| |
|
This statement assumes that there is a direct connection between anti-war protestors and Iraqi militants - that the anti-war protestors, if they continue to find their rallies ignored, will resolve instead to kidnap people, and likewise that if the Iraqi militants are only shown that kidnapping people does not work as a negotiation tactic, they will start printing banners instead.
It does no such thing. It states, simply, that the capitulation to demands diminishes the value of the one and enhances the value of the other. No connection between anti-war protestors and Iraqi militants is stated whatsoever, nor is it implied. It may well have been inferred but that's a problem on your end. The statement is meant only to suggest that it will be disheartening to those who choose peaceful protest as their means to achieve goals, while encouraging those with violent methodology.
People are not going to think "Oh, damn it. The US didn't wthdraw from Iraq. Looks like this hostage-taking thing is a busted flush. We'd better write to our MPs, instead. But sternly."
Once again, I think you're making a connection that I never suggested. I think there are better ways to discourage violent protest than capitulation - that's all I'm saying here.
Is it generally a good principle to give hostage-takers what they want? No. However, it goes on all the time [...] Is it wise to continue dialogue with hostage-takers for as long as possible, in the hope of finding and rescuing your national? Well, maybe. There is no evidence to state that this is not what is going on.
Except, perhaps, for the apparent lack of dialogue. I'll put it this way: there is no evidence to state that there is or has been any dialogue whatsoever in this case. If the action being taken on the part of the Filipino government is an attempt to create or prolong a dialogue, it may well be useful - and this is a point worth discussing, I think.
You admit, here, that it isn't generally a good idea to give hostage takers what they want. Let me ask you: why isn't it a good idea?
As for the *moral* question... well, you're assuming that there is a purely moral response. I suspect there isn't.
Alright. Is there a "better choice" response? Are you arguing that capitulation is the better moral choice? I need to be clear on this before I address that statement, I think.
Given that troops from the Coalition of the Whupass are picking people up, taking them to remote locations, torturing and threatening them... It's not the firmest foundation on which to base a moral argument.
Er...no such foundation is being used. I would argue that the violent activities you point out here are similar, if not identical, to the criminal activity that provoked the Filipino government's response. The only difference appears to be that the apparent demands of the American Military (i.e. a halt to terrorist activity) are not being acceded to.
If you mean "bad actions should not be rewarded", then well and good, but to assume that this is a place where that maxim can be cleanly applied by one group to another... was the phrase "brutally shortsighted" used earlier?
Why do you think I'm making that assumption? |
|
|
