They have been holding Jeffrey Schilling since last August and have made several previous threats to execute him, but this time it seems like they want to make good on their promise. Serving up the head of a hostage to President Arroyo on her birthday is supposed to be seriously bad karma for her (they did the same thing last year with two hostages & presented the “gifts” to then-President Estrada, noting that the resulting karma was bad enough to get him booted out of office).
This burns me up, but I am conflicted (maybe that is why it burns me up in the first place). The thought of some rebel group promising to saw the head off of another person makes me want to carpet-bomb the island so it can be said that “This is how we respond to terrorists”. Then maybe terrorists would think twice before pulling such a stunt. Of course, this line of reasoning suggests that terrorists think once to begin with.
This would be an example of deterrence, but the idea of deterrence seems to be flawd to begin with. Especially in the case of terrorists, where the concept of deterrence is likened to the idea that you can get two angry dogs to stop fighting by giving them longer & sharper teeth.
To help me resolve the conflict I feel about this, I place myself in Schilling’s shoes. Here I am in some rat infested hole being fed rotten rice, and I am scheduled to have my head sawed off on Thursday. My next thought is “I sure hope the carpet bombing starts before then”, even though I would be dead either way.
You may say that it depends on what the terrorist’s demands are. If all they want are some strawberry milkshakes, problem solved. But doesn’t that set a dangerous precedent? Next time they’ll want french fries, and after that $100 million.
I am still leaning heavily toward a zero tolerance policy, even if the hostage’s lives are lost. Opinions?
What if all these terrorists want is international attention? It sounds like they lured this trust-funder using a girl, Sabaya’s cousin, and the fact that he is also Muslim makes no difference to me, he is an American and his life should be taken into consideration. The best policy should be to ignore the situation until he is freed or dead, then take action. This makes his ransom affordable. They do have to pay to keep this guy, so time is on our side–they don’t want to kill someone they spent all that energy on. If what you mean by zero tolerance includes first strike: What is the point in mandating that a hostage be killed before the fact just because we are insulted? Patience is the best way to deal with hotheads. Journalists need to be sure they are not party to the terrorists will.
First of all, you DO negotiate with terrorists, you just don’t give into their demands. Giving into terrorist demands just sends a message “hey, just threaten us a little and we’ll cave in”. It just encourges more terrorism.
Second of all, our law enforcement agencies and military have some pretty good people who are trained to handle terrorists and launch a rescue mission if necessary.
Third of all, you don’t free a hostage by carpet bombing them. That’s just ignorant.
The objective is to get the hostages back in one piece. Sending in a SWAT or Special Forces team is dangerous and only used if negotiations fail or the hostages are in immediate danger. Personally, I’d rather spend a month eating rats and dirt than get killed because some Navy SEAL through a grenade into the wrong room.
1st, my daughter (almost ten years old) is on that island so let’s not be bombing the bejays out of the entire place.
2nd, Schilling apparently isn’t your “average” hostage. He’s married to the head terrorist’s cousin. Bad Karma can also come from killing off your Muslim family’s Muslim family member.
3rd, the terrorists are exploiting the absolute joke of a political system in the Philippines. The “not negotiating” negotiations already got them some major cash flow last year.
You don’t negotiate with them but you can talk to them. If you give in to their demands then every terrorist group in the world will know that they can take hostages and you’ll roll over. What we really need to combat terrorism is a strong intelligence community and the ability, and balls, to make use of surgical strikes in the form of missiles or special forces when we find them.
Heh heh, moving back to Israel any time soon? Actually this seems like a completely rational policy to me. If you engage in acts of terrorism against Israel then they’ll strike back as soon as they find out who is responsible. I’m also given to understand that France has a good reputation for doing the same thing.
Yes, but the Israeli position on terrorism is from the Israeli’s assuming they will always have terrorism, because they know they will always be at war (and are the terrorists themselves, but that is another matter). If terrorism is random, and understood to be irrational, then negotiating is rational. The Israeli’s know that their “terrorists” are rational and thus theyt have to “train” them like a bad spanking parent from redneck Colorado trains their kids to follow Jesus.
Somehow I think that most terrorist organizations have some sort of goal in mind. Terrorist groups seem to pick specific targets for specific reasons such as the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 200 dead Marines in Lebanon, and the attack on the USS Cole. This shows me that terrorist groups are very much capable of rational deliberate planning and action. I just don’t buy the irrational terrorist idea.
If terrorists are “rational” then they are not terrorists and their demands are valid. If they are religious nut-cases, then they are not rational by definition. It is possible, even probable, that both sides are very irrational, but it is never the case (with rare misunderstood exception perhaps) that both sides are completely rational.
I simply use rational to mean a sane person capable of rational thinking. You brought up the whole concept of rational “terrorist” so maybe you could clue the rest of us in on what that means.
And how can you tell the difference between rational and irrational terrorist? Maybe you can tell me which of these falls under rational and which fall under the irrational. The taking and murdering of 11 athletes in Munich during the 1972 Olympics, how about the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, the bombing of OKC, or the bombing of the World Trade Center.
Marc
I did not say this would result in the hostages’ release, I was speculating on the long term affect of showing a zero tolerance policy by vaporizing the general vicinity of the terrorists. As I said, with me in the hostage’s place, I think I would probably prefer to be turned into a cloud of charged particles as long as I knew (1) the terrorists would go with me, and (2) it would make a sound that future would-be terrorists would not soon forget (if the only other option was to get my head sawed off).
As I said, I am conflicted. Perhaps it is my reptilian complex taking over. Maybe I am angry at the lack of any apparent progress in any kind of negotiations to get Schilling freed, or at least at the local government for not seeking tactical help from us in coming to a resolution.
I would like to know that this is the case. Send in the seals with their I-Spy techniques, just like in the movies. If we are doing something like this, it must be heavily under cover. Superficially though, we just don’t seem to care. Heck, maybe that is the best zero tolerance policy- just ignore them.
Witness the situation in Northern Ireland: the long-standing problems are far from solved, but negotiating with terrorists is the only strategy that has been effective in more than 30 years in reducing the level of violence and improving the quality of life for the people of the region.
Have you any idea how bad this sounds, or is this what you intended to say?
Being rational, or having valid demands does not absolve you of being a terrorist if you commit terroristic acts, such as kidnapping and blowing up civilians.
But the government kidnaps people all the time – they just call it imprisoning. Are you saying the government isn’t excused from its terrorist acts even though it is supposedly acting rationally?