Great. More cowards.

[tunaplanet 0]

Another France wannabe.

Clicky

Forty-two

[freeflydrew 0]

OMG Tuna... The Philippines is withdrawing 51 Humanitarian Troops 30 days ahead of schedule, and right away they're cowards... Ridiculous.

"The 51-member humanitarian force was due to leave Iraq on August 20, but the kidnappers of de la Cruz said they wanted the withdrawal by July 20."

"Let us leave the government to do what is necessary to save the life of an innocent Filipino and to uphold our nation's interest. It is not for us to judge and raise our voices now that Angelo's life hangs in the balance," Ignacio Bunye, a Philippine presidential spokesman, said Tuesday.

"This is the most sensitive point in the hostage crisis. We must unite behind Angelo's family, keep our peace and pray hard."

Call them a coward because you don't agree with their decision...

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Another France wannabe.

actually when i saw this in the news i was reminded of the spanish and their withdrawal.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

OMG Tuna... The Philippines is withdrawing 51 Humanitarian Troops 30 days ahead of schedule, and right away they're cowards... Ridiculous.

"The 51-member humanitarian force was due to leave Iraq on August 20, but the kidnappers of de la Cruz said they wanted the withdrawal by July 20."

"Let us leave the government to do what is necessary to save the life of an innocent Filipino and to uphold our nation's interest. It is not for us to judge and raise our voices now that Angelo's life hangs in the balance," Ignacio Bunye, a Philippine presidential spokesman, said Tuesday.

"This is the most sensitive point in the hostage crisis. We must unite behind Angelo's family, keep our peace and pray hard."

Call them a coward because you don't agree with their decision...

No, I think he's calling them cowards because they're doing it at the behest of fucking kidnapping terrorists.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[CrazyIvan 0]

After reading this all I have to say is:

[Counter Strike voice] Terrorists WIN [/Counter Strike voice]

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[quade 4]

Yeah. It's lame.

Then again, I'm almost certain they think they're doing the right thing.

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=13-Jul-2004&prgId=17 and listen to the second story.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[crozby 0]

Seems like the the life of one of their citizens has a higher value to them than serving the interests of the US right now.

I wish my government was more like that.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Seems like the the life of one of their citizens has a higher value to them than serving the interests of the US right now.

I wish my government was more like that.

Or, from a different perspective:
Seems like the life of one of their citizens has a higher value than the NUMEROUS lives that will now be threatened -- and ended -- by terrorists who see that, "Hey, taking hostages and threatening to behead them DOES get us what we want!"

A government should NEVER put the life of one person ahead of the lives of many -- all liberal touchy-feeliness aside.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[crozby 0]

Quote

A government should NEVER put the life of one person ahead of the lives of many -- all liberal touchy-feeliness aside.

They aren't doing that - they are not putting any of their other citizens at risk. Besides, a government should look at the situation and make a judgement rather than blindly obeying that rule as you suggest.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

A government should NEVER put the life of one person ahead of the lives of many -- all liberal touchy-feeliness aside.

They aren't doing that - they are not putting any of their other citizens at risk. Besides, a government should look at the situation and make a judgement rather than blindly obeying that rule as you suggest.

I didn't say "putting any of their citizens at risk." I'm talking about people in general. They are enablers to the terrorists. Their actions ("We'll withdraw our troops as appeasement in order to get our one person back alive.") tell the terrorists, "If you continue to do this (take hostages and threaten/and/or kill them), we will do as you say." Thus more hostages will be taken, and inevitably, more will be killed. For what? To save ONE life? Isn't it obvious that we all end up losing by appeasing terrorists?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[crozby 0]

Hypothetical situation:

Some 'terrorists' take your entire family hostage. They say they will kill their hostages unless their demands are met. They demand something totally trivial, say 1 dollar, for the release.

Are you telling me that in that situation you would recommend that the hostages be sacrificed, rather than hand over 1 dollar?

I hope not. The point being that you don't just blindly follow rules like that - you weigh up the pro's & con's and make a decision.

The Philipines governments first responsibility is to her citizens. If people from other nations die as a result of her saving her citizens that is a secondary matter - isn't that the justification for the 10,000 Iraqi deaths? Weren't they sacrificed to protect US lives as part of the on-going war on terror/wmd/who knows anymore?

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

I wish my government was more like that.

Let's pray you never become a member of the military or politics.

Forty-two

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Let's pray you never become a member of the military or politics.

Agreed, we must not allow common sense to interfere with politics or war.

[crozby 0]

Quote

Let's pray you never become a member of the military or politics.

err.. whatever.

Can I assume that you see terrorist negotiation in black and white like Jeffry? If so, how about attempting to answer my previous question?

[Botellines 0]

Quote

They are enablers to the terrorists. Their actions ("We'll withdraw our troops as appeasement in order to get our one person back alive.") tell the terrorists, "If you continue to do this (take hostages and threaten/and/or kill them), we will do as you say." Thus more hostages will be taken, and inevitably, more will be killed. For what? To save ONE life? Isn't it obvious that we all end up losing by appeasing terrorists?

I don´t agree at all, it is a very simplistic way to look at things. You need to stop seeing terrorists as pavlov dogs. You will NOT condition their response because of previous acts. I mean, how do you know that what they really want is that philipines army withdraw (their army is nearly non existent). Maybe in this case it would have been better for them to execute him to teach the rest a lesson. Also, how do you know that if you refuse to give in to their demands, thy will stop doing it? As far as i know, both, killing invaders AND forcing invaders to go back to their country fits in their agenda, so either way, they win.
If you want to have any chance against terrorists, you must consider them, at least as intelligent as you. Maybe a bit more to be safer.

[falxori 0]

Quote

You will NOT condition their response because of previous acts.

no, but since they usually don't have a stable strategy they usually make decision on the fly learning from each event. creating a direct link between their action and what is seen by them as a huge success will affect their next move.
how? my guess is kidnal less americans, and more of the smaller nations that are more likely to pull out, leaving the US to clean up alone.

Quote

If you want to have any chance against terrorists, you must consider them, at least as intelligent as you. Maybe a bit more to be safer.

this is a very smart remark.
you should treat them not only as smart but as highly addaptive and innovative.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[tunaplanet 0]

You do not allow yourselves to negotiate with terrorists. Period. I don't care if they pulled them out 15 seconds or 15 weeks early. It's a mistake either way. A deadly mistake. There's a reason we have a 0 tolerance policy when it comes to negotiating with terrorists. It works.

But your statement shows us that you approve of giving in to terrorists demands. That is down-right scary.

Forty-two

[crozby 0]

So you're saying that in my example, you'd sacrifice your family for a dollar? I'm sure they'd be delighted to know you value them so highly.

Plus you might want to re-read news coverage of the standoff between US troops and Al Sadr in Faluja last month. Your guys negotiated a ceasefire with him. He's a terrorist. Go figure.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

how? my guess is kidnal less americans, and more of the smaller nations that are more likely to pull out, leaving the US to clean up alone.

It could be that, but i am more inclined to think that they are not kidnapping more americans because at the moment the Us citizens are getting more and more fed up with this war. If they keep beheading Americans they can shift the public opinion from that position to a more belicist actitud which would favour bush in the elections.
Also, as i said, wether they behead the captured guy, or they get the troops to move out, means a victory to them. After all, the foreign presence in Irak is insignificant compared to the US presence. Even if all the forces from every single country moves out, the terrorists still could not do much in terms of military power to force the US to move out as well. At the moment, their best chance is to let the upcoming elections change the US government.

[TheAnvil 0]

Peaceful Jeffrey has it right here. By even giving the appearance of giving in to terrorist demands, the Philippine government is doing the entire world community a dis-service by emboldening the terrorists.

Shame on them.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[falxori 0]

Quote

After all, the foreign presence in Irak is insignificant compared to the US presence. Even if all the forces from every single country moves out, the terrorists still could not do much in terms of military power to force the US to move out as well

yeap, but unlike the allies in WWII for example, here the coalition is not needed for militrary power, rather to point that it is not a US war against iraq (even if it is the clear leader)

no terrorist can win against trained troops in face to face combat. thats why they resort to terrorism, which is causing a state of fear by suprise attacks or attacks against civilians.

and i agree, here in israel, a lot of people that were willing to go all the way for a peace agreement are now convinced that there is no one to make peace with. (and not only in israel)
O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[kallend 2,026]

I don't see much difference between going in because you were misled by Bush&Blair's false intelligence, and coming out because you were threatened by terrorists. Either way, you lose.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I don't see much difference between going in because you were misled by Bush&Blair's false intelligence, and coming out because you were threatened by terrorists. Either way, you lose.

FYI

Breaking News from NewsMax.com

Hillary, Top Dems Still Would Have Voted for War

Last week Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war - we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."

ABC's Ted Koppel, host of "Nightline," decided to put the words of the senior Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to the test.


Koppel's findings, which aired on ABC Radio late Friday night, directly counter Rockefeller's suggestion that the Senate would not have strongly endorsed the war against Iraq.

Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee would have made any difference to the other senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called them.

"Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have changed their minds had they known then 'what they know now.'

"Among those who say they would not have changed their minds, a number of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Tom Daschle."

Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way.

The 511-page report released last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked much of what American intelligence had reported about Iraq.

As summarized by Republican senator and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts:

"Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments. Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."

But the explosive committee report that lambasted U.S. intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, has not changed the mind of President Bush, who steadfastly maintained, "I chose to defend the country, and it's exactly what I would do again."

Bush has consistently argued that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.

But John Kerry's position on Iraq has vacillated - and may have put him at odds with Senate Democrats who told ABC News they still would have voted for the war.

Kerry, along with his running mate, John Edwards, voted for the war.

But during the Demcratic primaries, Kerry began distancing himself from his war vote and claimed the Bush administration had lied to Congress.

Appearing on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Kerry told Leslie Stahl: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war - the way the president went to war was wrong."

At the same time, Kerry said he voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war "as a last resort." He added, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote."

But Kerry did not say, as Koppel asked knowing "what we know now," if he would still have voted for the war.

Kerry again claimed to Stahl that "the way [President Bush] went to war was a mistake."

But if the war is such a mistake, the question remains whether Kerry would have changed his vote.

Already the Bush administration has seized on Kerry's equivocating.

In a speech Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney chided Kerry for "simply trying to rewrite history for his own political purposes."

"When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted yes," Cheney said. "Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[crwtom 0]

Quote

actually when i saw this in the news i was reminded of the spanish and their withdrawal.

To say that the Spanish "let the terrorists win" in the elections (or the like) is
tempting, but also grossly oversimplifying.

It is really false to say that the Madrid attacks changed the Spanish's attitude
towards the Iraq involvement. The vast majority (near 90%) of the population
has always been against this war. The reason Aznar has had a chance in
the elections was because the focus of the public had shifted to other issues
over the year. So the Madrid attacks did not change public opinion but the
public focus.

The second more important factor that really did Aznar and the Populists in
was that they hastily tried to pin the attacks on ETA despite the fact that it
had AlQuaeda written all over it (simultaneous attacks, large scale civilian
casualties, ...). It is not hard to imagine that they'd much rather have the
home grown ETA be the culprits, than looking like the ones that had invited
foreign terrorists to their home country thanks to a policy that went massivly
against public opinion.

That really brought out in how much opposition and how much on the
defensive the government was against the public at least on this issue.
Certainly enough to tip the scale in an election.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[dbattman 0]

Quote

So you're saying that in my example, you'd sacrifice your family for a dollar? I'm sure they'd be delighted to know you value them so highly.

Plus you might want to re-read news coverage of the standoff between US troops and Al Sadr in Faluja last month. Your guys negotiated a ceasefire with him. He's a terrorist. Go figure.

Your example is unreasonable and flawed as a comparison to the Phillipine situation. Tuna is not the government of a nation. If you applied the same type of example to a government situation (Tuna is the president and has a personal involvement with the hostages) he would most likely be removed from the process, voluntarily or involuntarily.