ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[rory_20_uk]

The UAE managed to rescue a British man recently.

Most American and British hostages are murdered because out governments refuse to pay, so unless your family are rich enough to be able to bypass the government you're better off fighting as hard as you can if they try to take you, hope you either get away or they end up shooting you dead because otherwise it's a couple of years on death row and a beheading.

On the other hand, if you're German or French you'll get released after your government pays.

Governments should try to rescue hostages and at the very least mean that there are a lot less of those who were guarding them even if the hostages get killed in the rescue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Governments should try to rescue hostages and at the very least mean that there are a lot less of those who were guarding them even if the hostages get killed in the rescue.

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.

[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.

[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.