Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist demands

[Dry]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
And while your army is occupied in Iraq, we would invade your homeland!

Could you then try a different route than last time?

[Harovan]

Weren't you the one questioning the originality of the colors in our flag? If so, the answer is no!

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ned
In my view, Israel owes its survival as a nation for the last 35 years to one man.

Guess who he is?

probably peres or ben gurion or somethinf.

[Sirotnikov]

Does it really matter to any civilian, whether their killer followed the rules or not? I think not.

It doesn't matter to him because he's not there to care.

It does matter however in the eyes of morality and concience.

According to your morality, there is absolutely no difference between an accident and a murder. So either you think Murderers have done nothing wrong and do not deserve punishment, or you think that every person who makes a mistake deserves the electric chair.

If person A tried to assassinate person B and missed - person B is still alive,
And person C accidentally bumped into person D making him fall of the 20th floor to his death....

Is person C worse than person A? Person C killed someone, while person A didn't kill anyone.

Those who make the rules, do so, to ensure victory.

This is reactionary rewriting of history.

There are books on the developement of morality and of developement of war ethics and why they were developed.

Most of the recent rules, were made by westerners after revolutions in war which made weapons so deadly, it was feared entire populations would be wiped out and war would simply lead to the extermination of both sides.

So war tactics and weapons were limited to prevent that.

Now we have terrorists who have no ethical problem with seeking to target civilian masses, suddenly getting control of very advanced weapons.

You are rewriting history in your claims.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Only with a UN mandate

Nonsense! You don't need it. The current Iraq has already demonstrated that it is hostile to your country through an act of terror. Now since the current Iraq is a puppet of the US government, you must assume that any capabilities that the US has, Iraq would have as well. Hence, weapons of mass destruction. Clearly France is in danger and needs to make a pre-emptive strike according the Bush doctrine.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

If person A tried to assassinate person B and missed - person B is still alive,
And person C accidentally bumped into person D making him fall of the 20th floor to his death....

Is person C worse than person A? Person C killed someone, while person A didn't kill anyone.

Of course person C is worse. He can kill people without even trying, while Mr. A can't hit the broad side of the barn if his life depended on it.

[Dry]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Of course person C is worse. He can kill people without even trying, while Mr. A can't hit the broad side of the barn if his life depended on it.

[DUMBERTHANYOUMODE=ON]
Yeah, right. C, an able, competent person is worse than A an incompetent person.
Competence

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Does it really matter to any civilian, whether their killer followed the rules or not? I think not.

It doesn't matter to him because he's not there to care.

It does matter however in the eyes of morality and concience.

According to your morality, there is absolutely no difference between an accident and a murder. So either you think Murderers have done nothing wrong and do not deserve punishment, or you think that every person who makes a mistake deserves the electric chair.

If person A tried to assassinate person B and missed - person B is still alive,
And person C accidentally bumped into person D making him fall of the 20th floor to his death....

Is person C worse than person A? Person C killed someone, while person A didn't kill anyone.

How is firing a missile into a building an accident? I suppose all those bombs were "accidently" dropped. Oops, there goes another one, when I get back on the carrier, I'm gonna tell them to use more bungee cords!

And, the civilians' family is still there to care. History has shown incidents like these can make a mild mannered female law student strap herself with bombs and blow up a bus... in less than a month.

Those who make the rules, do so, to ensure victory.

This is reactionary rewriting of history.

There are books on the developement of morality and of developement of war ethics and why they were developed.

Most of the recent rules, were made by westerners after revolutions in war which made weapons so deadly, it was feared entire populations would be wiped out and war would simply lead to the extermination of both sides.

So war tactics and weapons were limited to prevent that.

Now we have terrorists who have no ethical problem with seeking to target civilian masses, suddenly getting control of very advanced weapons.

You are rewriting history in your claims.

Advanced weapons.... IDE's and swords for beheading... ooh advanced... pretty soon they'll be coming at us with boards with nails!

Your evidence that war has rules is a bunch of books explaining said rules!?

Books are books. Lawyers are lawyers, laws are laws. All of them pointless without a gun.

Guns make the rules. Those with teh biggest guns make the rules. Books, laws, all of it, do nothing without a gun first.

it was feared entire populations would be wiped out and war would simply lead to the extermination of both sides.

So instead of trying to eliminate war itself, they wrote a bunch of rules so rich gentlemen could continue to engage in such a noble sport, and steal form lesser countries legally.

Here here, let us invade Iraq, and remember, in this game, sabotaging your own oil wells would be a war crime.

Here is how it works: Your army goes out on the sand to defend your cities, we bomb them and shell them with artillery.

Your guys die, our guys live. Those who fought us are ridiculed and/or imprisoned if they lived, and we take your oil.

Now play by the rules, you sick barbarians!

[Spiffor]

UPDATE

The two hostages have been liberated yeasterday. For the time being, we don't know what the government gave in exchange of the liberation. The Prime Minister says there was no ransom, but doesn't indicate the nature of our payments.

From the BBC:

Freed French hostages head home
Two French reporters who were released after being held hostage for four months in Iraq are heading home to a hero's welcome.

Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, who were seized by militants in August, will be greeted by President Jacques Chirac on landing in France.

The French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin rejected suggestions that a ransom was paid for their release.

The men's captors said they were freed because of France's anti-war stance.

Their families called their release on Tuesday "the most beautiful Christmas present ever".

The men are being escorted home by Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, after a night spent in a secure location in Baghdad.

'Profound joy'

Mr Chirac cut short a holiday in Morocco in order to be able to greet the two reporters on their return to the Villacoublay military airbase near Paris.

He said Mr Chesnot, 37, and Mr Malbrunot, 41, had "put their lives on the line at the service of freedom of expression and of the right to information".

They were [freed]... in response to appeals from Islamic institutions and bodies and in appreciation of the French government's stand on the Iraq issue
Islamic Army in Iraq
"They have been through a very difficult ordeal," he said in an address to the nation.

"In all our names, I wish to express to them our sympathy and our esteem."

He said their release was due in part to the solidarity of the French nation.

"We owe their release to the mobilisation and unity of all the French, to whom I wish to pay homage," he said.

"We owe it to the responsible and tenacious action of the government and of all the services which united in their endeavours with dedication and effectiveness."

Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced the news of their release to parliament on Tuesday, talking of his "profound joy".

The French press has been full of the "mystery" surrounding their release and says questions will be asked about a possible ransom payment.

But Mr Raffarin told a group of politicians that there had been "neither a demand nor a payment".

Thierry Chesnot, brother of Christian, said it was a "wonderful Christmas present" and added that he had been told by the French prime minister's office that the reporters were in good health.

Press campaign

Mr Chesnot, working for Radio France Internationale and Mr Malbrunot, for Le Figaro daily newspaper, are thought to have been the longest-held Western hostages in Iraq.

The French press ran a continuous campaign for their release.

They were abducted while driving to the city of Najaf with their Syrian driver, Mohammed al-Jundi, who was later found during the US-led assault on Falluja.

The journalists' captors - the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) - initially demanded that France scrap a law banning Muslim headscarves from being worn in schools - a demand shunned by France.

They were later reported to have requested a ransom, but a statement quoted by Arabic TV channel al-Jazeera on Tuesday said the reporters were released for political reasons.

[Gangerolf]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The Prime Minister says there was no ransom, but doesn't indicate the nature of our payments.

They paid. I can smell the BS from here.

[dannubis]

perhaps you just live in a place that smells funny ...

[Ned]

"for political reasons."

We understand.

[BeBMan]

What?

[Urban Ranger]

Ned,

Innuendos. We understand.