One more reason I'm glad to be Canadian

[Goofball]

Thank goodness for the happy ending for one of our citizens.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060316.wxhostage16/BNStory/International/home


Passport saved Canadian hostage

Held hostage at gunpoint by Palestinian extremists in the Gaza Strip, Mark Budzanowski feared for his life – until his captors discovered his passport and declared 'We love Canada'


MARK MACKINNON
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
JERUSALEM — Mark Budzanowski could almost feel his captors' mood sag when they rifled through his pockets and found his passport. The word Canada on the cover was a blow to the dozens of masked men who surrounded him in the nondescript basement somewhere in the Gaza Strip. They thought they had kidnapped an American.
At first, the men in the masks didn't believe their eyes, and questioned the 57-year-old aid worker about Canada and about specific shops near Mr. Budzanowski's residence on Carlton Street in Toronto.
When they were finally convinced that Mr. Budzanowski was not an American in disguise, he said, they started treating him more politely, and handling him less roughly.
aPs="boxR";var boxRAC = fnTdo('a'+'ai',300,250,ai,'j',nc);
"When they were certain I was Canadian, they were very disappointed. Then, they told me, 'We love Canada.' That's wonderful to hear when you have guns pointed at you," an exhausted Mr. Budzanowski said yesterday in a telephone interview shortly after he was released after almost 30 hours as a hostage.
"It's wonderful to have a Canadian passport because it changes people's minds. One of the guards kept asking me to say hello to Canada, so it does stand for something."
His former captors had taken a liking to him toward the end of the hostage-taking and one — the one who kept asking him to say hello to Canada — even gave him a phone number to call if he ever needed the help of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
"I don't intend to use it, but I believe he meant it," Mr. Budzanowski said with a chuckle.
He was one of 11 foreigners taken hostage by Palestinian gunmen on Tuesday after the Israeli army attacked a prison in the West Bank city of Jericho, eventually capturing militant leader Ahmed Saadat and five other wanted men who had been in Palestinian custody. All the foreign hostages have since been released.
Mr. Budzanowski's captors, members of the leftist PFLP, which Mr. Saadat leads, had been looking for an American or British hostage, someone they could potentially use as barter to get Israel to stop its attack on the jail.
Under a complicated international agreement, U.S. and British monitors had been stationed at the prison since 2002 as guarantors of Mr. Saadat's sentence, but left their posts just minutes before the Israeli tanks and bulldozers arrived. The short period of time between the departure of the monitors and the arrival of the Israeli military sparked charges of collusion and a wave of anti-foreigner anger across the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Gunmen wearing masks and military fatigues burst into the Gaza City offices of Jumpstart International, the U.S.-based humanitarian group that Mr. Budzanowski works for, shortly after the Israeli assault on the Jericho prison began Tuesday morning. Pointing Kalashnikov rifles at his chest, they blindfolded him and shoved him down stairs and into a waiting car.
Mr. Budzanowski, who could see some of what was going on despite the blindfold, says the hostage-takers then drove him at high speed through the streets of Gaza, firing in the air to get the drivers of other vehicles to get out of their way. Eventually, they ended up in the basement of a house in the neighbouring city of Khan Younis, the first of a succession of hideouts to which the broad-shouldered, bespectacled Canadian was taken. He said his captors who openly wore PFLP colours. "looked more like bikers than a militia or military unit."
At times, they changed addresses every half-hour. They forced Mr. Budzanowski to change out of the tan suit he was wearing and put on ill-fitting clothes they gave him. Later, they instructed him to put his suit back on.
At one stop, they made him record a video that was broadcast on international news networks Tuesday night. In the video, Mr. Budzanowski, shown surrounded by masked men and flags of the PFLP, said his kidnapping was the work of "patriotic Palestinians" who wanted to protest the U.S. and British roles in the Jericho raid. He also told the camera that he and other foreigners taken hostage that day would meet the same fate as Mr. Saadat. Later when he was freed, he recalled that he had been so tired and frightened that he hadn't known what he was saying, merely reading a script they gave him.
"They told me what to say: how awful the Israelis were, how wonderful the PFLP was. I was very obliging, whatever they told me. I don't even remember what I said." He added, however, that he understood the anger the Palestinians felt over the Jericho raid, even if he didn't agree with the use of violence in response.
After the broadcast of the video, the hostage-takers began to pass on handwritten notes from Mr. Budzanowski's friends and colleagues. They heartened him — it meant people knew where he was, and he began to hope he would soon be released.
After a sleepless night, during which his captors kept flicking on the light to make sure he wasn't trying to escape, Mr. Budzanowski said, he was forced to record another video, then put back into a car and driven to what he assumed would be another hideout. Only when he saw a crowd of camera-wielding journalists, and then was greeted by French diplomats acting on behalf of the Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv, did Mr. Budzanowski realize that he was being freed.
But while the Canadian embassy had arranged safe passage for him to Tel Aviv, and then home to Canada if he wanted, Mr. Budzanowski decided to stay in Gaza City. After what he hoped would be a long sleep and a warm shower, the aid worker planned to be back at his desk at Jumpstart this morning.
Despite his lack of sleep, Mr. Budzanowski spoke passionately about the need to help Palestinians rebuild their economy and society. He said Jumpstart's projects — including the building of a polytechnic school on the ruins of a deserted Israeli settlement in Gaza and a "peace park" near the Rafah border crossing with Egypt — are too important for him to go home now.
Palestinian police were less sure he should stay, and posted guards outside his room in Gaza City last night. Mr. Budzanowski, however, wasn't worried.
"I find this work very exciting, this is tangible help we're giving, and there's no reason for me to go home because of an incident like this, no matter how unpleasant."

[BigTex]

Thats got to be one of the strangest stories I've heard in a long time Mr. Goofball. Just hope it helps those idiots in the PFLP realize kindness will get more people to help you in your cause. Rather then taking hostages at gunpoint. I sure hope he hands over that phone number to the authorities so they can track those idiots down.

[Duke Malcolm]

Don't the Canadian passports say something about being on Her Britannic Majesty's behalf?

[Byzantine Prince]

As if all the prosperity, low crime rate, and world renoun for being peaceful and kind wasn't enough. :2thumbsup:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Your proud terrorists love you????
Wow

[master of the puppets]

...now i know i'm never going to palestine...ever...and to continue to critisize the terrorists as a bunch o dumbarses. but is it really justified how isreral is assaulting the prison?

[GoreBag]

Heh. The ol' sewn patch on the backpack in different form.

[Ice]

Your proud terrorists love you????
Wow

I was thinking the same thing. Yeah, that would make me love my country more, too.

[Goofball]

Your proud terrorists love you????
WowI was thinking the same thing. Yeah, that would make me love my country more, too.

Smarten up guys.

You completely forgot to ask me why Canadians hate freedom.

I'm willing to overlook it this time and not report you, but don't let it happen again or you risk losing your Konservative Klub memberships.

Edit: Fix quote tags

[Beirut]

Your proud terrorists love you????
Wow

We're not proud they "love us", we're proud our reputation as being peaceful people still exists.

I consider it a blessing for both sides. If you have someone who is considered a terrorist, and he meets even one person from "the other side" he does not want to kill, then that is the beginning of a meeting of minds and a beginning to an end to the killing. When we're not killing each other, chances are we're talking. Talking leads to understanding, and understanding to acceptance and compromise. What risk does it entail? Peace? I can live with that.

The world is chock full of people who want to kill other people. I view events like this as a chink in the armour of those who see violence as their only recourse.

[Ice]

Smarten up guys.

You completely forgot to ask me why Canadians hate freedom.

I'm willing to overlook it this time and not report you, but don't let it happen again or you risk losing your Konservative Klub memberships.

Edit: Fix quote tags

Creative, although im disappointed you didn't add a third k.

[Beirut]

The guy taken hostage has some serious balls on him to be going right back to work.


:canada:

Being peaceful and being a coward are two entirely different things.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Thank goodness for the happy ending for one of our citizens.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060316.wxhostage16/BNStory/International/home


Passport saved Canadian hostage

Held hostage at gunpoint by Palestinian extremists in the Gaza Strip, Mark Budzanowski feared for his life – until his captors discovered his passport and declared 'We love Canada'


MARK MACKINNON
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
JERUSALEM — Mark Budzanowski could almost feel his captors' mood sag when they rifled through his pockets and found his passport. The word Canada on the cover was a blow to the dozens of masked men who surrounded him in the nondescript basement somewhere in the Gaza Strip. They thought they had kidnapped an American.
At first, the men in the masks didn't believe their eyes, and questioned the 57-year-old aid worker about Canada and about specific shops near Mr. Budzanowski's residence on Carlton Street in Toronto.
When they were finally convinced that Mr. Budzanowski was not an American in disguise, he said, they started treating him more politely, and handling him less roughly.
aPs="boxR";var boxRAC = fnTdo('a'+'ai',300,250,ai,'j',nc);
"When they were certain I was Canadian, they were very disappointed. Then, they told me, 'We love Canada.' That's wonderful to hear when you have guns pointed at you," an exhausted Mr. Budzanowski said yesterday in a telephone interview shortly after he was released after almost 30 hours as a hostage.
"It's wonderful to have a Canadian passport because it changes people's minds. One of the guards kept asking me to say hello to Canada, so it does stand for something."
His former captors had taken a liking to him toward the end of the hostage-taking and one — the one who kept asking him to say hello to Canada — even gave him a phone number to call if he ever needed the help of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
"I don't intend to use it, but I believe he meant it," Mr. Budzanowski said with a chuckle.
He was one of 11 foreigners taken hostage by Palestinian gunmen on Tuesday after the Israeli army attacked a prison in the West Bank city of Jericho, eventually capturing militant leader Ahmed Saadat and five other wanted men who had been in Palestinian custody. All the foreign hostages have since been released.
Mr. Budzanowski's captors, members of the leftist PFLP, which Mr. Saadat leads, had been looking for an American or British hostage, someone they could potentially use as barter to get Israel to stop its attack on the jail.
Under a complicated international agreement, U.S. and British monitors had been stationed at the prison since 2002 as guarantors of Mr. Saadat's sentence, but left their posts just minutes before the Israeli tanks and bulldozers arrived. The short period of time between the departure of the monitors and the arrival of the Israeli military sparked charges of collusion and a wave of anti-foreigner anger across the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Gunmen wearing masks and military fatigues burst into the Gaza City offices of Jumpstart International, the U.S.-based humanitarian group that Mr. Budzanowski works for, shortly after the Israeli assault on the Jericho prison began Tuesday morning. Pointing Kalashnikov rifles at his chest, they blindfolded him and shoved him down stairs and into a waiting car.
Mr. Budzanowski, who could see some of what was going on despite the blindfold, says the hostage-takers then drove him at high speed through the streets of Gaza, firing in the air to get the drivers of other vehicles to get out of their way. Eventually, they ended up in the basement of a house in the neighbouring city of Khan Younis, the first of a succession of hideouts to which the broad-shouldered, bespectacled Canadian was taken. He said his captors who openly wore PFLP colours. "looked more like bikers than a militia or military unit."
At times, they changed addresses every half-hour. They forced Mr. Budzanowski to change out of the tan suit he was wearing and put on ill-fitting clothes they gave him. Later, they instructed him to put his suit back on.
At one stop, they made him record a video that was broadcast on international news networks Tuesday night. In the video, Mr. Budzanowski, shown surrounded by masked men and flags of the PFLP, said his kidnapping was the work of "patriotic Palestinians" who wanted to protest the U.S. and British roles in the Jericho raid. He also told the camera that he and other foreigners taken hostage that day would meet the same fate as Mr. Saadat. Later when he was freed, he recalled that he had been so tired and frightened that he hadn't known what he was saying, merely reading a script they gave him.
"They told me what to say: how awful the Israelis were, how wonderful the PFLP was. I was very obliging, whatever they told me. I don't even remember what I said." He added, however, that he understood the anger the Palestinians felt over the Jericho raid, even if he didn't agree with the use of violence in response.
After the broadcast of the video, the hostage-takers began to pass on handwritten notes from Mr. Budzanowski's friends and colleagues. They heartened him — it meant people knew where he was, and he began to hope he would soon be released.
After a sleepless night, during which his captors kept flicking on the light to make sure he wasn't trying to escape, Mr. Budzanowski said, he was forced to record another video, then put back into a car and driven to what he assumed would be another hideout. Only when he saw a crowd of camera-wielding journalists, and then was greeted by French diplomats acting on behalf of the Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv, did Mr. Budzanowski realize that he was being freed.
But while the Canadian embassy had arranged safe passage for him to Tel Aviv, and then home to Canada if he wanted, Mr. Budzanowski decided to stay in Gaza City. After what he hoped would be a long sleep and a warm shower, the aid worker planned to be back at his desk at Jumpstart this morning.
Despite his lack of sleep, Mr. Budzanowski spoke passionately about the need to help Palestinians rebuild their economy and society. He said Jumpstart's projects — including the building of a polytechnic school on the ruins of a deserted Israeli settlement in Gaza and a "peace park" near the Rafah border crossing with Egypt — are too important for him to go home now.
Palestinian police were less sure he should stay, and posted guards outside his room in Gaza City last night. Mr. Budzanowski, however, wasn't worried.
"I find this work very exciting, this is tangible help we're giving, and there's no reason for me to go home because of an incident like this, no matter how unpleasant."

That made me laugh a bit. I'd love to move to Canada. Good think that man is safe!:2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

well they may love yall but thet fear me https://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1406/1st20texas203b20muted2nw.th.gif (https://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1st20texas203b20muted2nw.gif)

[Papewaio]

Ohhh that is such a cute little state. Come give us a cuddle. :laugh4:

BTW Aussies get the same treatment as the Canadians by the ransomers in Palestine.

[Kraxis]

Oh come on...

So because terrorists loves something, you must hate it? Is it down to that? I hope not.

I can understand why it makes Canadians feel all warm inside. When even the baddies see them as good guys despite that fact that Canada is on the other side of the fence, well then it can only be good. And of course there is the personal safety issue that I can understand is quite well liked.

I could understand frowns if it was becasue Canada had sent billions of dollars to PFLP, or something like that. But they jsut like Canada because it is percieved as nice country. And perhaps to them as the 'friendly' version of the US.

[Byzantine Prince]

When even the baddies see them as good guys despite that fact that Canada is on the other side of the fence
Which side of the fence? The one that makes cartoons and offends everyone? :sweatdrop:

Or are you still bitching about that rock we won't give you? :laugh4:

[Reenk Roink]

Changes nothing.

The three reasons to love Canada:

Hockey, Neil Young, Curling...:2thumbsup:...:canada:

[Kraxis]

Which side of the fence? The one that makes cartoons and offends everyone? :sweatdrop:

Or are you still bitching about that rock we won't give you? :laugh4:
I think you have misunderstood... We won't give you the rock. We have even named the place (long ago).

The fence is the the western one.
And do you want us to appologize and say "Fine we can't make fun of religion."? The cartoons might (the two of them) not have been nice, but the reactions were out of proportion to it. Especially given how many time the profet has been presented in other medias. And at least once naked... Why the sudden political outrage if not for political reasons?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Smarten up guys.

You completely forgot to ask me why Canadians hate freedom.

I'm willing to overlook it this time and not report you, but don't let it happen again or you risk losing your Konservative Klub memberships.

Edit: Fix quote tags
That goes without saying, i.e. read my sig in about 3 minutes.

[Navaros]

Don't get "too glad" there, Goofball. No doubt there will be forthcoming Canadian hostages due to Canada's foolish politicians having the "great idea" to send Canadian forces to occupy Afghanistan. It is unlikely that those Canadian hostages will be so lucky as the one in the original post is.

[Ice]

:canada:

Being peaceful and being a coward are two entirely different things.

Although I hate it, I have to admit I agree, Beirut.

[Husar]

Oh come on...

So because terrorists loves something, you must hate it? Is it down to that? I hope not.
If people think that, remind them that terrorists love women...:laugh4:

[Goofball]

Don't get "too glad" there, Goofball. No doubt there will be forthcoming Canadian hostages due to Canada's foolish politicians having the "great idea" to send Canadian forces to occupy Afghanistan. It is unlikely that those Canadian hostages will be so lucky as the one in the original post is.

You may be right about future Canadian hostages. However, I fully support the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. I think sending our folks there is the right thing to do.

[Vladimir]

We're not proud they "love us", we're proud our reputation as being peaceful people still exists.

I consider it a blessing for both sides. If you have someone who is considered a terrorist, and he meets even one person from "the other side" he does not want to kill, then that is the beginning of a meeting of minds and a beginning to an end to the killing. When we're not killing each other, chances are we're talking. Talking leads to understanding, and understanding to acceptance and compromise. What risk does it entail? Peace? I can live with that.

The world is chock full of people who want to kill other people. I view events like this as a chink in the armour of those who see violence as their only recourse.

I thought they loved Canada because you provide a safe haven from which they infiltrate the US. Silly me.

[Goofball]

I thought they loved Canada because you provide a safe haven from which they infiltrate the US. Silly me.

The last part of your statement is correct.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

:canada:

Being peaceful and being a coward are two entirely different things.
Not always, but yeah, I agree with you there.

Although you really shouldn't be so peaceful. It's bad for people.

[Divinus Arma]

:unitedstates:

I kinda thought it was odd to be happy that terrorists like you too.

I want them to despise me and fear me for the shower of death I bring upon them in retaliation for the horrors they commit. I want them to cringe sleepless in the night, waiting anxiously for one of my peers to blow the door off its hinges, charge in, and gun them down.

Americans sleep safe in their bed because rough men like us stand ready to visit violence on those that would do them harm.
It is the same the world over. Cheers to those that refuse to back down or submit to the terrorists.


:unitedstates:

[Beirut]

I thought they loved Canada because you provide a safe haven from which they infiltrate the US. Silly me.

No need to apologize for being silly. We understand. :bow:

[Csargo]

we're proud our reputation as being peaceful people still exists.

Peaceful.........yeah right:book:

[Ironside]

:palestine:

I kinda thought it was odd to be happy that imperialists like you too.

I want them to despise me and fear me for the shower of death I bring upon them in retaliation for the horrors they commit. I want them to cringe sleepless in the night, waiting anxiously for one of my peers to blow the door off its hinges, charge in, and gun them down.

Palestinians sleep safe in their bed because rough men like us stand ready to visit violence on those that would do them harm.
It is the same the world over. Cheers to those that refuse to back down or submit to the imperialists.


:palestine:

I've seen this mindset from somewere before... :juggle:

[Beirut]

Peaceful.........yeah right:book:

:book:

~:rolleyes: Hmm, what's he reading up there that says we're not peaceful?

[Husar]

I've seen this mindset from somewere before... :juggle:
Yeah, just what I thought.
Did I already mention that our friends from the US are just jealous because everybody loves Canadians? Imperialists always want their country to be the best and most beloved. And those attempts here to attack Canadians are really funny, the only basis there is for those attacks is jealousy, the rest is just random nonsense added to achieve a higher amount of words...:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

I've seen this mindset from somewere before..
Yes , it is sad mindset , almost pityfull . Wanting to be despised yet complaining that you are despised :no:

[Divinus Arma]

:palestine:

I kinda thought it was odd to be happy that imperialists like you too.

I want them to despise me and fear me for the shower of death I bring upon them in retaliation for the horrors they commit. I want them to cringe sleepless in the night, waiting anxiously for one of my peers to blow the door off its hinges, charge in, and gun them down.

Palestinians sleep safe in their bed because rough men like us stand ready to visit violence on those that would do them harm.
It is the same the world over. Cheers to those that refuse to back down or submit to the imperialists.


:palestine:


I've seen this mindset from somewere before...


Very well done Ironside. You have proven your point with ease. My comments were vague and I failed to place them in an appropriate context.

To place my warmongering in perspective:
A key difference between us and our enemy, is that we do not intentionally target civilians. We avoid civilian casualities in every cirumstance whenever possible. This does not mean that sometimes civilian casulaties occur, but our intent and method are to attack military targets. They, on the other hand, intentionally target civilians.

[Byzantine Prince]

The problem is that you are fighting in a place where militants are also civialians, and civilians are potential militants if you piss them off enough by bombing their families at random. SO there is NO difference. Both sides are idiots.

[Csargo]

I'm reading "How Canadians aren't really peaceful"
:D

[Beirut]

I'm reading "How Canadians aren't really peaceful"
:D

Well, we're not terribly peaceful when someone sticks their boot in our behind or in the behind of one of our friends, hence, Afghanistan.

But in general we're wonderful and peaceful people. All squishy and warm on the inside and friendly and attractive on the outside. ~:smoking:

[Csargo]

Well, we're not terribly peaceful when someone sticks their boot in our behind or in the behind of one of our friends, hence, Afghanistan.

But in general we're wonderful and peaceful people. All squishy and warm on the inside and friendly and attractive on the outside. ~:smoking:

Well thats nice to know.:2thumbsup:

[Ironside]

Very well done Ironside. You have proven your point with ease. My comments were vague and I failed to place them in an appropriate context.

To place my warmongering in perspective:
A key difference between us and our enemy, is that we do not intentionally target civilians. We avoid civilian casualities in every cirumstance whenever possible. This does not mean that sometimes civilian casulaties occur, but our intent and method are to attack military targets. They, on the other hand, intentionally target civilians.

Ah, but the point here is that if both sides got the same mindset as shown above, then a conflict cannot be resolved until one side dead. And when it's a conflict were both sides represent people, then... :shame:

What those kidnappers show is that they aren't beyond the point of talking and thus not needed to be eliminated to resolve the conflict. Thus this shows the opportunity to resolve the situation without genoside. This and the fact that Canadians appearently got good enough reputation for thier nationality to work as protection, is good news, especially for the Canadians of course.

But for you it's terrorists is bad = everything they do is bad, everything they tuch is defiled and is needed to be purified.
Having them fear and hate you will kill far more of those citizens you want to defend than them respecting, liking and accepting you.

For the record I prefer the western side, but I prefer a resolved conflict and peace higher than those ideas you showed here.
Because with that mindset, peace can never be reached, and you'll forever be trapped in conflict.

And remember that if you had been born Palestinian (or Israeli), there had been Americans (and Israelis) (or Palestinians) that wanted you to despise him and fear him, cringe sleepless in the night, waiting anxiously for one of his peers to blow the door off its hinges, charge in, and gun you down.

Be happy that you're not part of the problem, but only because you're not directly involved in the conflict.

[Banquo's Ghost]

A key difference between us and our enemy, is that we do not intentionally target civilians. We avoid civilian casualities in every cirumstance whenever possible. This does not mean that sometimes civilian casulaties occur, but our intent and method are to attack military targets. They, on the other hand, intentionally target civilians.

That's not entirely true, DA. If the US military is following standard anti-terrorism strategy (and they certainly appear to be from my reading of the methods used) they will be trying to frighten local populations away from supporting insurgents who they may be tempted to support.

This necessitates a certain level of civilian casualties. It is presented to the media as 'collateral damage' but it is certainly by design. 'Terror' is a tactic used by both sides.

You can't beat embedded terrorists without terrifying their civilian support. Sadly, this is a macabre balancing act, because you are unlikely to reduce the supply of insurgents using such methods either. The enemy targets civilians because they lack the hardware to make an impression on conventional forces - they can only hit soft targets. Most terrorists would far rather attack soldiers - it has high propaganda value for their local support - but they can rarely bring it off.

It's one reason why terrorism is rarely beaten through conventional military means.

[Tribesman]

Most terrorists would far rather attack soldiers - it has high propaganda value for their local support - but they can rarely bring it off.

But 85% of the bomb attacks are aimed at military targets , the problem is that the military target is likely to be operating in an area full of civilians . The result is that the target has armoured vehicles and the people wear armour , the poor bugger who just happens to be walking down the street in their own neighbourhood , going about their normal business has no such protection and therfore makes up a much bigger proportion of the casualties .

[Banquo's Ghost]

But 85% of the bomb attacks are aimed at military targets , the problem is that the military target is likely to be operating in an area full of civilians . The result is that the target has armoured vehicles and the people wear armour , the poor bugger who just happens to be walking down the street in their own neighbourhood , going about their normal business has no such protection and therfore makes up a much bigger proportion of the casualties .

You're quite right, if we are talking solely about Iraq, which I wasn't really. I was trying to address the idea that the 'good guys' don't target civilians directly - which is not true, particularly in counter-terrorism actions. Good examples of counter-terrorism of the type I describe are seen in the Israeli attacks on Palestinian towns, where civilian casualties are deliberately calculated for effect, and at a lower numerical level, the British Army/RUC collaboration with Unionist death squads in the 1970s/1980s. Tha Falluja operation was a case in point for Iraq where civilian casualties would have been factored in for maximum terror value - pour encourage les autres, so to speak.

Iraq is not a classical counter-terrorism situation, in that whilst there are undoubtedly external and internal groups using terror tactics, there is also a great number of insurgency actions, which bear a similarity to, but are not identical to, terrorism actions. One of my concerns about the US forces there is that they do not appreciate the differences - or rather, their political masters do not appreciate this and constrain the commanders on the ground from doing what is necessary. Since the British (who have a very good understanding of counter-terrorism) are also making some of the same mistakes, this reinforces my belief that necessary actions are being over-ruled politically, and consequently lives being lost that need not be.

The attacks on military 'soft' targets (ie patrol vehicles) are primarily conducted by the insurgents as revenge attacks on the occupiers. However, from the point of view of the civilian caught in the explosions, such niceties are moot.

War is a very nasty business, and one should never think that 'our side' is any less nasty than the enemy. There are of course degrees of grey, but there is no moral high ground in war. There is only winning, losing and dead people.

[Papewaio]

Peaceful.........yeah right:book:

I see you are reading about Canadian Ice Hockey:dizzy2: and the honourable WWII Bomber Crews :bow:

[Divinus Arma]

What those kidnappers show is that they aren't beyond the point of talking and thus not needed to be eliminated to resolve the conflict.

The problem with negotiating with terrorists is that it encourages terrorism. If they see that kidnappingt and murder gives them concessions from their enemy, than they will continue these tactics. Just as 9/11 was a massive attack intended to force America to withdraw from the middle east, so to are individual suicide bombing, kidnapping and beheadings, etc. By refusing to negotiate under their terms, we deny them this power and force them to act politically. I think a good example of this is the gradual disarming of the IRA, the Sunni embrace of elections the second time around, and hopefully a Hamas backdown from historical tactics in favor of political means.


Be happy that you're not part of the problem, but only because you're not directly involved in the conflict.

I am a U.S. Marine and served in Afghanistan. Does that make me a direct part of the problem now? That is also the reasoning behind my hyperbole; I am a component of our political policy enforcement. When I say I want them to fear me, I mean ME and my fellow meatheads, not the average American.


That's not entirely true, DA. If the US military is following standard anti-terrorism strategy (and they certainly appear to be from my reading of the methods used) they will be trying to frighten local populations away from supporting insurgents who they may be tempted to support.

This necessitates a certain level of civilian casualties. It is presented to the media as 'collateral damage' but it is certainly by design. 'Terror' is a tactic used by both sides.

I was trying to address the idea that the 'good guys' don't target civilians directly - which is not true, particularly in counter-terrorism actions. Good examples of counter-terrorism of the type I describe are seen in the Israeli attacks on Palestinian towns, where civilian casualties are deliberately calculated for effect, and at a lower numerical level, the British Army/RUC collaboration with Unionist death squads in the 1970s/1980s. Tha Falluja operation was a case in point for Iraq where civilian casualties would have been factored in for maximum terror value - pour encourage les autres, so to speak.

Wait just a second there Haruchai. That is patently false and I can't let it discolor the good service of our armed forces. I am not calling you a liar, I think that you are very very misinformed.

The United States does NOT kill civilians to destroy support of insurgents. Exactly the opposite, we do our best to AVOID civilian casulaties and provide food and services to show them that we are the good guys. Purposely targeting civilians to undermine popular support of an insurgency has the exact opposite effect of that which is desired.

You need to show some proof, my friend. These are very serious allegations and I take it as personal offense to the character of my service and the service of my brothers-in-arms. :no:

You have the right to your opinion, but stating this as if it were fact without supporting evidence is... I can't even think of a word for it... it really is ****ed up.

Let's have this discussion, but let's be fair. I backed down from my rhetoric, and clarified the context. Your turn, Haruchai.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Wait just a second there Haruchai. That is patently false and I can't let it discolor the good service of our armed forces. I am not calling you a liar, I think that you are very very misinformed.

The United States does NOT kill civilians to destroy support of insurgents. Exactly the opposite, we do our best to AVOID civilian casulaties and provide food and services to show them that we are the good guys. Purposely targeting civilians to undermine popular support of an insurgency has the exact opposite effect of that which is desired.

You need to show some proof, my friend. These are very serious allegations and I take it as personal offense to the character of my service and the service of my brothers-in-arms. :no:

You have the right to your opinion, but stating this as if it were fact without supporting evidence is... I can't even think of a word for it... it really is ****ed up.

Let's have this discussion, but let's be fair. I backed down from my rhetoric, and clarified the context. Your turn, Haruchai.

I had no intention of impugning your service or that of your colleagues and I apologise for any offence caused. As I noted at the beginning of my statement, I don't have any direct knowledge of the strategic operations used by US anti-terrorism forces, only my own experience in counter-terrorism as an officer in the British Army during the Troubles, and a secondment to NATO in the same field. It may well be that the US does not use standard practice, which may go some way to explain why your forces are so bogged down in Iraq. That said, I find it hard to believe that a country prepared to disregard the Geneva protocols to further its own agenda is not similarly prepared to implement long tested counter-terrorism measures.

I don't know what rank you were in the service, but I would be pretty sure that you and your colleagues were not told "go and kill x civilians". That's not the way it works, and I am sorry if I gave that impression. But when a particular operation is planned, deliberate thought is given to the impact of civilian casualties, and if it is required that more are killed, tactics are adjusted to ensure this happens. I used Falluja as an example because this was either an example of fear-mongering through high civilian casualties or incredible incompetence/negligence. As I said, I have no knowledge of the operating guidelines used by the US Command, so I may be wrong on both counts.

The Israeli example is solid, and any small amount of research will show you that Israeli politicians and generals have specifically stated that civilian casualties are part of the deal. Israel is one of the most experienced counter-terrorism forces on the planet and targetted assassination of terrorist suspects and their families has been an effective tool. Bulldozing houses of family members and associates is official policy and no steps are taken to evacuate said houses. It is entirely possible that US forces have not consulted with Israeli counterparts on methodology, but again, I would think that would be an abrogation of responsibility by US Command.

My own experiences in Northern Ireland may be apposite, but I cannot detail specifics due to the Official Secrets Act. A widely known example is Bloody Sunday, where recent evidence shows that the Paratroop Regiment (a highly aggressive unit) was deliberately deployed against the peaceful marchers because officers knew they would fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. It was considered that this would undermine the IRA whose snipers could be blamed for provoking civilian deaths. The soldiers didn't know they were being set up to kill civilians. This was widely known in the Army for years before the second official inquiry revealed some of this.

Whether it was the bombing of Dresden or Nagasaki in WW2, or blind eyes being turned to death squads in Chile, the spectrum of causing civilian deaths is a broad one that has always been used in war. Not all wars, true, but certainly characteristic of counter-terrorism - done right.


By refusing to negotiate under their terms, we deny them this power and force them to act politically. I think a good example of this is the gradual disarming of the IRA, the Sunni embrace of elections the second time around, and hopefully a Hamas backdown from historical tactics in favor of political means.

Again, I can only really speak from my own experience in Ulster, but the cease fire of the IRA is an example of exactly the opposite of your argument against negotiation. Combining counter-terrorism measures as described above with secret negotiations brought about peace. Mrs Thatcher was conducting secret negotiations in the 1980's which came to a head in the 1990's when Irish and British counter-terrorism actions finally convinced the IRA Council they could not win, only suffer more direct casualties. The British government maintained that they never negotiated with terrorists publically, whilst doing exactly that behind the scenes. In fact, the Republic of Ireland itself was founded on terrorism that forced negotiation (Michael Collins virtually invented urban terrorism in 1919) as was the country of Israel.

Refusing to talk with terrorists is often what governments say, but rarely what they do. However, you talk with them from a position of strength, and if they know you can kill them, their wife, their daughters and their goldfish - and believe you will, they participate much more realistically. Of course, sometimes terrorists are better not negotiated with, because their activities serve a useful purpose for their erstwhile enemy, e.g. what suits President Putin of Russia amongst others.

If you do not accept what I have said, then I am quite prepared to withdraw all allegations you find distasteful, at least insofar as the USA (where I have no current knowledge as noted) as I have no willingness to cause offence to a fellow soldier.

[Ironside]

The problem with negotiating with terrorists is that it encourages terrorism. If they see that kidnappingt and murder gives them concessions from their enemy, than they will continue these tactics. Just as 9/11 was a massive attack intended to force America to withdraw from the middle east, so to are individual suicide bombing, kidnapping and beheadings, etc. By refusing to negotiate under their terms, we deny them this power and force them to act politically. I think a good example of this is the gradual disarming of the IRA, the Sunni embrace of elections the second time around, and hopefully a Hamas backdown from historical tactics in favor of political means.
It's to balance it with a carrot and a stick. Those examples you got there is pushing the opponent to the negotiating table while having the advantage yourself. The question that your statement indicated on was: What table?

Besides I would surely negotiate about them releasing hostages without getting anything except political points. Next time you could try to convince them not taking Americans. Slightly easier when they have already released one hostage.

I'm not exactly against them getting political power if they surrender thier terrorist ways.

Oddly enough, according to the hard-ball game they should have killed the hostage as they shows up as "weak" now. Really shows that flexible and sencible moves always beats going fully on principle.


I am a U.S. Marine and served in Afghanistan. Does that make me a direct part of the problem now?
That depends on what you did. Prison guard? YES. Peacekeeper? Riskzone. Soldier under compentent commanders? Shouldn't be much of a problem. I was mostly focusing on Israel though, and there you're actually sopposed to live with the other side when peace is achived.


That is also the reasoning behind my hyperbole; I am a component of our political policy enforcement. When I say I want them to fear me, I mean ME and my fellow meatheads, not the average American.
So you only want them to fear you, you that is only a part of the extended arm of your leaders will? The leaders that is elected by the people to execute thier will? :wall:
You think that'll work?

The point is that you'll need to separate between the hardcore terrorists and the softcore ones. For the hardcore ones you're correct, they'll never be reasonable, thus needed to be killed, disabled (like arrested) or powerless. If powerless the'll need to be survilenced so that conditions were they can regain power won't happen (and they'll certainly try to help that if they can).
The softcore ones can be stopped by giving them a small carrot while still make sure that they won't hunger for more and that they aren't cornered.

Why you usually simply cannot kill off the softcore ones is because it'll make thier supporters into terrorists. Thus they'll need to be given something to make them think twice before joining. A combination of force and concessions works best. Concessions to please them, force to keep them from thinking that they'll can gain more (only needed if they still got little to lose from continuated terrorism). And then it's keeping the rest from becoming supporters.

Patriotic stuff like you previously vrote works well for the home-front, but in the eyes of the others, it's treatening and cornering, due to it's generetic wording, it's simplification of a complicated issue and the question of prejudice.
They know that they aren't terrorists, but how can they be sure that you know?

[Divinus Arma]

Haruchai, Thank you for the cordial and respectful reply. I know that it was never your intent to cause offence, but the nature of your argument contradicting everything that is positive about our intentions in Iraq. Americans really have no desire to stay any longer than is necessary. The Iraqis, as a people, have been oppressed and trod uopn for far too long. I don't see enemies to destroy, I see families that want peace and prosperity.

Killing civilians as a means to create a state of fear in an occupied population is, by definition, directly contradictory to American strategy in the region. I understand that civilian casualties are accepted and sought in a traditional engagement between two states, the intent being to destroy the will to fight rather than, or alongside, the capability to fight. Again, as a strategic aim in a traditional conflict, this is accepted practice.

This strategy is counter-productive in guerilla warfare where the enemy has the support and aid of the local population. It is even more unacceptable when the occupying force is simultaneously attempting to sue for peace from contingent elements of the population. In this scenario, a brutal campaign that causes excessive civilian casulaties will, in fact, foment additional outrage. Furthermore, whether this brutality is perceived by the populace as intentional or not is completely irrelevant. If it is portrayed as unintentional, than the occupying force is seen as incompetent and incapable. This is a weakness that invites exploitation by a force that views itself as capable in deception tactics.

As for the topic of negotiation with terrorism, I would agree that secretive talks with insurgent leadership to turn towards political means should take place. I also know that they do take place. However, this is a strategic discussion, whereas negotiation in response to terror tactics is an unacceptable tactical decision. Let us not make the mistake of confusing the two. Terror, as a form of warfare, is a strategic decision in it of itself. The operations carried out under this strategy are tactical. We cannot respond to a tactical situation with strategic concessions. Negotiation for hostages or a reduction in violence is a strategic concession. This is what I find unacceptable, as it means that terrorism as a strategy has been successful for the enemy.

Now, if your understanding contradicts this, I would recommend that we both provide external material from credible sources to support our own positions and refute the position of the other. I would be very interested to learn of policy regarding appropriate use of military force against civilians as a strategic decision to disrupt terrorist will.


There are of course degrees of grey, but there is no moral high ground in war.
I completely disagree with this statement. It is simple ethical theory to compare a totalitarian regime against a democracy. When the will of these two political entities clash, war may be the result. The intent of the democracy compared against the totalitarian intent offer a very clear perspective as to who holds the morale high ground. We should be able to at least agree that the aim of Al Qaeda is a totalitarian theocracy in the middle east. Iraq is not a war. It is a campaign. The war is a global struggle against the West to expel our influence and install this theocracy. The campaign in Iraq, however flawed in its justification and execution, is an important part of our global strategy to resist the efforts of the fundamentalists. I think people are losing perspective and this is causing the dissatisfaction and uncertainty trumpeted by the media.


So you only want them to fear you, you that is only a part of the extended arm of your leaders will? The leaders that is elected by the people to execute thier will?
You think that'll work?

Yes. I want our enemies to fear our military. And I, like you, also find excellent the idea of a peaceful transfer of power from military to political with regards to Hamas.

Your points on the extremity of insurgent passion and our response is reasonable. I agree.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I know that it was never your intent to cause offence, but the nature of your argument contradicting everything that is positive about our intentions in Iraq. Americans really have no desire to stay any longer than is necessary. The Iraqis, as a people, have been oppressed and trod uopn for far too long. I don't see enemies to destroy, I see families that want peace and prosperity.

In Iraq, I grant you, this is probably true. I believe that the US has overall good intentions towards Iraq, but because the administration made enormous mistakes in not providing enough forces to grip the country in iron for the first few months, and compounded this by dismissing the existing forces, they now have a really intractable situation which necessitates counter-insurgency tactics - which are necessarily brutal and often counter-productive.

As I noted earlier, my statements were more to address a commonly found viewpoint that 'our side' never do bad things. Sometimes, to win a war, particularly against terrorists, even the 'good guys' have to do morally reprehensible things. These are decisions taken carefully and not indiscriminately if they are to be effective. This appears to many to be cold blooded and they want no part of it - but it happens, just as it was necessary to unleash the horror of Hiroshima, and then cold-bloodedly bomb Nagasaki to underline the point so there would be no doubt whatsoever in Japanese minds about the consequences of fighting on. These were rational decisions made to kill civilians by a free and democratic government fighting one of the few just wars in history. Morally indefensible, but right to do.


Killing civilians as a means to create a state of fear in an occupied population is, by definition, directly contradictory to American strategy in the region. I understand that civilian casualties are accepted and sought in a traditional engagement between two states, the intent being to destroy the will to fight rather than, or alongside, the capability to fight. Again, as a strategic aim in a traditional conflict, this is accepted practice.

I don't know enough about the military decision making in Iraq to comment directly. I therefore accept your argument. However, I do see actions that I would intepret as meeting the criteria for counter-terrorism that I am familiar with, but I may well be very wrong. But what is good for 'traditional engagements' often holds true in counter-insurgency too, believe me. Perhaps not in Iraq however.



As for the topic of negotiation with terrorism, I would agree that secretive talks with insurgent leadership to turn towards political means should take place. I also know that they do take place. However, this is a strategic discussion, whereas negotiation in response to terror tactics is an unacceptable tactical decision. Let us not make the mistake of confusing the two. Terror, as a form of warfare, is a strategic decision in it of itself. The operations carried out under this strategy are tactical. We cannot respond to a tactical situation with strategic concessions. Negotiation for hostages or a reduction in violence is a strategic concession. This is what I find unacceptable, as it means that terrorism as a strategy has been successful for the enemy.

Fair enough point, and agreed.


Now, if your understanding contradicts this, I would recommend that we both provide external material from credible sources to support our own positions and refute the position of the other. I would be very interested to learn of policy regarding appropriate use of military force against civilians as a strategic decision to disrupt terrorist will.

I'll do some digging into my sources, and come back to you. May be a while, I have a business to run ~:)


I completely disagree with this statement. It is simple ethical theory to compare a totalitarian regime against a democracy. When the will of these two political entities clash, war may be the result. The intent of the democracy compared against the totalitarian intent offer a very clear perspective as to who holds the morale high ground. We should be able to at least agree that the aim of Al Qaeda is a totalitarian theocracy in the middle east. Iraq is not a war. It is a campaign. The war is a global struggle against the West to expel our influence and install this theocracy. The campaign in Iraq, however flawed in its justification and execution, is an important part of our global strategy to resist the efforts of the fundamentalists. I think people are losing perspective and this is causing the dissatisfaction and uncertainty trumpeted by the media.

From the point of view of the dead, morality in warfare is moot. This disagreement goes to the heart of the 'Just War' debate, which I don't have the heart to revisit now. I will agree with your assesssment of Al-Qaeda, however, though I think they are much less organised in their philosophical development than you credit. Let's agree to disagree for the moment on the morality of war?

~:cool:

[econ21]

...when a particular operation is planned, deliberate thought is given to the impact of civilian casualties, and if it is required that more are killed, tactics are adjusted to ensure this happens.

It is interesting that you regard this as a military judgement rather than a political one. It's not clear to me that Sandhurst trained officers will have a better appreciation of how a foreign people will react to their civilians being killed than someone in the Foreign Office or Downing Street. I agree such reasoning underlay much of the WW2 British bombing campaign against Germany (& interestingly, less of the US parallel one). But it has been fiercely contested whether it (ie the terror aspect) worked or not.

I doubt whether it is standard practice in the current UK armed forces. If it is, I fear we are still being led by donkeys. While killing their civilians may sometimes suppress an enemy, I would agree with Divinus that in the actions the US and UK typically get involved in, it will be counterproductive.

For example, my understanding of Fallujah is that things all went wrong after some civilian casualties caused by the US. The city was not particularly hostile after the invasion, but then a demonstration got out of control and civilian Iraqis were killed. Civilian contracters were then killed "in retaliation" and things just went from bad to worse, ending in the siege and storming of the city.


The Israeli example is solid, ...

Yes, and it's working out really well for them, isn't it?

Less facetiously, Israel seems to have abandoned any attempt at winning the "hearts and minds" of the Palestinians. Most UK and US interventions can't afford to do that. I remember what an Iraqi civilian said at the start of the invasion - remember, we all have guns and if we don't like you, we can turn them on you.


My own experiences in Northern Ireland may be apposite, but I cannot detail specifics due to the Official Secrets Act. A widely known example is Bloody Sunday, where recent evidence shows that the Paratroop Regiment (a highly aggressive unit) was deliberately deployed against the peaceful marchers because officers knew they would fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. It was considered that this would undermine the IRA whose snipers could be blamed for provoking civilian deaths. The soldiers didn't know they were being set up to kill civilians. This was widely known in the Army for years before the second official inquiry revealed some of this.

Isn't Bloody Sunday the ultimate example of how civilian casualties undermine the work of an occupying army? Before Bloody Sunday, terrorism in Northern Ireland was a relatively low key activity. Indeed, the British army was initially deployed to protect Catholics, not as an "occupying" army at all. I suspect that Bloody Sunday, more than any other single event, fuelled the resurgence of the IRA and its campaigns for the next 25 years.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Simon, you make some very good points, and I agree with much of what you wrote.

My intention in replying initially was to challenge the idea that 'our side' whoever they may be, does not target civilians deliberately and this makes 'us' different from our 'enemy' who are therefore bad people. As Ironside eloquently demonstrated, change the flag on an action and it is viewed very differently. 'We' bomb a building to kill a 'terrorist' knowing that we will kill x civilians, it is collateral damage. 'They' bomb a building to kill some soldiers knowing that they will kill x civilians and it is a terrorist atrocity. Both sides calculate the result of these actions.

(In fact, Israel has been remarkably successful against a diverse and dangerous enemy, funded by several external powers. They would do well to engage much more constructively for a long term solution, but their own people are safer. It's tough to negotiate effectively with armed groups that are dedicated to your utter eradication - especially when that threat has hung over your people for thousands of years. I don't agree with current Israeli intransigence, but I understand it, just as I understand the use of 'terror' tactics by the disenfranchised Palestinians).

In fighting terrorism, seeing the enemy as one-dimensional is problematic. It leads to the belief that terrorists are somehow bestial and unworthy of serious consideration. Dehumanising one's enemy leads to mistakes and prolongs war. The peoples of democratic countries that do not understand (or do not wish to understand) what is done in their name are allowing their leaders to avoid making a case for morally dubious actions.

I was simply trying to note that war is a very complex issue, with awful moral decisions on all sides. I wasn't trying to justify certain actions one way or another, or assess their efficacy. These strategies exist and have been used, and yes, invariably the impetus is political rather than military, but the military have to do the planning and the execution.

I did not wish to cause offence, just make the point that war is not black hats versus white hats. I clearly did not succeed in my aims, and thus withdraw.

:oops: