Italy demands US punish troops
article
First off the "freed" hostage is Giuliana Sgrena, a reporter for a communist newspaper (Il Manifesto, I believe). Sgrena openly hates US troops. Second, Sgrena wasn't really freed, the Italian government paid a hefty ransom for her (the general belief is several million US dollars).
First off, it should be fairly obvious which side of the story is more accurate. Between an America and American-army hater who works for a communist paper and was bought out of terrorist custody, and American troops who avoid civilian casualties whenever possible (if anyone ever tries to claim that the US either purposely kills civilians or doesn't care, remind them that killing civilians devastates military morale), I'm going to side with my troops. It's certainly possible, maybe even likely, that one of their more important facts is wrong, but the majority of what our troops say should be more accurate than not, and far more accurate than what Sgrena claims.
Second, NEVER buy a hostage, unless they happen to be your family, or if that hostage knows something, which the terrorists don't (like the location of toxins or a nuke) that would make the hostage a lot more valuable. Whenever you buy a hostage, you give the terrorists at least enough money to capture two more people, preferably your own people, because the terrorists know that you will pay. If you ever refuse to pay for a hostage, that hostage (possibly several) will be brutally murdered, and a tape of that murder will be circulated through the international media. Once the terrorists prove they are willing to murder, the price of each hostage will increase several fold, and the paying nation cannot afford to watch more hostages get slaughtered, so the terrorists inevitably get their money.
So, when someone is taken hostage, you probability shouldn't pay for that hostage. After all, it's merely a question of who dies and when; either that hostage soon, or some other hostage (possibly many, and probably some of your own troops as well) in the future, and after you've given money to those terrorists. If you refuse to pay for hostages, terrorists won't take hostages unless they intend to kill them, which they would do anyway even if the terrorists did get money – terrorists are not known for their honesty, of course.
The last US hostage was a GI Joe. Yes, the toy; and his own gun was being pointed at his head because terrorists can't find many GI Joe-size AK-47s. The hostage was obviously a toy because of facial features and because it wore a deep green uniform, probably a darker green than what US troops wore in Vietnam. In case you didn't notice, US troops in Iraq wear desert camouflage, which is sand-colored. I believe that GI Joe's with desert camouflage are being sold, but apparently terrorists couldn't find any in the children's section of Martyr R Us. Quite obvious how unprofitable, risky, and dangerous it is to find American hostages, isn't it?
Italy's foreign minister has demanded the US "identify and punish" those responsible for the death of an Italian intelligence agent in Iraq.
Gianfranco Fini said the US and Italy had different versions of what happened to Nicola Calipari, who died under US fire while escorting a freed hostage.
The US says shots were fired because the vehicle was speeding and did not heed troops' warnings for it to stop.
But Mr Fini said the car was travelling at no more than 40km per hour.
Calipari had also made "all the necessary contacts" with US and Italian officials about the hostage's release and the journey to the airport, he added.
First off the "freed" hostage is Giuliana Sgrena, a reporter for a communist newspaper (Il Manifesto, I believe). Sgrena openly hates US troops. Second, Sgrena wasn't really freed, the Italian government paid a hefty ransom for her (the general belief is several million US dollars).
First off, it should be fairly obvious which side of the story is more accurate. Between an America and American-army hater who works for a communist paper and was bought out of terrorist custody, and American troops who avoid civilian casualties whenever possible (if anyone ever tries to claim that the US either purposely kills civilians or doesn't care, remind them that killing civilians devastates military morale), I'm going to side with my troops. It's certainly possible, maybe even likely, that one of their more important facts is wrong, but the majority of what our troops say should be more accurate than not, and far more accurate than what Sgrena claims.
Second, NEVER buy a hostage, unless they happen to be your family, or if that hostage knows something, which the terrorists don't (like the location of toxins or a nuke) that would make the hostage a lot more valuable. Whenever you buy a hostage, you give the terrorists at least enough money to capture two more people, preferably your own people, because the terrorists know that you will pay. If you ever refuse to pay for a hostage, that hostage (possibly several) will be brutally murdered, and a tape of that murder will be circulated through the international media. Once the terrorists prove they are willing to murder, the price of each hostage will increase several fold, and the paying nation cannot afford to watch more hostages get slaughtered, so the terrorists inevitably get their money.
So, when someone is taken hostage, you probability shouldn't pay for that hostage. After all, it's merely a question of who dies and when; either that hostage soon, or some other hostage (possibly many, and probably some of your own troops as well) in the future, and after you've given money to those terrorists. If you refuse to pay for hostages, terrorists won't take hostages unless they intend to kill them, which they would do anyway even if the terrorists did get money – terrorists are not known for their honesty, of course.
The last US hostage was a GI Joe. Yes, the toy; and his own gun was being pointed at his head because terrorists can't find many GI Joe-size AK-47s. The hostage was obviously a toy because of facial features and because it wore a deep green uniform, probably a darker green than what US troops wore in Vietnam. In case you didn't notice, US troops in Iraq wear desert camouflage, which is sand-colored. I believe that GI Joe's with desert camouflage are being sold, but apparently terrorists couldn't find any in the children's section of Martyr R Us. Quite obvious how unprofitable, risky, and dangerous it is to find American hostages, isn't it?
posted by Chris at
8:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home