|
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
They should have left them there as a lesson to anymore idiots thinking about going to Afghanistan on a missionary trip. If they want to do that, they should have at least gone to a country where they would've been welcomed. |
The thing is, completely ruling out any compromise with Taliban would've done many good things - other missionaries would likely not be targeted, knowing that Taliban would not achieve anything trying to trade them, and on the other hand its a lot of work for Taliban to hide these and follow arrangements. I say NATO should have instead went from village to village looking for Taliban, driving the out, showing every reason for Taliban not to do this kind of action again because not only would they not suceed, but they risk losing more just trying to negotiate. It will only be too risky and too expensive for terrorists to continue to take hostages knowing that they wont get anything for them.
Because now Taliban will most likely attempt another brazen hostage taking again ... Iraq is a great example of how so many countries were forced to pay out a lot of money, strengthen the terrorists and lose political positions at home and in Iraq when dealing with those people. As sad as it might sound, giving it to the terrorists demands is a big victory for terrorists.
The resistance might be fighting a war, independence movement, terrorist war or serving someone else's agenda, but giving in to hostage takings only makes things worse for other would-be hostages.
___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture
|