ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[rory_20_uk]

That is the view of the UK and the US - other countries prefer their people alive.

I suppose it depends on what you want in the world.

I would rather that taking hostages is basically a variant of suicide as opposed to opening a bank account.

[Kagemusha]

All these ISIS fellows need is death. Bloody lot of them.

[Husar]

I would rather that taking hostages is basically a variant of suicide as opposed to opening a bank account.

Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?

[rory_20_uk]

Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?

Running a society with the rules as if they were your own child is nonsensical. We get this a lot with massively expensive medical treatments that extend life for a month or so - fine if it's your child but ruinous to the whole system.

I doubt that it is easy and sometimes yes it would be impossible. Hostages is always an issue when using any form of armed force that isn't a drone. But it should be the first option to rule out rather than a last resort. Barring fanatics who are doing it for their own internal reasons, those who are doing it to get money to finance their activities would soon look elsewhere.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?

All excellent points.

It comes down to this - pay for the release of your child and the hostage-takers will take five more people because EVERYBODY is someone's child.

Were it my child I'd kill whoever was in my way to get them back because every one I kill is one less hostage-taker, but I wouldn't pay an enable them to take more hostages.

If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible - if I pay and they take five more people because of that I AM responsible.

That's not to say I wouldn't scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with.

[Husar]

So we should basically put boots on the ground as soon as ISIS take a hostage?

I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?

And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.

And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.

[Pannonian]

We should tell everyone that they travel to the middle east at their own risk, and that their government will not hold themselves responsible for anything that happens while they're out there. That includes aid agencies, and everyone who isn't there with government sanction and protection. It will mean that these countries will go to for want of help, but that's fine by me. I'd couple that with the declaration that, if anyone does travel there of their own accord, the British government reserves the right to strip them of their UK citizenship. I'd like us to have as little to do with that hellhole as possible, and to make any travelling there a one way affair.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So we should basically put boots on the ground as soon as ISIS take a hostage?

That's not what I said, though it often is what the US and UK do, covertly.

I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?

I was speaking personally, and I said kill and not shoot. I would personally kill everyone between me and my child, if I could.

And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.

I said "That's not to say I wouldn't cream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with."

So maybe you should take the time to read my posts rather than going off half cocked.

And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.

The fundamental point is that you can't fund your terrorism against the US or UK by kidnapping the countries' citizens.

[Montmorency]

If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible

By your logic you would be responsible - but you would also be absolved through "taking the hit".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By your logic you would be responsible - but you would also be absolved through "taking the hit".

No, not at all. If you hold a gun to my mother's head and demand I strangle a little girl I am not responsible for my mother's death if you shoot her - but I am responsible if I kill the little girl. Likewise, if you kidnap a member of my family and demand money to fund your terrorism for their release I am responsible for what you do with that money.

To be a little more technical - I become responsible when I engage with you on your terms, because then I agree your terms are reasonable and I enter into a contract with you, my family member's life for the lives of others.

[Husar]

I was speaking personally, and I said kill and not shoot. I would personally kill everyone between me and my child, if I could.

I didn't read it that way because you personally going to the middle east and shooting everybody you can to rescue your child sounds like a Rambo movie plot, but I accept your explanation.

I said "That's not to say I wouldn't cream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with."

I see, that wasn't obvious to me from the short one-liner however, it sounded a bit cold.
It's also not necessarily a given that paying ransom for your child puts others into danger, with a rescue operation you immediately put the entire rescue team into danger, which is not to say that I am always against rescue operations, it depends on the situation. The German government has special forces for these purposes as well, it just seems to be more restrictive in their use.
I think what Pannonian says, to simply say certain regions are off limits and the government won't get you out if you go there is reasonable though. I would assume it is already the case for quite a few cases though. If a german citizen fights for ISIS and gets kidnapped by Al Queda it would be strange if Merkel paid for the release.

So maybe you should take the time to read my posts rather than going off half cocked.

I did read it, as I said, some things did not come across as intended apparently.

The fundamental point is that you can't fund your terrorism against the US or UK by kidnapping the countries' citizens.

Yes, as above, I would try not to get citizens kidnapped or tell them right away that certain regions are only accessible at their own risk as Pannonian suggests.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't read it that way because you personally going to the middle east and shooting everybody you can to rescue your child sounds like a Rambo movie plot, but I accept your explanation.

Actually, it's the plot of Taken. The point was the intent, not necessarily the direct action. I would say that "I would kill anyone between me and my child" should evoke an image of me with a minigun rather than me with a headset telling the SAS to use a minigun.

I see, that wasn't obvious to me from the short one-liner however, it sounded a bit cold.

Gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is cold? What do you consider expressive?

You may well think me strange, but I have considered this issue before and I am decided - there is only one correct decision, and that is not to facilitate the monsters who do these things. The best way to do that is to slit their throats and rip out their windpipes, but failing that not paying accomplishes the same goal.

It's also not necessarily a given that paying ransom for your child puts others into danger, with a rescue operation you immediately put the entire rescue team into danger, which is not to say that I am always against rescue operations, it depends on the situation. The German government has special forces for these purposes as well, it just seems to be more restrictive in their use.

One should attempt a rescue is it is feasible, it is of course not defensible to get ten soldiers killed to rescue one civilian - though it's more likely all the soldiers get out alive and the civilian is executed.

I think what Pannonian says, to simply say certain regions are off limits and the government won't get you out if you go there is reasonable though. I would assume it is already the case for quite a few cases though. If a german citizen fights for ISIS and gets kidnapped by Al Queda it would be strange if Merkel paid for the release.

Actually, we DO do this - the Foreign Office will advise Britons not to travel, and if they do so it is at their own risk. That doesn't mean the government will do nothing if you get captured by IS, but it does mean that if you DO get captured you've been told there's not much they can do.

I did read it, as I said, some things did not come across as intended apparently.

I honestly find that hard to believe when the last thing in that post was, "... scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head..." sic. I could have said "I would still have been anguished" but I actually painted a picture for you and you still missed it.

[AE Bravo]

And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.

In reality that was to secure the mina of Aden. The government would not risk putting inexperienced Emirati boots on the ground over a British guy. That war is all about Aden port in the first place (for the UAE at least), if they wanted Saleh or the Houthis they would've bombed Saada or Sanaa.