General Discussion

KoKo

(84,711 posts)

79. We did trade prisoners for service member....

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 03:27 PM

Sep 2014

so why not do it for Journalists? Make the trade for money or prisoner and go after the group holding hostages afterwards. Instead with Foley they went in with special ops in probably Rambo style and found he wasn't there. Where did the information of his location come from and why he was no longer there when they arrived. You don't send in Special Ops unless your sure you have good chance of success based on intelligence. So...did they get tricked by an informant?

Better that they paid money or did a hostage swap. If it was done for a servicemember then why not for a journalist? Foley was a Freelancer so he didn't have major MSM backing to pressure Govt. And, yet we depend on Freelancers since so many of our major news outlets have cut their Foreign Departments and the Reporters they have left are too high profile and valuable to go into areas where they are in immediate danger.

Unfortunately the cynic in me leads me to believe that the timing of beheading of the two Journalists was advantageous to both ISIL and the War Hawks who were still pissed that Obama backed off Syria a year ago.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did US policy on kidnappings create the pretense for war? [View all] nashville_brook Sep 2014 OP

I also think that waging war based on the fate of two journalists CJCRANE Sep 2014 #1

We're not, though. When ISIS overran Mosul and threatened Baghdad, we moved an TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #4

yes, it's so easy to get swept up in the desire for vengeance -- it's almost too easy nashville_brook Sep 2014 #6

The US did try to rescue him--they sent a special ops team geek tragedy Sep 2014 #11

One of the special forces took a bullet, in fact, trying to save Foley and Sotloff. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #18

and when that didn't work, they could have deescalated by letting the family negotiate nashville_brook Sep 2014 #42

Do you understand what ISIL does with that money? geek tragedy Sep 2014 #46

our closest ME "partners" have funded ISIS: Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait nashville_brook Sep 2014 #63

The funds have dried up, ergo the kidnapping. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #64

they got a war which provides them with everything they want. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #90

Why because of the ineptness of the Iraq leaders... Historic NY Sep 2014 #104

Remember that big speech in June about military restraint? woo me with science Sep 2014 #44

Honestly, I think it depends on what group of kidnappers you're dealing with. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #2

one could say that's b/c there's not a policy advantage in those. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #7

Well sure, I consider myself a cynic and a realist, and it's not hard to see that TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #16

precisely, and their beheadings worked to reinforce the military response. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #22

But I don't think anyone intended that. I think the administration and the Pentagon TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #26

senior security officials threatened the Foley family to not rescue him by ransom... nashville_brook Sep 2014 #31

I will guarantee that the Foley family doesn't fully know the whole picture TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #34

they certainly know who threatened them if they tried to rescue their son nashville_brook Sep 2014 #93

Sorry, but I don't believe they were "threatened" except in their own perception. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #95

And so it begins, blaming Obama for their deaths. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #3

So maybe we should have traded a few more Gitmo detainees in exchange Sopkoviak Sep 2014 #8

Thanks for the RNC's Bergdahl talking points, nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #9

No problem geek Sopkoviak Sep 2014 #13

Bergdahl is a US soldier. Prisoner exchange was doable. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #15

And how does that not encourage capturing more US Soldiers Sopkoviak Sep 2014 #20

They didn't, to my knowledge, get a ransom. They waited FIVE YEARS to get TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #25

To me it's a distinction without a difference Sopkoviak Sep 2014 #29

Not to the US government, it's not. Military get treated differently than civilians, and that TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #37

victim blaming much? Sotloff and Foley "put themselves in their situations voluntarily" nashville_brook Sep 2014 #60

That's an undisputed fact. There were strict travel warnings in place. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #61

Um, that's what the Taliban are trying to do, when they're not trying to kill them. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #38

actually that's treated and refuted in the Steve Coll article nashville_brook Sep 2014 #19

Paying ransoms encourages further hostage tasking geek tragedy Sep 2014 #23

With a group like ISIS or AQ, it's pretty fucking hard to see how they're TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #30

Exactly. We have "principles" against ransom, but not war. DirkGently Sep 2014 #5

If you start ransoming hostages, you make every American traveling abroad geek tragedy Sep 2014 #10

They are already targets and we already pay. DirkGently Sep 2014 #17

Again, Bergdahl is a soldier and was a POW. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #21

So Gitmo prisoners are now POWs too? DirkGently Sep 2014 #36

I think the Taliban is, for practical purposes, considered differently than AQ. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #55

Exactly. "For practical purposes." DirkGently Sep 2014 #62

There are differences between the situations that you must recognize. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #71

There are plenty of rational distinctions, you just ignore them. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #28

the US and Britain are the only countries that don't negotiate. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #24

Only 2/53 ISIL hostages were US. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #33

right, and if you want to provoke war, you target US citizens. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #39

US was doing airstrikes on ISIL before the murders. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #41

Unless you're a Wall Street Bank demanding ransom n/t leftstreet Sep 2014 #12

indeed! nashville_brook Sep 2014 #32

Different situations--BTW, there's some dispute on whether the Taliban TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #14

The State Dept. lists the Taliban as a terrorist org. DirkGently Sep 2014 #27

"Allowing people to be beheaded" geek tragedy Sep 2014 #35

They knew where he was for months, according DirkGently Sep 2014 #40

So you think Obama wanted them dead do he could use them as a geek tragedy Sep 2014 #43

this is about bad military POLICY putting our political actors in bad positions nashville_brook Sep 2014 #47

Helping ISIL buy more weapons does geek tragedy Sep 2014 #58

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait are giving ISIS $$ and weapons -- a focus on the big stuff will nashville_brook Sep 2014 #65

So the US should join them and also incentivize geek tragedy Sep 2014 #67

"Start kidnapping Americans?" On which planet DirkGently Sep 2014 #74

Why do you think only 2 Americans geek tragedy Sep 2014 #76

Why do you think only "2 Americans" have ever been kidnapped? DirkGently Sep 2014 #88

THIS. Why haven't we DEMANDED SA DirkGently Sep 2014 #77

Um, I think we did, a while back. There has been LOTS of wrestling and backroom TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #80

I don't know that they currently are. They WERE, but now that they've built a monster TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #78

The Obama obsession is yours. DirkGently Sep 2014 #48

spot on. i actually copped to this blind partisanship in the lede. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #50

You need to take the family's comments with some skepticism. Not because TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #75

We did trade prisoners for service member.... KoKo Sep 2014 #79

Because servicemembers in combat zones are a different category than civilians. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #83

0-7. The alerter should relax a bit, I think. eggplant Sep 2014 #45

thanks for posting this. shows the level of rhetoric we're dealing with. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #49

Oh jeebus. Be nice if we could discuss things without DirkGently Sep 2014 #51

it's naive to think that the military, the executive branch and every State Dept nashville_brook Sep 2014 #56

Good points. We don't even know who DirkGently Sep 2014 #68

right and it's the ambiguity in the policy vis a vis the international scene that gives cover nashville_brook Sep 2014 #91

also, "meta-discussion"? that's way off. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #52

Zowie. "Meta" about what? The world? DirkGently Sep 2014 #59

"Revenge" is not a valid reason to go to war, IMHO. Maedhros Sep 2014 #53

yes -- i'm really ashamed of feeling the way i did. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #57

It's a hard-wired human response though, and thus DirkGently Sep 2014 #70

That's not why we're going to war. The war started in June. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #72

Senator Obama in 2007: woo me with science Sep 2014 #73

if this were a republican administration we'd be at DEFCON FUCK nashville_brook Sep 2014 #87

very good points. liberal_at_heart Sep 2014 #54

Excactly -- beheading as the new pretext for war. Octafish Sep 2014 #66

the beheadings were like a surgical strike on opinion makers nashville_brook Sep 2014 #89

No one in a Democracy wants a war. Especially seeing who dies and who pays and who benefits. Octafish Sep 2014 #92

so true. and this is so irrational. not that any of the others weren't either. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #96

"No one in a Democracy wants a war." < Except for everyone who makes money from it. n/t jtuck004 Sep 2014 #97

What kind of brain-dead morality can only conceive of one bad guy at a time? True Blue Door Sep 2014 #69

actually it's an insurgency, but who's keeping score. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #81

How is that more relevant than the agenda it represents? True Blue Door Sep 2014 #84

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Sep 2014 #82

Anything as a pretext. What have you got today? eventually a plane witll crash, then we can invade grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #85

as i was writing this i wondered if i was making too much of the beheading pretext nashville_brook Sep 2014 #86

It's disturbing to me that the people who kidnapped Sotloff are the ones we'll be funding.... grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #94

yes indeed. nashville_brook Sep 2014 #98

We do not know that that's true. This is the family's "sources", nothing of this has been confirmed TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #99

Do EET! n/t DirkGently Sep 2014 #102

Strange tidbit in that link -- Syrian opposition did the kidnapping? DirkGently Sep 2014 #101

Exactly. grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #103

The global .01% who own the U.S. WANT war. valerief Sep 2014 #100