OT: Have the Phillipines negotiation with terror worked?

[Dutch]

Short term, they got their guy back. Long term, more have been taken and now high level guys are being taken. Immediately following the negotiation.

First the ousting of the Spanish PM by terror bombing, now this.

Is the world completely unequipped to deal with the terrorist threat?

[SirFozzie]

I think the world is starting to realize, appeasement doesn't work as well as they thought it would

[NoMyths]

Or, say, our security operations aren't working as well as we were told they would.

To answer Dutch's question, yes. The country most equipped to deal with the threat (us) has proven itself quite unprepared to deal with the international ramifications of a poorly planned "war against terror." Domestically we're doing a much more effective job, evidently.

[Draft Dodger]

Is the world completely unequipped to deal with the terrorist threat?

unequivicably (and unfortunately), yes.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

As for the Phillipine troop withrawal, I really have nothing against it. The P.I. as gonna pull out in August anyway, No real big deal. Just blown out of proportion by the media. I have nothing against the P.I. other than Britain they are really the only other real ally that we have in combatting terror etc.

[sachmo71]

As for the Phillipine troop withrawal, I really have nothing against it. The P.I. as gonna pull out in August anyway, No real big deal. Just blown out of proportion by the media. I have nothing against the P.I. other than Britain they are really the only other real ally that we have in combatting terror etc.

Isn't perception what it's all about, though? Even if the media made it a bigger deal than it is, someone is watching it. I realize it must have been a difficult decision for them, but isn't it obvious to everyone that if you cave into terrorist demands, they will only be more inclined to use these tactics against you?

I think we have more allies in the war on terror than we do in the war in Iraq. There is a big difference there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is the world completely unequipped to deal with the terrorist threat?

I don't believe that's even a question is it?

On the whole, the world is unwilling to take the steps necessary to eliminate terrorism as a viable threat.

It is [u]not[/i] lacking material means, but rather the wisdom and the courage required to do so. And in many cases, the motivation to do so is also lacking.

[Arles]

I don't believe that's even a question is it?

On the whole, the world is unwilling to take the steps necessary to eliminate terrorism as a viable threat.

It is [u]not[/i] lacking material means, but rather the wisdom and the courage required to do so. And in many cases, the motivation to do so is also lacking.
I think it's a tough issue. Do you take the additional steps that will certainly protect the country better (ie, profiling) but will hurt politically from all the watchdog groups - not to mention face the potential loss of minor liberties in that group? Or, do you play by the "PC" rules and leave a few additional small loopholes open and hope no one finds them - but leaving you looking better on the world stage?

Since today has been a sports analogy day - I would compare it to being down 3-2 in a playoff series and deciding whether or not to pitch a worse 3rd option over your No. 1 guy on shorter rest. Ideally, you would love to save him for the seventh game. But, you also don't want to be heading home in 6 with a fully rested top starter.

There was a great show on the other night with three former CIA agents from the cold war. They were talking about the difference in intelligence from now to then. They said back then, you could pay off someone or work into the "government" organizations of the Soviet Union or other state enemies. But now, how do you infiltrate a terrorist cell in the US comprised of three brothers and their cousin? Not very easy. All three said the US must start changing its view as to what is acceptable from an informant standpoint all the way to profiling. They said it's a different enemy and the "Spy vs. Spy" cold war tactics are outdated.

[MIJB#19]

Short term, they got their guy back. Long term, more have been taken and now high level guys are being taken. Immediately following the negotiation.

First the ousting of the Spanish PM by terror bombing, now this.

Is the world completely unequipped to deal with the terrorist threat?The Spain story is taken out of context, the Philipines story is clearly not to be explained any other way then giving terrorists what they want.

Other example, In April the Dutch goverment loaned 1M Euro to Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) to get free a Dutch hostage from Chechenian guerrilla's after 20 months. Now, MSF is not willing to pay back to the goverment. (Lack of activity to liberate the hostage and other hostages by the Russian goverment was the main motivation). MSF even denies to have ever gotten the money, but do are willing to pay half of the money back. (confusing statement, no?)

It's good that he's free, but I also fear that now there is "I am worth 1M Euro" stamped on the head of any Dutchman going abroad. Is that the right signal to give?

That is the same goverment that was supposed to be the asskisser of Bush, they say their are so strong as the Amercians, but once a Dutch soldier is KIA, that goverment acts like chickens and want to retreat. Then, there is this incident where they give 1M Euro to get some hostage free and indirectly fund the Chechenian terrorists. Nice move...

[Dutch]

The Spain story is taken out of context...

Let's hope the terrorists see it that way or else we can expect more terror bombings prior to elections.

[Leonidas]

As for the Phillipine troop withrawal, I really have nothing against it. The P.I. as gonna pull out in August anyway, No real big deal. Just blown out of proportion by the media. I have nothing against the P.I. other than Britain they are really the only other real ally that we have in combatting terror etc.

CS, I greatly respect your knowledge and opinions on such things, but in this instance I think you are off base. Yes, from a literal perspective you are correct. However, the ever so slight bending to terrorists demands is seen by these bastards as a victory.

I just took in abrief this week from some high muckety-mucks in the Air Force that concluded the volume of suicide bombings wolrdwide are way up in the past 5 years simply because they are perceived by the bad guys to be at least somewhat effective in achieving their goals, which in terror terms is a really big deal because by-in-large history has shown terrorism to be ineffective at achieving strategic goals. Now we have yet another incident where terrorists can perceive a victory. If suicide bombing can be seen as an example of emboldening terrorists to act, it stands to reason the Philippines have only made it that much more of an open season on hostage taking, not just in Iraq, but around the world. So now, in addition to suicide bombing, terrorists have another tool in their bag that they think works.

[yabanci]

The truth is the Philippines would have been far better off not getting mixed up in a bungled war of aggression in the first place.

[Leonidas]

The truth is the Philippines would have been far better off not getting mixed up in a bungled war of aggression in the first place.

Has there ever been a war of non-aggression?

[yabanci]

Has there ever been a war of non-aggression?

War of aggression is a term of art in political science and international law. Sorry you aren't familiar with it.

[Dutch]

War of aggression is a term of art in political science and international law. Sorry you aren't familiar with it.

Back to the tried and true method of calling other's idiots. Nice work once again to the liberal crowd.

[JPhillips]

If I were running a small country it would be a very difficlt choice. I may morally believe that I should stand up to terror and also believe that it will benefit the country to curry US favor, but if I can stand aside while someone bigger and stronger does the fighting and dying it would be tough. The essential problem is whether standing aside will keep you out of the fight. If it will then I can see a very strong argument for letting others fight. Afterall, it is the duty of a leader to look out for the best interests of his people first and the rest of the world second.

[yabanci]

Back to the tried and true method of calling other's idiots. Nice work once again to the liberal crowd.

True, we should never call "other's idiots."

[Dutch]

If you've never made a typo on a message board, I guess you are free and clear?

The point is we should try to have some sort of civil debate (which is more fun) than name calling. Agreed?

[Arles]

If you've never made a typo on a message board, I guess you are free and clear?

The point is we should try to have some sort of civil debate (which is more fun) than name calling. Agreed?
OK, I'll start. Dennis Green said he's going to work the Cardinals hard in their upcoming training camp and feed them trout for lunch.

Please discuss...