Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
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.