General Discussion

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)

84. How is that more relevant than the agenda it represents?

Reply to nashville_brook (Reply #81)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 02:36 PM

Sep 2014

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