 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - About those kidnappings... |
 |  |  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Lunar Depths Paragoomba Level: 14  Posts: 25/67 EXP: 11330 For next: 1741 Since: 09-01-04 From: New Jersey Since last post: 105 days Last activity: 105 days |
| ||
| Hey all, So I read the New York Times fairly religiously, and this particular Op-Ed piece caught my attention. Granted, it is an Opinion-Editorial, but I would be very interested to hear a few other takes on it. Do you think we should give in to their demands, or maintain a firm stance? The article may be long, but it's worth reading. Thanks a bunch. "The Kidnap Weapon" 27 Sept. 2004 by William Safire The Zarqawi terrorist network in Iraq has developed a powerful new weapon. It requires no munitions and no suicide zealots, runs no risk to terrorists of death or capture and provides cash to finance other operations. The weapon is publicized kidnapping. Pictures of helpless captives begging for their lives trigger worldwide coverage of tearful families begging for mercy. Films sometimes conclude with a sadistic Zarqawi slowly sawing off the heads of his victims. For the psychological warriors, it is a win-win tactic. If the ransom is paid by a private contractor, the extorted cash buys rockets and mortars. If the ransom is paid b a government withdrawing its troops, the terrorist diplomatic victory dispirits the rest of the coalition. If the ransom is not paid, then the film of the hostages' beheading strikes fear into the heart of the morbidly fascinated viewer. The kidnap weapon does not always produce the propaganda reults the killers want. John Burns of The Times noted from Baghdad on PBS's "News Hour" that the grisly murders fill civilized Iraqis with a deep disgust. They remind many of the hand-chopping and tongue-cutting methods used by Saddam's goons to suppress resistance. But this also frightens many Iraqis, and manipulates the media to intimidate millions abroad whose support is needed to defeat the terrorists. Nobody should order reporters and editors to "downplay" a gut-wrenching human interest story involving cruelty, violence and death. Nor should the media flinch from covering casualty counts or honoring the fallen. War involves sacrifice. But responsible journalists should consider the wisdom of allowing media-savvy terrorists to play them like a violin. Sensationalism sells; on TV, "if it bleeds, it leads." Audiences are surely drawn to tearful interviews with worried spouses and children. Bloggers get "hits" from posting the most gruesome pictures. Cable ratings rise by milking the pathos in the drama created by the Zarqawi network; first comes the kidnapping report; then televised please from the kneeling, doomed innocents; then coverage of marches and vigils to plead for the payment of ransom; finally, in one case out of four, the delivery of dismembered bodies and gleeful claim of blame. Do we have to become conduits for this gisly, real-death kidnap choreography? We are obliged to report it, but we need not go along with the terrorist propagandists in milking the most horror out of it. We know that the primary purpose of the kidnap weapon is to drive the coalition forces out of Iraq and to prevent a free election there. We know, too, that the kidnap weapon is aimed at the U.S. election. What we do not know is how its heavily publicized use will cut. Will Americans react to all-kidnap-all-the-time by being revolted at the savagery and turn to the candidate determined to wipe out the barbarians? Or will we be so revolted as to think Iraqis are hopelessly uncivilized or beaten down, and turn to the candidate whoe will get us out of there the fastest? John Kerry, who has evidently decided to replace Howard Dean as the antiwar candidate, last weekend helped to magnify the terrorists' kidnap weapon. In a scheduled commercial Kerry personally approved, just before charging that George Bush had no plan to get us out of Iraq, the Democratic campaign underscored the message Zarqawi has ben sending: "Americans," said Kerry's announcer, "are being kidnapped, held hostage, and even beheaded." Though undoubtedly accurate, that paid evocation of horror by a political candidate is a terrible blunder. That's the sort of emotional appeal you would expect from President Gloria Arroyo of the Philippines who pulled 51 troops out of Iraq, caving to the demand of kidnappers, emboldening them to grab fresh victims. It's bad enough for some thoughtless media outlets to become an echo chamber for scare propaganda; it's worse when the nominee of a major party approves its use to press his antiwar candidacy. We are dealing with the most brutal propaganda weapon yet devised. Strong governments counter it by refusing to pay money or policy ransom to the kidnap-killers. Nonpartisan media's response should be to report the events conscious of manipulation and not to overlook the reaction of Iraqi and worldwide Muslim disgust. |
|||
MorbidMolly Octoballoon Level: 21  Posts: 111/171 EXP: 46523 For next: 3420 Since: 08-26-04 From: my house, a state, USA Since last post: 70 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
Wow. I've never read so much in a thread before. We've had something like that in our area of the globe. But it's a seireal killer, BTK. Everyone's scared of him but he's about sixty years old. People these days.*rolls eyes* |
|||
Jarukoth  IRRATIONAL EXUBERENCE!!1! Level: 79  Posts: 1856/3194 EXP: 4402011 For next: 177456 Since: 03-17-04 From: New Jersey, U.S.A. Shoes: Yes. Since last post: 8 days Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| All too true, LD. The sad fact is, there doesn't seem to be any form of media that is completely nonpartisan when it comes to these matters. Sure, some sources may come close, but not completely. As far as the terrorist killings go, I don't mean to sound heartless, but I think we should stand firm in our views. If we give into thier demands, the situation will probably become worse, since they would now know that these tactics work. I don't mean to sound heartless, but if we do give in, the cost would be far too great. Plus, in my view, anyway, the terrorists would ultimately be responsible for the hostages' deaths, not their country. |
|||
Ran-chan Moldorm eek, when are they going to stop growing... Level: 143  Posts: 3975/12781 EXP: 35293588 For next: 538220 Since: 03-15-04 From: Nerima District, Tokyo - Japan Since last post: 12 hours Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| Oh, I hate those frickin' Zarqawis' that | |||
|
Lunar Depths Paragoomba Level: 14 Posts: 27/67 EXP: 11330 For next: 1741 Since: 09-01-04 From: New Jersey Since last post: 105 days Last activity: 105 days |
| ||
| Thank you guys so much for actually reading the article. I had a feeling it would turn people off because it is so long, but I really feel like issues such as this should be brought up. I agree with you both personally, and I think we are obligated to remain firm in our stance. We negotiated the release of a terrorist once before, only to have that same person turn around and assist with 9-11. While poeple may die, I suppose it's better one than many =/ as harsh as that may sound. |
|||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101  Posts: 2473/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jarukoth Agreed. That's our policy, not negotiating with terrorists. Ever. It's the way it always has been and it's the way it always will be. The ends justify the means. If we negotiate so much as ONE time, then we're in for a world of hurt. Let's say I was the President and terrorists threatened to detonate a nuclear weapon in downtown New York. Now, let's just say that we know for a fact they have it and are capable of doing it. And assume that their demands are that we release one prisoner and that if we do, it's guarunteed that they will not detonate the nuke. I would still say no. It's the only logical thing to do. Of course, I would put all my efforts into stopping them. |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 147/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Actually, in that extreme a situation with a guaranteed safe outcome, I'd say you'd be well entitled, nay, obligated, to give in... and that this wouldn't open any "pandora's box". That a govenrment can be forced to cave in to small demands with a nuclear device, doesn't necessary mean that and guaranteed threat. To mix several metaphors, the idea with a "door opening" or a Pandora's Box is that it starts small, then things snowball bigger and bigger down a slippery slope. Starting out with the nuclear thing doesn't really fit that. As to the general topic: This sort of stuff is ugly and demoralising, but not insurmountable. The key to remember is that "the bad guys" aren't a single coherant group, and the vicious stunts of the sorts of hardliners doing these things doesn't mean it's not possible to change the views and behaviour of even more moderate militiants. The absolute radical extreme can never be negotiated with, but various situations have repeatedly shown the extremists can be marginalised by their own actions, can lose their support, and moderate, pragmatic realists can gain more ascendency - nobody much listens to the "Real IRA" and the ETA's violent extremists are a thing of the past. Even Sri Lanka shows signs of progress. Sure, extremists in Iraq at the moment are having a field day, but situations do change and fluctuate. Personally I don't think there's any way there won't be a civil war - hell, there pretty much already is - but we shall see. Also, I'm not convinced it's a hugely bad thing that the Philipenes or other countries pull out token presences bcause of kidnapper demands. Certainly doesn't warrant the hysterical screams of "appeasers!" that some idiots have been heard to utter. They were only there in the first place for political rather than practical reasons so why shouldn't they withdraw for political reasons too? (edited by Arwon on 10-01-04 08:25 AM) |
|||
|
Jill In love with a dream.. Level: 36  Posts: 396/528 EXP: 296548 For next: 11562 Since: 03-15-04 From: Teh Sweden Since last post: 6 days Last activity: 14 hours |
| ||
| I hate how these guys are trying to gain stuff from killing people in disgusting outdated ways. I also hate how they hide behind their religion and how they think it's so fucking holy. |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - About those kidnappings... |
| | |
