Offing Jill.

Statikk HDM · #1 01-18-2006, 06:47 AM

Anybody hear about the kidnapping of Jill Carroll?
She was kidnapped in Iraq and is being held for the next three days. The 8 iraqi women in custody will have to be let free or else she is going to be beheaded.
My thought, and it has been an unpopular one, is that we have brought these kidnappings on ourselves. We have abducted innocents and held them without charge and have tortured and rendered a lot of people. The chickens are coming home to roost.

OANST · #2 01-18-2006, 06:53 AM

Whaaaaaa? Whaaaaaaaaaaa? I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Hold on.............Offing Jill? Are you really that callous? How dare you be so flippant with a persons life? errrrrrrrr...... Must......stop.....talking............Getting........angry......

Havoc · #3 01-18-2006, 07:13 AM

This is like what, the 6th time someone was kidnapped and tortured untill their 'allies' were released?

Even though it's a life we are talking about, if you start to act in on these so called 'fair trades' then there is no stopping it. Now its getting a few people out of jail, next time it's dilivering nuclear metrial at one of their labs, ect ect.
Giving a shot at trying to get her out is all they should do, if it doesn't work, ala, tough break. But if they actualy release those women, then a lot more of these kidnappings will follow.

metroixer · #4 01-18-2006, 07:44 AM

Who is this Jill Carrol person? Is she just a random person or some kind of celebrity?

Dark Elite_H2 · #5 01-18-2006, 10:48 AM

I've heard of it.
The last time I've heard the kidnappings in Iraq, I have no idea if they survived. And yes, what OANST said is true.
If the US answers to the terrorists, then it'll just keep goin' and goin', 'til they got everything they want to start our doomsday.
But what makes me sad is that those people kidnapped by the Iraqis get killed fer no reason except becoming a hostage. It ain't fair nor right.

OANST · #6 01-18-2006, 10:59 AM

Actually, (credit where credit is due) it was Havoc who said. And yes, it is true. I just can't look at the first post without (accidentally looks up) ........geeeetttiiiingg........reeeeeaaaaalllLLLLYYYYYYYY.............AAAAAANNNNNGGRRRRYYYYYYYYY!!! mmmmmm........

Seriously, you need to rename this topic. That is extremely offensive.

Dark Elite_H2 · #7 01-18-2006, 11:02 AM

Yeh...I thought it related to a sexual thread, since my curiosity went off where it shouldn't of...But yeah. Please change it, 'fore OANST blows a vessle.

Godlesswanderer · #8 01-18-2006, 01:18 PM

I kinda do think they bring it on themselves. I mean, why be in a warzone without weapons and in so little numbers that one of you or a few of you can be captured? They may be campaining for peace and all that but if they don't bring protection of some kind how do they expect to be able stop from being kidnapped?
Now I'm not saying "They didn't bring weapons, they deserve to die". It's just that they can't expect to be able to fight anyone off without protection.

OANST · #9 01-18-2006, 01:22 PM

I'm not saying they aren't stupid. I'm saying GET RID OF THAT GODDAMNED TITLE! A persons life is in severe danger and someone is making jokes about it.

Dark Elite_H2 · #10 01-18-2006, 01:29 PM

:

I'm not saying they aren't stupid. I'm saying GET RID OF THAT GODDAMNED TITLE! A persons life is in severe danger and someone is making jokes about it.

........
Ok, whoa buddy.
I know this may get yer more in a seizure, but can you tell me why it offends you? I mean, sure, I though it in a way different view, but tell me how it jokes with the poor woman held hostage by the Iraqi terrorists. Pweeease?

OANST · #11 01-18-2006, 01:48 PM

The title is offing Jill. This a term that makes light of her imminent death.

Havoc · #12 01-18-2006, 01:50 PM

Also saw this post:

:

The whole point of the Twice a Day thing is just to gauge a reaction. Twice a day is quite a lot, but I'm not going to be harsh on anybody if they do. Its better than sexually assaulting people if your libido is that strong.
Also, Jilling off needs to be popularized.

In the 'Jacking off' thread. I dunno in what contex it should be placed in relation to this topic, but it's not appropriate. Thats for sure. Can someone change the title of this thing already?!

SeaRex · #13 01-18-2006, 01:54 PM

I hate the USA.*

I don't know why we can't ever swallow our pride and negotiate. It's just eight prisoners, six of which are already scheduled for release. The other two, in all likelihood, pose virtually no threat to American safety. For the love of God, just give them their petty demands.

Save this dignified, ivory tower shit for when terrorist groups actually start asking for the ridiculous, dangerous stuff. C'mon, save some lives for once.

*99% gauranteed to get me on an internet watch list.

Havoc · #14 01-18-2006, 01:59 PM

The problem is, if they save one life now by meeting the demands, it's bound to cost twice the ammount later on. It's a simple matter of scarificing one life to resque a lot of others. Family and the victim probably won't agree with that, but it's the cold and painfull truth.
This hasn't anything to do with pride. The USA can shove it's pride into a place where the sun dun shine. This is about human lives which (even though I realy don't give a very great deal about them, depending from person to person) are at risk if they start meeting demands of kidnappers and terrorists.

SeaRex · #15 01-18-2006, 02:24 PM

:

This hasn't anything to do with pride. The USA can shove it's pride into a place where the sun dun shine. This is about human lives which (even though I realy don't give a very great deal about them, depending from person to person) are at risk if they start meeting demands of kidnappers and terrorists.

It has everything to do with pride. US policy has always been not to negotiate with terrorists, regardless of the rammifications, which makes since in some situations, but is absolutely ridiculous in others (like this one). Even when trades are fair and even, the US, being the stubborn ass that it is, absolutely refuses to deviate from "policy." It's bullshit. Even with the US refusing to give into demands, the kidnappings haven't stopped. Every now and then, a terrorist group requested something that seemed fair to them that the US simply couldn't fulfill for security reasons, but this request is so simple. It just doesn't seem logical to me that this poor woman has to die because of protocol.

Hell, negotiating means that you don't even have to give in to terrorist demands. You just find acceptable terms for both parties. The US isn't even willing to do this. They're not even attempting to save this woman's life! God, send a negotiator in to settle terms, even if it means yielding to such a menial request, but just fucking do something. Show some damn effort, for Christ's sake!

Am I saying that the US should yield to every single terrorist demand? Hell no. All I'm saying is that the US (meaning conservatives and liberals alike) should drop the archaic high-horse terrorist policy and at least review every kidnapping as a possibility to save lives through negotiation. But then again, our troop recruitment numbers are down. I guess the administration needs another martyr.

used:) · #16 01-18-2006, 02:59 PM

Well, this is what you get when you declare war on a dirt poor country, perform digusting acts of torture on POW's for kicks, build military bases on the inhabitants' holy lands, march in with lies just to kick out the "bad guy," drag every other fucking nation in the world into the conflict, refuse to bring the troops home after 2000 deaths, not show any gumptioin for resolving the conflict, mock the muslim holy texts while you're on their turf, waste away the economy on a shit hole like Iraq, let numerous other hostages get beheaded, make up more lies so corporations won't take the boot, use war as the first solution instead of negotiation, march into war with your homeland still fragile as dried up kindling, and inspire even more terrorism in the world.

:

Offing Jill.

You're an ass.

Leto · #17 01-18-2006, 03:11 PM

Call me a Satanist, but the title of this thread provided amusement. Shut yer damn traps. I thought a Hicks fan wouldn't mind a spot of dark humor.

You see, children, to exist peacefully in the world, you must obtain a certan amount of ignorance. If you know all, you become paranoid and depressed about what sucks. Sometimes you just need to forget.

Iraq people kidnapping again to free prisoners? I have never, ever heard of something like that. Like, never.

Really, is this the only way Iraq can negotiate?

OANST · #18 01-18-2006, 03:34 PM

I mind dark humor when it is pointed at a person who is most certainly terrified right now and most probably going to butchered and raped. I'm not going to have a laugh at that persons expense.

Havoc · #19 01-18-2006, 10:56 PM

:

It has everything to do with pride. US policy has always been not to negotiate with terrorists, regardless of the rammifications, which makes since in some situations, but is absolutely ridiculous in others (like this one). Even when trades are fair and even, the US, being the stubborn ass that it is, absolutely refuses to deviate from "policy." It's bullshit. Even with the US refusing to give into demands, the kidnappings haven't stopped. Every now and then, a terrorist group requested something that seemed fair to them that the US simply couldn't fulfill for security reasons, but this request is so simple. It just doesn't seem logical to me that this poor woman has to die because of protocol.

Hell, negotiating means that you don't even have to give in to terrorist demands. You just find acceptable terms for both parties. The US isn't even willing to do this. They're not even attempting to save this woman's life! God, send a negotiator in to settle terms, even if it means yielding to such a menial request, but just fucking do something. Show some damn effort, for Christ's sake!

Am I saying that the US should yield to every single terrorist demand? Hell no. All I'm saying is that the US (meaning conservatives and liberals alike) should drop the archaic high-horse terrorist policy and at least review every kidnapping as a possibility to save lives through negotiation. But then again, our troop recruitment numbers are down. I guess the administration needs another martyr.

I can see what you mean, but you have to bear in mind that meeting demands, no matter how small or big, can and will trigger a chain reaction. Other terrorists will hear about the other guys success and then decide to try and do the same thing but with higher demands. Then the US won't do anything and the victim gets killed. Then what is the gain? You saved one victim just to get another one (or more) killed. Cases like this arn't just short term, you have to look at this in the bigger picture, and that (I think) is the main reason they don't nagotiate with terrorists, hasn't got anything to do with pride I think (not in the first place anyway).

Godlesswanderer · #20 01-19-2006, 04:24 AM

:

refuse to bring the troops home after 2000 deaths

I just thought I'd say, 2000 people out of well over a million American troops that have been sent to Iraq isn't much. Google tells me that 2000 is 0.2 percent of a million. Now think about it, if only 0.2 percent (at the most) of your troops are being killed, is that really a reason to send them all home?

Havoc · #21 01-19-2006, 05:41 AM

Dude, we have our troops (Netherlands) over there as well. We only had one casualty in all those years we are there. Wanna know what happend with that one casualty? IT WENT TO COURT! To freaking court! To investigate what happend, why it happend and what could be done to prevent it. Overacting? Yes. In a war people die. Simple as that. But not if you die in a war that wasn't even supposed to be there. Iraq was never threat to anyone and Bush invaded it for the OIL, simple as that.

One death is a tragedy, 2000 deaths are a statistic. True enough, but it's still 2000 lives that where taken without reason. This isn't a computer game, Wanderer. The 2000 people who died out there for the so called freedom of their country, have families, brothers, sisters, friends. It's not Red Alert where you can just send your troops on a suicide mission because you can create more troops anyway (although thats almost what Bush is doing right now).

2000 people have died, thats 2000 to many. Simple as that.

Statikk HDM · #22 01-19-2006, 05:54 AM

I was going to apologize for that title, but you know what? Screw it.
If anybody should be apologizing it should be the people who started the cluster**** and then abducted, rendered, tortured and raped, thus giving these people a good reason to abduct in the first place. The woman is as good as dead and the blood is not on my hands.
Want to rename it? Okay, here goes
"Warmongers torture without charges, woman killed in retaliation."

SeaRex · #23 01-19-2006, 06:24 AM

:

I can see what you mean, but you have to bear in mind that meeting demands, no matter how small or big, can and will trigger a chain reaction. Other terrorists will hear about the other guys success and then decide to try and do the same thing but with higher demands. Then the US won't do anything and the victim gets killed. Then what is the gain?

The lives you initially saved. That's the gain. It's still far better than doing nothing.

Constantly giving in to demands could be inferred as a sign of weakness. Showing initiative with diplomacy would, at least I think, not. It might even heal US/Extremist relations somewhat. I do not believe that negotiations would set of a chain reaction. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

All I'm saying is that we need to review each case as a possibility for negotiation. Letting our people die without an attempt to save them is an awful crime.

OANST · #24 01-19-2006, 06:28 AM

Static-What is wrong with you? Please tell me that you aren't really this stupid. What if you were in a situation where you were going to be tortured and killed in retribution for something you didn't do? Okay. The blood isn't on your hands but that doesn't mean that it is on her hands either. Try to act like a person here. Show this person some respect. Don't be such a child.

Dark Elite_H2 · #25 01-19-2006, 10:42 AM

:

I was going to apologize for that title, but you know what? Screw it.
If anybody should be apologizing it should be the people who started the cluster**** and then abducted, rendered, tortured and raped, thus giving these people a good reason to abduct in the first place. The woman is as good as dead and the blood is not on my hands.
Want to rename it? Okay, here goes
"Warmongers torture without charges, woman killed in retaliation."

Hey...c'mon, have some dignity.
We have reasons why the title is offending. take some consideration to why we say that.

:

I can see what you mean, but you have to bear in mind that meeting demands, no matter how small or big, can and will trigger a chain reaction. Other terrorists will hear about the other guys success and then decide to try and do the same thing but with higher demands. Then the US won't do anything and the victim gets killed. Then what is the gain? You saved one victim just to get another one (or more) killed. Cases like this arn't just short term, you have to look at this in the bigger picture, and that (I think) is the main reason they don't nagotiate with terrorists, hasn't got anything to do with pride I think (not in the first place anyway).

Exactly my point why sometimes we can't take the bait fer these rotten varmins.
I mean, c'mon. Next thing we meet their demands, and there will be a killing spree of American hostages by terrorists.
It's like training a toddler. Ignore their cries, and they'll give up.

SeaRex · #26 01-19-2006, 01:03 PM

:

It's like training a toddler. Ignore their cries, and they'll give up.

They haven't though. It's been two years and journalists are still being kidnapped.

Any decline in kidnappings, of which there has been an extremely marginal one, has been a result of the direct destruction of terrorist groups and the general decrease of American willingness to travel to Iraq (for obvious reasons).

And has anything been stopping them from going on "killing sprees" so far?

Havoc · #27 01-19-2006, 01:30 PM

No it hasn't, so just imagine what would happen if their demands were actualy met?

What puzzles me is; Why not just move in on the kidnappers? The worst thing that can happen is the victim dying, which will happen anyway if they don't do anything. I wonder more about that then I do about why the US doesn't nagotiate with terrorists.

metroixer · #28 01-19-2006, 01:32 PM

I decided to ignore this thread for a while but I decided to check back up here and WOW. Although some posts here made me laugh (Not pointing out any fingers. Dunno why to. I can have a cruel heart sometimes

) others have gotten me extremely intrested.

Continuing from Luke's last post I just have this one thought. This one tiny thought. Why won't the Iraqis just LET Bush have his fuggin oil? Now i'm not trying to be on Bush's side here or anything but what was the reason for the Iraqis resist Bush in the first place?... OH SHIT. I just remembered something. The Russians are stopping the transportation of they're oil supply to the small countreys near them.("Ukraine, Britain, Germany, etc.). Now this is just a crazy thought here. But what if one of those countreys that Russia supplied oil with was Iraq? That means there would be no oil. No reason to fight. Pointless deaths!

(NOTE: Why Russia is doing this is because some of the other countreys like Ukraine are refusing to pay for the oil. And it is essential for the oil to go through ukraine or something like that to get to the other countreys....I don't know.)

SeaRex · #29 01-19-2006, 03:04 PM

:

No it hasn't, so just imagine what would happen if their demands were actualy met?

What puzzles me is; Why not just move in on the kidnappers? The worst thing that can happen is the victim dying, which will happen anyway if they don't do anything. I wonder more about that then I do about why the US doesn't nagotiate with terrorists.

Again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that the terrorists are already trying their hardest to murder innocent Americans; I really don't think that they would be able to do anything worse than what they are doing now.

As for why we don't just send in a Spec Ops team to rescue the hostage, I've always wondered that myself. However, the filthy bleeding-heart liberal in me would rather see diplomacy and negotiation than force and more bloodshed.

Havoc · #30 01-19-2006, 03:33 PM

Alrighty then. *Agrees to disagree* :P.