Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISIS hostages; should we care?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michele View Post
    If that's what you think, why don't you simply say so? Why all the hair splitting? Maybe you are aware that that will look bad?
    I thought I just did....It also appears you are rude and a troll....<Plonk>

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michele View Post
      I think that any solution, including this one, would be reasonable, if everything was made clear, and done in full sunlight, from the beginning.

      It's the same principle of the "social contract" that should rule every other interaction of the citizens with their state. Make it explicit and have no loopholes. Then if one is up for the terms and conditions, fine. If not, he shouldn't accept it.

      If a country tells the NGOs based there: "look, we suggest you not to go to country X. If you go, then when the UN organizations run, we suggest you do the same. If you want to stay, we suggest you pay a hefty sum for insurance against kidnapping or for hiring a private security outfit. If you don't - then be aware you are on your own, we won't come to rescue you"... I would have less problems with that, than with what seems to be the current policy of my country.
      Which seems to be, namely, that we pay ransoms (out of my pockets too, since I'm a taxpayer) if and when the political conditions make it necessary, but we don't officially admit it.
      You know who would be oppoosed to that?
      The UN, and anyone else that is striving for the absolute centralization of everything in this world, they would never allow it.

      Ever heard of Executive Outcomes? They were working along similar lines doing the same sort of stuff... and were branded as Mercenaries and blacklisted but the masters of the universe, a.k.a. the Media.

      But hell, we can still dream...
      ... for now.
      "Why is the Rum gone?"

      -Captain Jack

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nichols View Post
        The FBI’s jurisdiction in crimes or attacks against Americans abroad dates back to the mid-1980s, when Congress passed laws authorizing us to investigate hostage-taking and kidnappings of Americans and terrorist acts against U.S. nationals or interests overseas. Of course, we don’t go uninvited into another country—we get permission from the host government and always work with that nation’s law enforcement and security personnel, in concert with the U.S. Embassy and the Ambassador.

        http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008...ational_060308



        He believes what he is saying .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ljadw View Post


          He believes what he is saying .
          What part of that are you contesting?
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
            You know who would be oppoosed to that?
            The UN, and anyone else that is striving for the absolute centralization of everything in this world, they would never allow it.

            Ever heard of Executive Outcomes? They were working along similar lines doing the same sort of stuff... and were branded as Mercenaries and blacklisted but the masters of the universe, a.k.a. the Media.

            But hell, we can still dream...
            ... for now.
            I never said there wouldn't be drawbacks to that. The UN would be against this not just on principle and for itself; the UN's will is the sum of the wills of the countries, or to be more accurate the lowest common denominator, and no country would be happy about that sort of thing being an acknowledged, officially accepted solution, because it's a loss of sovereignty.

            They have their good reasons for that. Private military companies are, after all, mercenaries, and mercenaries can get out of hand.

            Note, however, that the solution proposed is to spend or allocate private money to fund military solutions or insurance solutions. Shipping companies worldwide are, as of now, spending money for insurance policies that do cover piracy. NGOs and countries who are not comfortable with muscle solutions, could still adopt the alternative. It wouldn't work with politically or ideologically (which includes religiously) motivated kidnappings, though.

            Both of these, as I mentioned, would still be better, IMHO, than the current Italian solution I described above.
            Last edited by Michele; 17 Feb 15, 03:43.
            Michele

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darth Holliday View Post
              I thought I just did....
              No. You introduced the distinction of dangers on the high seas as opposed to dangers on land.
              Then I asked you what about dangers on land only, leaving aside the issue of free commerce through international waters? What about charity workers, businessmen, and tourists who are on land?
              And you...

              still dodge the question. Remarkable.

              It also appears you are rude and a troll....<Plonk>
              As to the issue of rudeness, if you feel I have offended you, please accept my apologies, and if you feel that that is not enough, please contact the moderators.

              As to the issue of trolling, if your definition of trolling includes insisting for a simple answer to a simple question, your definition is a bit too wide. Again, you can contact the moderators.
              Michele

              Comment


              • The Michelle case:firstly taken for a french,then,for a girl, now , for a troll..
                It's a sad week for ya!
                That rug really tied the room together

                Comment


                • Anyway ---------

                  What we've got going on here is an escalation of atrocities. That doesn't bode well.

                  First we had the beheading of various great-power nationals --- France, USA, Japan. Then they burned someone alive. This past week they beheaded 21 Christians in Libya.

                  They film all this because they need us to see it and get upset.

                  This is the bin Laden problem: he bombed two U.S. embassies and a U.S. Navy ship and we blew it off. This is because Americans are not interested in anything that goes on outside the U.S. I am not complaining about that, but it is the case. So bin Laden figured this out and plane-bombed New York. That worked well to get our attention.

                  ISIS has found a way in through our attention defenses --- the YouTube/Twitter/Facebook communications that we invented and use heavily. They can put their beheading and burning alive films on those media and it gets to us.

                  However, this is an escalation, and they've already been hitting European targets with their homegrown crazies instructed to kill, kill, kill. They HAVE to keep escalating, or we'll get bored and stop paying attention.

                  So I figure they'll keep hitting Europe, and they'll start hitting us.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X