Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community' started by BakedBeans, Oct 8, 2004.
lets hope its not true..
Not to sound ignorant - but, well, I am I guess....who's Ken Bigley?
he is a man from liverpool england that was taken hostage in iraq and it looks like they beheaded/murdered him
Ah - that's not good. Do you have a link to the story or did you hear about it somewhere.
I'm surprised it hasn't got coverage in the U.S., it's been on almost constantly here...
Blairs been taking some serious sh*t from some quarters for not negotiating with his captures to secure his freedom
The UK doesn't negotiate with scum.
you cant though can you... you cant start bargaining with terrorists... every terrorist and his dog will do it, as hard as it is for his family i can understand why we didnt negotiate,,,, we need to hurt falujah and hit it hard
Err...wasn't that the reason for Ken Bigley being taken hostage in the first place?
some people in this country just don't get that though.
well lets roll over and take it then.... we ENGLISH are not like that..... we need to do something... put this baby to bed once and for all... i would if i were in charge (might well be the reason im not)
No... he was taken hostage because the terrorists hate anyone that is not suffering. They hate civilized world from the ground up. The only response they understand is a physical threat. I feel sorry for Ken, however he knew the risks going into Iraq. IMHO, the Americans and the British need to get more aggressive in their attacks.
And you think that bombing the hell out of al-Fallujah is going to "put this baby to bed once and for all"?
More likely, such an attack would result in the deaths of many innocent Iraqi civilians. In turn, this would lead to more British and American soldiers being killed, and more British and American civilians being captured and murdered.
well firstly you can STOP putting words in my mouth....
i said we need to hit them hard and were it hurts that doesnt mean bomb them them or kill civis does it??
so yes its a better plan than sitting and doing nothing... how many times can we let this go?? how long before you can just take and kill hostages will no concequences...nice plan brize
Yep, that line of thinking certainly appears to be paying dividends at the moment.
Okay, well what exactly do you mean by hitting them hard and where it hurts?
they have a video of his execution (not confirmed)
tell me brize what would you do???
Its a right bugger knowing what to do, isnt it?
The hostage takers arnt exactly know for telling people where they are. Its a natural instinct to punish them, but how do you do this without making the situation worse for everyone? Its not like you can issue them with an arrest warrant.
And by everyone, I mean innocent Iraqi's, non-iraqi soldiers and non-iraqi contractors like Ken
Whatever the coalition does, it MUST stablise Iraq for things to improve. Offensive operations has only so far made things worse.
Even if we were only attempting to police the area, the terrorists would still be kidnapping people. They don't like "westerners", it doesn't matter why we are there, only that we are there.
War sucks... people die... The current generation is too pampered to realize that people get hurt / die in a war. People think that modern techonology has elimated the risk in war. It hasn't. However, the people that we are attacking are evil people. They must be dealt with, otherwise we will witness another September 11th.
If you believe being a passivist would prevent attacks, look at Russia. They were against the Iraqi war, however they still experienced a terrorist attack.
Sorry for the rant, however too many people think the terrorists think rationally.
they havnt made them worse for the iraqi people in genaral, with sadam hussien out of power that is a good thing... however... i feel we have no choice but to defend ourselves by going on the offensive..
Again, I agree with you AL-FAMOUS. Just playing a defensive game doesn't leave the kind of options that playing an offensive game leaves you. It's often too late once you are backed into a corner and left with little choice. Many of the attrocities of the world could have been prevented if action would have been taken earlier.
Random thoughts this thread sparked in me as I read through it...
I really feel for his family. I cannot imagine the pain they are going through, and I hope I never can.
It is a despicable quandary that the world now finds itself in. If you attack the terrorists in an attempt to eradicate their leadership, you only end up breeding the next generation of terrorists to perpetuate the problem. There does not yet seem to be an effective method of negotiating with terrorists, other than rolling over and giving them whatever they demand (obviously not an option). Reason with them? Hah, reason has nothing to do with it.
With no clear way out, I fear that it is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
Sure seems like the bloodiest, most heinous acts are always performed in the name of some god or other. Aren't religion and faith supposed to be good things?
we need to have a plan we need to let every terrorist and potential terrorist know that executing and beheading our civilians for no reason will be punished and will be dealt with, with the upmost severity... they need to be taught that we wont give in to terrorist that there is no chance for that to happen and that it will only disadvantage them
i agree my country negotiated with terrorists and that just made us look weak
This is my plan. I think I would make a good prime minister. I couldn't do much worse than most of the ones we've had.
The aim of the insurgents, al-quaeda, etc is to get westerners (esp soldiers) out of the Arab countries. I don't know the exact numbers, but lets say there are 100,000 US/UK/etc soldiers in Iraq.
We should state publicly that for every month that goes by with no attacks on us, we will withdraw 2,000 soldiers. For every month that goes by where there are attacks on us, we will send 2,000 more soldiers.
So, if the scum stop attacking us, they will get what they want. (This is also what we want in the long run).
Assuming they play ball, we will have withdrawn our soldiers in 50 months, or about 4 years. I don't think we can realistically expect to do it much quicker than that.
This plan would give them some control over us, which is what they want. It would also hopefully stop the awful attacks on our soldiers.
I think we should include the current Iraqi regime, the new police and military in the deal, to protect them as they begin to take control of their country.
Perhaps we could make extra offers, such as we'll withdraw an extra 10,000 troops if they allow the elections to take place with no attacks or disruption.
Many critics of the war would specifically have not waged the war in the first place because they could see no solution to the mess that would predictably follow.
If the US and British participants of this discussion were all to declare why they thought their Governments undertook this invasion, the accounts would vary starkly. Some accounts would appear certain, others confused, but for sure the accounts would differ. That variation alone should alert policymakers to develop a full understanding of the context of these events, and to approach the issue with knowledge and with moderation.
Sounds good in theory, but these terrorists arnt committing these vile acts for a free Iraq. They are doing for power. If Iraq was stable and boring, these people would be ordinary thugs. But when theres an instable government with a foreign power invading their country- BOOM! Look how much power these warlords can suddenly exert.
Thing of these people as Warlords - warlords need war to exert power, and to do that they need to stir it up. A free, peaceful Iraq? Nah, these Warlords arent interested.