Are Philippines to blame

for all the kidnappings, because they bowed into the kidnapper's demands, therefore setting a very good example, in a very bad place for very bad people?

It is old news that Philippines pulled its troops out of Iraq to spare the life of "Angelo de la Cruz," but look at what it has done. We have a recent hike (if i might a really big one) in the rate of kidnappings after Philippines act.

This is one of the rare cases where saving one innocent life lead to the dangering of several others.

What do you guys think? Was Philippines right in pulling out, especially was it right in pulling out bowing to kidnapper's needs?

Were there other motives that led to the pull-out? To me it sounds a little fishy, pulling out troops for the life of one man? Either the gov't is really nice, why I doubt it is or the current gov't was up for re-election.

Surf

EDIT: Addition, Title Change, Addition.

[edit on 10/26/2004 by surfup]

Has there really been a big increase in kidnappings after they pulled out a month earlier than originally planned?

There seemed to be a lot of kidnappings before that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Has there really been a big increase in kidnappings after they pulled out a month earlier than originally planned?

There seemed to be a lot of kidnappings before that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Angelo isn't even on your list.

I meant the topic in a more symbolic way.

You don't agree it was a real big win for the kidnappers when they made a country leave with their kidnapping threats? Come on, this is terrorism we are talking here, terrorism breeds on fear and philippines gave in to the fear.

Surf

Originally posted by surfup

Angelo isn't even on your list.

I meant the topic in a more symbolic way.

You don't agree it was a real big win for the kidnappers when they made a country leave with their kidnapping threats? Come on, this is terrorism we are talking here, terrorism breeds on fear and philippines gave in to the fear.

Surf

Angelo was kidnapped in July.
I had already stopped updating the list by that time.

Giving in to terrorists does set a bad example but the Italians didn't give in and many other nations didn't give in and that still didn't stop the kidnappers from taking more hostages.

I just don't think we can attribute the kidnapping that happened after then to the Filipinos.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Giving in to terrorists does set a bad example but the Italians didn't give in and many other nations didn't give in and that still didn't stop the kidnappers from taking more hostages.

I just don't think we can attribute the kidnapping that happened after then to the Filipinos.

Getting one win is equal to getting a thousand loss.

I am not saying they are the only one to blame, but they play a big part in it.

I mean if no one budged and they got nothing, they would have to stop at some point. Now that they got a country to leave without just threats, empty or not another debate, it gives them lot of hope and encouragement to continue on.

Surf

Yes. In numbers it was insignificant and they were to pull out anyway. But it was politically and morally significant to the leaders on both sides.

An ally left the fray in the coalition under pressure. It was perhaps more what AQ like groups and thier supporters would make of that more than the USA people. They obviously saw it as the weakest link in the coalition, after a Spain going to the polls.

You just have to note the milage and the comment it generated in the middle east......out of all proportion to the net physical effect on operations.

Thats what most people don't get and why no one can afford to quit the coalition in its most public battlefront.

It has set up the Fillipino Government for the use of this tactic against them domestically (its been used for years but internet beheadings is a new and painful wrinkle) and made life all that much harder for the rest of us.

I don't blame the Fillipinos...after all to let a man die for a few extra days would be a hard choice to make......But the outcome is just a fact and consequence of it.

[edit on 27-10-2004 by craigandrew]

Originally posted by craigandrew
Yes. In numbers it was insignificant and they were to pull out anyway. But it was politically and morally significant to the leaders on both sides.

An ally left the fray in the coalition under pressure. It was perhaps more what AQ like groups and thier supporters would make of that more than the USA people. They obviously saw it as the weakest link in the coalition, after a Spain going to the polls.

You just have to note the milage and the comment it generated in the middle east......out of all proportion to the net physical effect on operations.

Thats what most people don't get and why no one can afford to quit the coalition in its most public battlefront.

It has set up the Fillipino Government for the use of this tactic against them domestically (its been used for years but internet beheadings is a new and painful wrinkle) and made life all that much harder for the rest of us.

I don't blame the Fillipinos...after all to let a man die for a few extra days would be a hard choice to make......But the outcome is just a fact and consequence of it.

Ofcourse, there had like what 50 troops in there. Number was nothing, there were more terrorists, the points, as you mentioned is that it was a big win for the terrorists, which is why i am kind of sore at the philippines.

Surf

I would not make a good politician (or general I think)......I would find this decision way to painful and lose too much sleep making it either way.

As much as some people hate them, I think some politicians do too.

I know the officers I have served with or met would (for the most part) and in some cases have.

Ace of Base.
There were romours thet the Italians had payed for the release of the two women...

The whole issue with "giving in to terror" has more to do with getting the public to deny the mandate of the terrorists.

They need Joe Public to remember terror = bad, terror = violence against us for no reason.
"Giving in" is accepting they have a mandate.. a valid claim to whatever they are fighting/kidnapping for, and we can;t be seen to do that IN FRONT OF JOE PUBLIC. Behind closed doors its fine.

Still, it bugs me they probably take that extra payola and use it to finance some more weapons, maybe some MPADS, buy their way past some of the less fussy security forces, or fund a new atrocity.

I'm less PO'd the idea, they ship some extra medical aid to a particular town or region to release a prisoner.......but then how often is that what the terrorists ask for?

Originally posted by Corinthas
Behind closed doors its fine.

No it is not fine behind closed doors either. If they do that, the terrorists are going to think that kidnapping is good and they are going to do more and more.

Only way to stop it to is to kill them all, which is impossible.

Surf