges, no evidence they'd done anything wrong at all, and no apologies. He was saying how the way they had been treated by their captors had an awful lot in common with the way he had been treated when he was a hostage.

It's good news - touch wood - if at least some of the hostages in Iraq being released. That probably means there has been some kind of a deal made, but we likely won't hear of that. There's an awful lot of posturing goes on in this kind of affair, while the real business is happening out of sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: DougR
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:16 PM

Aim your rage, Keith, at those who deserve it. The terrorists that hold the hostages.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 04:26 PM

I wonder if the U.S. will give up any of the people they are detaining? Aren't they hostages as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 04:09 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040410/ts_nm/iraq_hostages_dc_3

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi group which said it kidnapped three Japanese hostages has said it will release them within 24 hours, abandoning a threat to kill them, Arabic television station Al Jazeera said on Saturday.

"They will release them in 24 hours in response to a call from the Muslim Clerics Association," Al Jazeera said, referring to a body of Iraqi religious scholars. "

Praises be. It looks like the other fellow blinked.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:30 PM

I've heard on the news a few times today, that the Japanese hostages are going to be released. I hope this information is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:31 PM

"They have a mind set that is totally alien to most negotiators." What's "alien" about taking hostages? It happens in every action movie you've ever seen, and half the time it's the "good guys" who are doing it. It is always likely to happen in any kind of occupation, when things blow up. It's a horrible thing to do, but its happened in Ireland, in Israel, in South America. One way and another it happens in all wars, though sometimes its dressed up a little. (Any "ultimatum" that, unless something you wish happens, you will act in a particular way, is always in effect a kind of hostage situation.)

Traditionally the way occupation forces deal with hostage situations is they take counter hostages, and carry out reprisals killigngs and so forth, and things just get worse and worse. Alternatively they carry out prisoner exchanges, and this can form a basis for getting some kind of negotiations going.

The bottom line in all this for the occupying forces should be to find some viable regime to take over, which can coordinate rebuilding the country. Once that can be identified the need is to pull out occupying armies as soon as possible, while continuing to provide help towards that end, in ways that are acceptable to the new regime.

And these fantasies have to be thrown overboard. I mean these fantasies that, somehow, it will be possible to set up a government in Iraq which at the same time will serve as the local franchise for the USA, and do whatever it is told to do, and yet will have the support of the local people. That just isn't on.

And the viable regime to take over will by definition involve the kind of people who have been up in arms this week, who are in large part the same people who were overjoyed to see the end of Saddam, but who don't have any trust at all for the occupation and for the people who have been involved in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:14 PM

It's always easier to regret other peple's actions than it is our own, eh, Bob? :>)) I also find Bush an easy target for the sport of regretting others' deeds, 'cuz he makes such an easy target!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Deckman
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 01:43 PM

It's ONLY going to get an awful lot worse, real soon. I fully expect that they will burn alive the Japanese hostages and the film will be shown world wide. I can't even guess what's going to happen to the U.S. captive. I find it very interesting that the U.S. General in charge over there is now calling for a cease fire in that area.

I wondered this morning, at breakfast, if President bush ever regrets starting his war. I know that if he does, he never would admitt it. I know that I regret it. But then, I've regreted most everything that he has done. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

A response? Trade Bush for the hostages (someone else suggested this on another thread) but its the best idea yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 10:15 PM

They have no business being there in the first place. If you enter a warzone, you can expect the worse. What did they think? That they would just go do their work and come home with a big, fat, pay check and a coke?

Whether they live or die, I hope mercenaries and contract workers learn from this and get out. From what I understand, there are many in the military who would do just that, if they could. Truth is, Bush and his allies have no idea what they're dealing with but they will continue to use innocent people in their attempt to WIN.

No, I am not heartless. I am sickened by the inability of the present administration to understand that they cannot impose their politics on another country. For all I know, Bush plans to lose the election; Kerry will bring the troops home and genocide will occur. Kerry will get the blame.

Yes, I am very cynical. Whats the difference of being killed by an American or being killed by a Moslem fanatic? We haven't seen the faces of the people killed by Americans.

I understand that the Japanese haven't been allowed to see what we have seen. Why do we get to see it? Because it justifies more aggression by the U.S. Its good P.R. and the American public eats it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 09:26 PM

If the location of the hostages were known then special ops troops such as the SAS, Delta Units or Seals should be used to attempt to get them out. It would be a high risk operation. Look at what happened in Iran when the hostages were taken at the US Embassy and again in Mogadishu.

It might work on this occassion and provide a targeted response. But from the way things are going there kidnapping would seem to be a growth industry, and hostage rescue a full time job.

Negotiating with shadowy groups is not easy or just not on. They have a mind set that is totally alien to most negotiators. Further if these poor people are murdered I still cannot see Bush or Blair pulling out. But maybe if all the civilian workers and non military security workers just left then a big part of the US/UK plan would be left hanging in the air and it might make the two Dear Leaders think a bit more.

If the West did pull out there would still be a blood bath as the Sunni's and the Shiites would certainly turn on each other big time.

Bush and Blair need and must get backing from the more moderate muslim countries to take over in Iraq. I think the only answer is for the Muslim countries to work on this one. Again the problem is that many if not all did not support the Wests actions to begin with.

Bush and Blair might get that help if the start talking properly to the Palestinians and stop Sharon constanlty attacking the Palestinians. The other Muslim countries might take note and come forward if the that particular problem is solved. However that will take time. Time is not something the Middle East has a lot of before it descends into a more global conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 08:40 PM

I just read that there are reports that two more security guards have been pulled from a vehicle. In a war zone, against a determined enemy, there really is no way to keep anyone safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 08:00 PM

What to do:
- one can't do very much for the present hostages; all one can do is try to prevent more hostage taking
-- give the workers already there a chance to return home; increase the rewards to those who stay
-- issue all workers with suicide capsules and weapons to protect themselves; impress upon them how dangerous their situation is
-- give the workers more protection by professional armsmen/soldiers
-- don't pretend this will be the last time this happens; Japan must evaluate whether the increasing cost of trying to help Iraq is worth the trouble

If I were one of those hostages, I don't think I would want my plight broadcast worldwide. And I'm glad I haven't been watching television for a few days.

In the long run, foreign nations who care about their citizens will have to leave southern and central Iraq; perhaps they will remain welcome in the north. Unless America is willing to pay a huge price, Iraq will have to be divided into three parts (even though this will lead to trouble with Turkey). Perhaps there is a possibility of dividing it into only two parts (thus appeasing Turkey). Regardless, Saudi Arabia is not going to appreciate its new neighbouring quasi-democratic Islamic-republic.

Lewis Lapham, editor, Harper's Apr. 2004, p.11 (ironically, refering to old history: ...the Shah of Iran can say that he means to make a democratic state among people who believe that they have won the blessing of Allah by burning to death 400 schoolchildren in a movietheatre... I never heard about that one. Maybe something from the 1950s? I guess things have changed a little bit for the better since then. In the past, Harper's also refered to how ludicrous it was to offer US$500 to people turning in rocket launchers which were worth up to ten times that amount on the black market. Recognition of the magnitude of the problem seems to be lacking in the Bush administration. This is a horribly difficult situation. Hopefully, Bush will not be re-elected.

Aside: my first response: raze two mosques for each hostage killed; give warning, but otherwise don't wait for evacuation.

But a little reflection told me that'd be very bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 07:59 PM

If the hostage takers would follow instructions to bring the hostages to a certain intersection of a certain city at a certain time- then perhaps the - how did you put it, brucie? (I favor the other)- "poorly-understood people with a political agenda" could be shot and the hostages freed. That is not likely to happen.

I would imagine there is a feverish search on for these hostage takers. I doubt it is discovered where they are. And doubt they will find them before the three-day deadline. I think the next move is in the hands of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:42 PM

Brucie, I don't expect anyone does.

This is criminality in the extreme.

Where do you want to go from here, as far as a toothless old discussion thread is concerned?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:40 PM

I certainly don't think they should be held hostage. There are a lot of things that I don't think should be done. But not very many people listen to me when I talk about that sort of thing. I don't see that changing in this instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:12 PM

How many people here who are writing this stuff think that those people should be being held hostage?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:04 PM

Wasn't the whole reason for coining the name "Operation Shock and Awe" for the "pre-emptive war" against Iraq, and describing in detail the tonnage of explosives the US was going to drop on Iraq in a very short period of time, for the purpose of evoking terror in the Iraqis so they wouldn't put up much resistance? I'd say it certainly fits the definition of terrorism that people on this thread have given.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:54 PM

The term "terrorism" was invented as a term for what governments do sometimes, when they use their power to terrorise a population into obeying.

It then got extended, reasonably enough, to include those fighting against governments who seek to do the same thing.

However then it got adjusted rather cleverly, so that it is the term for those who are fighting the governments, and therefore all their activities are to be seen as terrorise activities. And the implication of this shift is that, since by that definition the government forces are not "terrorists", the things they do cannot be properly described as "terrorism".

And then you have people saying things like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", either to approve of the sentiment, or to ridicule it.

It seems to me that the more rational thing is to concentrate on the activities involved. No matter who you are, certain activities, notably those involving terrorising and killing civilians, and mistreating prisoners, are war crimes, and are properly called acts of terrorism.

Strick wrote there:
The objective of terrorism is to promote terror in civilian populations. Armies may do that, but as by-products, not as their primary objective, not under modern rules of war. Taking hostages like this is the act of bandits, not soldiers.

I'd actually agree much of that - but I'd re-draft it slightly so the paragraph would read:
The objective of terrorism is to promote terror in civilian populations. When Armies do that, they are in breach of modern rules of war and are acting as terrorists. Taking hostages like this is the act of bandits, not soldiers, even when those who do it wear military uniforms.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:50 PM

This is about three people who will be burned alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:39 PM

Bremer: "We are going in to punnish those who killed our contract workers (mercs)". Says I in responce... isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place? Over 50 American lives and several days latter...
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:37 PM

I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:30 PM

Nice work if you could find them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:19 PM

If they follow through by burning three people to death, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:17 PM

IF they're just misunderstood, perhaps we should try to understand them, find out all about their childhood, and THEN shoot them?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:13 PM

Excuse me: The poorly-understood people with a political agenda. Shouldn't have called them fuckers.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:11 PM

Shoot the fuckers, free the hostages, THEN debate the politics of who did what to whom, when.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Strick
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:00 PM

"Most "terrorists" aren't particularly different from regular soldiers when it comes down to it. In the case of Iraq, they quite often will be former regular soldiers anyway."

Yes McGrath, the agenda is certainly different. The objective of terrorism is to promote terror in civilian populations. Armies may do that, but as by-products, not as their primary objective, not under modern rules of war. Taking hostages like this is the act of bandits, not soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:48 PM

We are seldom shown the faces of the children we kill. What is being done to the Japanese hostages is brutal and without excuse. However, the US and Britain began to build that world in that region when, in the 1950s, Britain talked Eisenhour into destablising Iran for the benifit of British Petrolium. The lives of Sunis and Shiites has been spiraling down hill from that point on and they know why. More violence is not the answer. Japan, at least, can say, we were wrong, we went against our nation's constitution under pressure from the US, and as such, we are out of here... send our children home, accept our appologies, we are sorry we came. In the words of the British Army peace in Ireland movement... Time to go.
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:45 PM

Most "terrorists" aren't particularly different from regular soldiers when it comes down to it. In the case of Iraq, they quite often will be former regular soldiers anyway.

"Rules of war" do matter. They mean, for example, that both sides refrain from mistreating prisoners, or from recklessly endangering non-combatants, and that people who do things like that, or authorise them, should, at least in principle, be put on trial for it, as putative war criminals. People on either side. (Some chance, of course - but it's a nod in the direction of civilisation that most countries have made.)

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:33 PM

Get close, use snipers.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:29 PM

Let me point out that anyone who enters a combat zone, whether civilian or military, is risking their life. The atrocities done by the Viet Minh and the Viet Cong, by the Mau Mau, by the American Indians, by the Zulu, by the followers of Buckman in Haiti, are just as inexcusable as those done by the French, the Americans, the South Vietnamese, the British, the Russian, the Japanese military.

The "Rules of War" simply put a smile on the face of killing. The instruments of killing -- the bombs, the shells, the shrapnel, the bullets -- don't care who you are. Terrorists view themselves as a weapon, as an instrument of killing, and whatever benefit to their cause they can squeeze out of their own death is simply what the weapon was designed to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:05 PM

"When the people in opposition to you accept no limits, it is unwise to impose any on yourself."

I rather think that this is the way the people holding the hostages would try to justify what they are doing.

What's happening here isn't basically that different froim what happens in all war. Threatening and killing people the other side values in some way, as a way of forcing them to accede to your demands.

There is some difference - basically, that certain rules have been painfully worked out to rule out certain kinds of action as being beyond what is acceptable, and as comprising war crimes, and these fall outside the limits of what is acceptable. That is why the kind of thing we have seen happening in Guantanamo and stuff like that, which have trampled all over these rules, really matters.

One interesting thing was how, in one case of this hostage taking in Iraq, the Korean missionaries, they were all released. It'd be interesting to know the ins-and-outs of that - whether some deal was reached, or whether some other factor was involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:51 PM

Understandable, Keith.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:03 PM

Yes Amos. Did you not see footage of those young Japanese?

Over it now, but I still feel rage at such cruelty.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 12:50 PM

KEith:

Are you running in small circles as you type? Foaming at the mouth? You seem a but over-exercised, if I may say so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 12:48 PM

Blame Bush and Blair for this?
These people were there already. They are either seeking power, or seeking to regain it.
They are people who shout prayers while holding knives to the throat of a terrified 18 year old, who came to them unarmed and defenceless to offer help.
They are people who mutilate and dismember bodies like disturbed children pulling the wings from butterflies.
They are Godless, merciless, inhuman savages. If not fought they will impose their monstrous regimes on all.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 11:08 AM

The fourth is out of the question. Negotiation only allows them to have power where they never should have it.

The third is unconsciable (is that a word?). Having said that, I don't believe the hostages will be allowed to live regardless of the outcome of the situation. These religious fanatics don't believe that the lives of blasphemers and infidels are worth spit. They are only worth something to us.

The second can only happen with reliable and precise intel, but look where our reliable and precise intel has gotten us lately. The score so far is: 1 Sudanese Milk Factory, 1 Chinese Embassy, 1 empty training camp, 1 invasion of a sovereign country (albeit one lead by an evil dictator)under false pretenses. Lets not even talk about the people welcoming us with open arms (I gues they must have meant open small arms).

Capitulation is the only one that really makes sense with the caveat of letting them have their civil war, which is sure to come, and then dealing with the survivors of their self created nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 10:58 AM

There aren't many choices. One is capitulation; complete withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraq. I din't know how bad that would get.

A second is a surgical military operation, like a SWAT team intervention if their location is known. Risky but at least foing something.

A third is to sacrifice the hostages.

A fourth is negotiation, but I have no idea whether that is possible. We are dealing with fanatacism on its home ground, a very bad combination to be up against.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:25 AM

Just wish I'd heard Reveille a lot sooner Ebbie, I might not feel so guilty now.

Come on guys, back to the thread - where are the suggestions?

Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:15 AM

"I'm ashamed to say it, but I'm one who believed Bush and B-liar. Not any more." Actually, Strollin' Johnny, that statement is a hopeful thing to me. It shows that people are waking up!

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:06 AM

No help at all Ebbie, so sad. Wish I'd the brain to work out how to stop the hostage-taking and the killing of innocent people like the Madrid bombing, the 'collateral damage' caused by unjustifiable military action etc. etc., but all I can do is sympathise.

I'm ashamed to say it, but I'm one who believed Bush and B-liar. Not any more.

Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:55 AM

Strollin' Johnny, it may be a L O N G wait but I'm waiting for the day when humankind realizes that to send people out to fight and die for YOU is unconscionable. Yes, my vote goes for sending Dubya over there in their place. We should get up a petition.

Thanks for your comments. I agree. But agreement doesn't help, does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:39 AM

Easier questions to answer would be 'What is the meaning of Life?', and 'Why does dropped toast always fall buttered-side down?'. Not meaning to be facetious here, too serious a subject - it's such a big question and I can't imagine that there's a definitive answer. The images on UK TV last night of these poor people cringing in terror with knives held to their throats were truly shocking, and equally shocking was the reporter's remark that the tape had been edited to remove scenes which were deemed too horrific to show.

It was also reported on radio yesterday that the uprising in Iraq was targetted only at the forces of occupation, not at foreign civilians. Nobody seems to have told these guys.

Maybe a solution would be to turn the gentlemen whose lies led us into this crap over to the hostage-takers in exchange for the innocent? Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: mack/misophist
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 11:12 PM

When the people in opposition to you accept no limits, it is unwise to impose any on yourself.

Subject: BS: Responses to Hostage Taking and Threats
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 10:50 PM

Excerpt: Yahoo/ AP

"TV pictures aired in the Middle East by the Al-Jazeera satellite network and rebroadcast during prime time in Japan showed the three Japanese hostages — two aid workers and a journalist — wide-eyed and moaning in terror as their black-clad captors held knives to their throats, shouting God is Great in Arabic.

"The Japanese government called the abductions "unforgivable" but said they did not justify withdrawal of its 530 troops doing reconstruction work in the south. It was not clear when the three were captured.

"Two Arab aid workers from Jerusalem — one who had once lived in Georgia — were abducted in a separate incident, and a Syrian-born Canadian humanitarian aid worker for the International Rescue Committee was taken hostage Wednesday by a local militia in Najaf.

"Eight South Korean Christian missionaries were seized by gunmen outside Baghdad. Seven were freed after one of them escaped, the Foreign Ministry in Seoul said."

In the case of the three Japanese hostages, their captors are demanding the withdrawal of Japan from Iraq and say they will burn the hostages alive within three days from today if their demands are not met.

I'm aware of the long-term implications of giving in to demands of hostage takers. And I'm also aware of the fear of the hostages and the agony of their families.

But, morally and practically, (not necessarily the same thing) just what practices in response are defensible?