It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TERRORISM: Victory For Terrorists in Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
It all began with the beheading of Nick Berg and later a South Korean. Now with the threat of beheading of a Filipino truck driver hostage and the resulting negotiations with his captors his release is set as soon as the Philippine government removes it's last peacekeeping troops from Iraq. Terrorism may claim a major victory here...
 





ABCNEWS.com Full Article

BAGHDAD, Iraq July 15, 2004 The militant group holding a Filipino truck driver hostage said they would release him when the last Filipino soldier leaves Iraq, which should take place by the end of the month, according to a statement read Thursday on Al-Jazeera.

The statement came just an hour after Al-Jazeera showed a video of the captive, Angelo dela Cruz, saying he was coming home soon and thanking his government for agreeing to withdraw peacekeepers from the country.

In the video, dela Cruz was no longer wearing the bright orange garment he had worn previously. Other hostages killed by insurgents had been wearing a similar garment in videos showing their deaths.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


U.S. Officials are strongly urging the Philippine leaders to reconsider.

This may only be one hostage freed under the threat of beheading. But the fact that it is tied to the removal of troops will be seen as a HUGE victory among the radical muslim terrorists throughout the region. The release of this hostage and the removal of troops will only motivate these terrorists to do more of the same.

In this case it seems terrorism wins.

Every foreigner in the Middle East will now become a legitimate target for this kind of terrorism.

Related Links:

Al Jazeera Full Article

Bloomberg.com




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Yup, dangerous precedents are being set. First by the Spainards, now this.

It is only gonna get worse.

Of course, then again, its not like there was a huge contigent of Spanish or Philipino troops in Iraq. Not really gonna make much of a dent.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
it would so funny (and not hahaha either) if they killed him anyway after they pulled out.

rare is the ocassion when hostages are returned, especially in the past few years where everyone is catching their wrath.

although i have to agree it does send a bad message. "hey kidnap a person and we'll buckle to your demands". and next time they may not want a country's military out, they may want their "brothers in arms" let out of prisons. they may demand far more next time.

i think this is a bad idea to give in like this.

these terrorists dont want peace in iraq, they want iraq for themselves. they dont want iraqis to be free, they just want to replace saddam. i dont enjoy seeing people die or hearing about it but i have a hard time mustering sympathy for dead terrorists. i hope every terrorist is hunted down and killed. yes thats a cold thing to say but what they're doing is wrong.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   
If anything comes of this is that maybe just maybe you can negotiate with terrorists. I aupplaud the fillipinos for the rare move. Now people will see that maybe they aren't animals and just want their demands.


df1

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Tell the folks at ATS you want a beheading thead. It should start with the threat of beheading and not be bumped up to a news headline until the head actually rolls. This will make the phrase "headline news" so much more meaningful as mere threats are not news worthy. I suppose republicans will blame this on clinton, claiming it was he that is responsible for putting the head in "headline".

Don't smile, keep your filthy thoughts to yourself.
.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
You cant negotiate with terrorist why give them something that they want it will encourage more terrorists to kidnap people and threaten to kill them is that good in your mind falcon and even though the Philipinos only have 50 men in Iraq its the encouragement that does damage not their actual pulling out.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I think that maybe the Filipinos realized that they no longer wanted to take part in Iraq. This threat of a beheading gives them the out they need to head home.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The headline should read: Victory for the Freedom Fighters of Iraq.

Did the Iraqi's actually ask the "Coalition" to enter into Iraq? No, the coalition went in anyway. It's an invasion to some of the people over there that you call terrorists. The way I see it, they only want the occupying military forces out of their territory. Wouldn't you do the same if, for example, China and Russians were occupying United States and taking over the Government? To the Chinese and Russians peoples, the Americans would then turn out to be the terrorist. It's all about perspective about what is happening in Iraq.

And if this retaliation is causing more troops from other Countries to pull out, it'll only place strain on USA to fill those empty places, which will lead eventually to a Military Draft in the near future.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I don't think you should negotiate with terrorists, but look at the Phillippines. Forced to support a war they don't believe in. Then one of thier citizens get kidnapped? I think thier reaction is quite natural and is to be expected. I think more countries will pull-out. I'm sure they were told the same lies we were about Iraq. It will be easy, they will love us, and then profit for all. Now all of the countries that were either tricked or strong armed to support us, are finding out it's just not worth it to be dragged down with the US in Iraq.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Negotiate with terrorists?

Can someone explain to me the motives behind 9/11?

No?

Then how can we be sure that attacking the Middle East wasn't playing into the 'terrorists' hands to start with?

The man supposedly responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Laden, what were his demands? What was the purpose?

And in light of recent intelligence failures, is he even the culprit?

Maybe they got the intelligence on that wrong as well.

Oh yeah, I forgot, Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11, so why are we even there?

As far as the Phillipines are concerned, at least one father and fifty-one more will be going home this week not in a body bag.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Does anyone no how the U.S. formed the coalition? Where other nations invited or did they ask to join us in this adventure. I remeber hearing President Bush say "either your with us or against us". This leads me to believe some nations were with us.
The Italians, Spainards and now the Phillopeinos have all been impacted by these terrorist or should they be called resistance fighters. Why has the Phillopean government knuckled under. Could it be they have a serious Islamic problem in there own country? Should we really care how many nations give in to there demands? It only reinforces our Presidents position. Now we no that the Phillopeinos can not be trusted.
Expect more nations to runaway, do you really care! I for one don't.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You cant negotiate with terrorist why give them something that they want it will encourage more terrorists to kidnap people and threaten to kill them is that good in your mind falcon and even though the Philipinos only have 50 men in Iraq its the encouragement that does damage not their actual pulling out.


It shows that if you comply no more innocent lives will be lost...The media coverage alone encourages the terrorists. Maybe if the US complied we wouldn't be mourning such atrocities. It's sad when a foreign country has higher regard for its civilians abroad than the US.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoaringFalcon

It shows that if you comply no more innocent lives will be lost...The media coverage alone encourages the terrorists. Maybe if the US complied we wouldn't be mourning such atrocities. It's sad when a foreign country has higher regard for its civilians abroad than the US.


I must chime in here to say that the above is the most narrow minded moronic opinion I have heard on this subject in a long time. TO think for a moment that giving in to terrorist demands would in any way show regard for American citizens abroad is silly. It is like offering Hitler the Czech repuplic. It only emboldeds the criminals and leads to greater and greater crimes. THere can be no meaningful negotiations with murderous criminals. To do so only validates them in their crime and creates more of it. It is truly a sad day when people forget that the price of peace and of freedom is and has always been paid in the blood of those who stand to defend it. Without those willing to make that sacrifice the vision of peace and the dream of freedom fade and disappear.


df1

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoaringFalcon

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You cant negotiate with terrorist why give them something that they want it will encourage more terrorists to kidnap people and threaten to kill them is that good in your mind falcon and even though the Philipinos only have 50 men in Iraq its the encouragement that does damage not their actual pulling out.


It shows that if you comply no more innocent lives will be lost...The media coverage alone encourages the terrorists. Maybe if the US complied we wouldn't be mourning such atrocities. It's sad when a foreign country has higher regard for its civilians abroad than the US.


It is real easy to be brave with a life that is not yours. We keeping hearing the same nonsense over and over again from the same people. In this light I wish to put it all in perspective with the following image.




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
If I remember right, there was no report of the US warning Bulgaria about not pulling out and holding steadfast in their participation.

Yet the US warned the Philipino govt about just that.

It should say something.
The US did not pull their troops when faced with this.
The Bulgarians did not pull troops when faced with this.

But it was obvious the Philipino's do not have the firm mindset to stand their ground when faced with adversity and loss.

Sure all countries do not have the fortitude to follow thru with a mission, and these terrorists are weeding out the apparently weak countries with their inhumane actions against helpless bound prisoners.

But just like virii, kill off the weak ones, and all that is left is the strong ones. They had a better chance of success with the full mix, and are only showing by each action, more validity to the coalition cause.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
The only negotiations with terrorist is to their demands, if you agree with them then they will hold the end of the deal?

No, no always, in South American the taking of hostages for money is a common thing and most of them do not make it alive even after the demands and money is pay.

In Iraq the demands are not for money, but to show power and who is in charge, because this administration declared a war against the Al-Queda and the Islamic radical groups in their own lands, this people are trying to take back their own importance in the world. And do to the policies of this administration they are getting just that.

Other countries do not have to fallow US policies, they are just trying to remain faithful to the UN and show goodwill, but actually they are not getting anything out of this deal, and for that reason they are bending to the demands of the terrorist, and the results are obvious.

As long as you comply with their demands of leaving the country that is not your country they will not kill their fellow countryman. It is as simple as that, they want to show US that the ones in charge are them no US.

Do I agree with the terrorist? No, never, but to understand their point of view you have to see the hole picture.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by flycatch
Now we no that the Phillopeinos can not be trusted.


Next on the terrorist invasion list then are they?
Line them up against the wall of the brainwashed nation.

Nothing good is going to come from this act of aggression on a sovereign nation.

I can see denial:

Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.
Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction.
There are more terrorists in the world because of our actions.
There is no West World or East World, there is ONE world.
We need to fix that world, not divide it further.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Yup, dangerous precedents are being set. First by the Spainards, now this.

It is only gonna get worse.

Of course, then again, its not like there was a huge contigent of Spanish or Philipino troops in Iraq. Not really gonna make much of a dent.


The most dangerous precedent has already been set - pre-emptive strikes on countries with lack of overwhelming evidence to support the action. There was no imminent threat.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   

There are more terrorists in the world because of our actions.
There is no West World or East World, there is ONE world.
We need to fix that world, not divide it further.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]


There can't be one world. It's against human nature.

And how would you propose to creat one world, especially when there's an irresistible force versus and immovable object? There is a West and and east, and the philosophies differ so radically that it can only be one or the other. There can be no compromise. So who's "one world" will it be?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
And how would you propose to creat one world, especially when there's an irresistible force versus and immovable object? There is a West and and east, and the philosophies differ so radically that it can only be one or the other. There can be no compromise. So who's "one world" will it be?


Hell, I don't know - the One World Order instead of the New World Order


Sounds just as bad in that light


When I see war, I just see us killing ourselves, know what I mean?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join