NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3611397.stm

Arabic television station al-Jazeera has shown footage of three Japanese civilians it said were taken hostage by a previously unknown Iraqi group.

The group, called the Mujahideen Brigades, threatened to burn the hostages alive unless Tokyo withdrew its troops from Iraq within three days.

Seven South Korean church ministers are also reported to have been seized - as well as two Arab residents of Israel.

Concern was also growing about the whereabouts of a British civilian who disappeared in the southern town of Nasiriya on Tuesday.

...A statement by the Mujahideen Brigades said Japan had betrayed Iraqis by backing the US occupation of Iraq.

"We tell you that three of your children have fallen prisoner in our hands and we give you two options - withdraw your forces from our country and go home or we will burn them alive and feed them to the fighters," it said.

"You have three days from the date of this tape's airing."

*shakes fist* damn you magonical! damn you! (off the simpsons)

The situation with the two Israeli Arabs is especially sad and ironic.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1081315295006

Two Israeli-Arabs, residents of East Jerusalem, have been taken captive by Iraqi gunmen belonging to the Ansar-Al-Din extremist group, the Iranian television network Al-Alam reported Thursday afternoon.

Al-Alam TV identified the men as Ahmed Yassin Tokati and Nabil George Yaakub Razuq, Christians from East Jerusalem.

The two men were shown on video released by the kidnappers. When asked where they were from, the hostages replied "from Israel". Razouq said he was working for an American aid organization and gave his age as 30.

Tokati said he was "working for Israel" and gave his age as 33.

Ansar-Al-Din said they kidnapped the two men from the offices of an American aid organization, Channel 2 reported.

The video showed documents belonging to the two, including an Israeli drivers licence, Maccabi health insurance card, and a 'Mega' supermarket chain discount card.

Now, the claim that there two were spying for the Mossad is obviously absurd- if they did, would they have taken their Israeli IDs and health insurance with them, when they could have easily posed as West Bank Palestinians or Lebanese? No way in hell, unless they are both suicidal. I am quite sure that the Iraqi gunmen understand it too, and use the claim about "agents of the Zionist enemy" as a cover for their true rationale. They have seen, repeatedly, that Israel is usually ready to do just about anything to rescue their citizens, not differentiating between Jews and Arabs among them, and they are now attempting to blackmail Israel into pushing America out of Iraq (which is, of course, incredibly stupid and naive, but some conspiracy theory freaks do believe that the Jewish lobby pulls all the strings in American politics :roll: ).

The sad thing is that these two people are mostly likely doomed now. They will not be released because the US will not pull out of Iraq on terrorists demand. They can only hope to stay alive if Israel remembers the good old days of Entebbe and sends the Sayeret to Iraq to kick some guerilla arse- but the Americans would hardly approve of that. Arabs might get angry, you know :roll:

Yes, a despicable act. The taking of hostages is an abhorrant tactic that goes against Artice 3 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.



Of course, I don't recall you complaining when the U.S. 4th Infantry Division in Samarra "arrested" the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general and left a note that stated: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in."


In fact, when I brought it up at the time a lot of people here told me that kidnapping was a legitimate tactic under the circumstances of a war.

I didn't agree then.

I still don't now.

I feel for the families of the hostages. I hope that they make it home alive.

-Z-

I agree those folk are probably doomed.

As for what the 4th Infantry Division did; they didn't threaten to kill them. They took them into custody in order to get someone to surrender. Had they threatened to have his family killed then I could see the similarity.

I agree those folk are probably doomed.

As for what the 4th Infantry Division did; they didn't threaten to kill them. They took them into custody in order to get someone to surrender. Had they threatened to have his family killed then I could see the similarity.

The difference between kidnapping civilians for ransom one and kidnapping civilians for ransom two is?

I agree those folk are probably doomed.

As for what the 4th Infantry Division did; they didn't threaten to kill them. They took them into custody in order to get someone to surrender. Had they threatened to have his family killed then I could see the similarity.

It was still by all accounts a kidnapping and a breach of the Geneva Conventions. Just because your tactic wasn't quite as harsh, doesn't negate the fact it was still illegal and simply can't be justified, nor can the acts of this group here. I too hope the hostages make it out alive.

I agree those folk are probably doomed.

As for what the 4th Infantry Division did; they didn't threaten to kill them. They took them into custody in order to get someone to surrender. Had they threatened to have his family killed then I could see the similarity.

It was still by all accounts a kidnapping and a breach of the Geneva Conventions. Just because your tactic wasn't quite as harsh, doesn't negate the fact it was still illegal and simply can't be justified, nor can the acts of this group here. I too hope the hostages make it out alive.

I'd have to read up on the specifics..but if they could be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy could they then not be "taken into custody" to prevent any assistance to the one they wanted?...after all, when one is fleeing the enemy..the first people he'd want with him is his family...makes sense to get there first don't you agree?

Yes, a despicable act. The taking of hostages is an abhorrant tactic that goes against Artice 3 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.



Of course, I don't recall you complaining when the U.S. 4th Infantry Division in Samarra "arrested" the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general and left a note that stated: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in."
I didn't receive the memo. My intelligence service must have messed up again :wink:

Seriously, though, I would never condone taking hostages, including if Israelis did that. Extreme situations and the state of war can, in my opinion, justify a lot of what is not permissible during peace time- but hostage taking is way overboard- especially if we aren't talking about a "ticking bomb" case, which the example you brought up was not.

I agree those folk are probably doomed.

As for what the 4th Infantry Division did; they didn't threaten to kill them. They took them into custody in order to get someone to surrender. Had they threatened to have his family killed then I could see the similarity.

It was still by all accounts a kidnapping and a breach of the Geneva Conventions. Just because your tactic wasn't quite as harsh, doesn't negate the fact it was still illegal and simply can't be justified, nor can the acts of this group here. I too hope the hostages make it out alive.

I'd have to read up on the specifics..but if they could be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy could they then not be "taken into custody" to prevent any assistance to the one they wanted?...after all, when one is fleeing the enemy..the first people he'd want with him is his family...makes sense to get there first don't you agree?

I'm going to have to disagree morally as well as legally.. Lets use an analogy here... Lets say you commit a murder and your wife is not part of it. Do you both get arrested? No of course not. A wife under American law can't even be forced to testify against her husband in a court of law.

The Geneva Conventions are pretty clear about taking civilians hostage.. it's a breach. Whether you threaten to kill them or not. You might agree with the tactic, however that again doesn't negate the fact that it's an illegal tactic. The problem you don't want to find yourself in is becoming as bad as the enemy.. because then you lose whatever high ground you may think you have. Kidnapping is not a legal or moral tactic for any reason. How can his children be held accountable for his actions? They can't. Thus their rights are being violated as civilians in the rules of engagement..

Salishe, I thought you were ex-military? You should know this stuff.. :wink:

hostage taking is an ancient tradition in warfare as is mutilating the bodies of fallen enemies. neither is acceptable by modern standards of civilized warfare, but multilating and abusing bodies is in my opinion signifigantly below hostage taking. executing or torturing hostages is of course another matter and extremely low on the behavior scale.

hostage taking is an ancient tradition in warfare as is mutilating the bodies of fallen enemies. neither is acceptable by modern standards of civilized warfare, but multilating and abusing bodies is in my opinion signifigantly below hostage taking. executing or torturing hostages is of course another matter and extremely low on the behavior scale.

Well, once again this is a double standard. I don't see what these guys did as any better then what the crowd did to those 4 dead bodies last week.. both acts are again.. a breach of the Geneva Conventions. Both acts are deplorable. We have all seen the footage (or at least some) of the barbaric acts that the Iraqi's did to the 4 American mercenary personal. This was played on "CNN Presents" - "Fit to Kill" on the week-end. This is also a breach of the Geneva Conventions.. both acts are of course despicable.

Breach of the Geneva Conventions (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

You wonder what we're even doing in Iraq... North Korea admits to WMDs and we arent there? Why not? Is it not profitable? Remember all of this those of you out there old enough to vote...

This footage was absolutely horrid.

Take me back.

The South Korean missionaries have already been released.

Now is the time to test Japan's neo-imperialist ideology.

hostage taking is an ancient tradition in warfare as is mutilating the bodies of fallen enemies. neither is acceptable by modern standards of civilized warfare, but multilating and abusing bodies is in my opinion signifigantly below hostage taking. executing or torturing hostages is of course another matter and extremely low on the behavior scale.

Well, once again this is a double standard. I don't see what these guys did as any better then what the crowd did to those 4 dead bodies last week.. both acts are again.. a breach of the Geneva Conventions. Both acts are deplorable. We have all seen the footage (or at least some) of the barbaric acts that the Iraqi's did to the 4 American mercenary personal. This was played on "CNN Presents" - "Fit to Kill" on the week-end. This is also a breach of the Geneva Conventions.. both acts are of course despicable.



Breach of the Geneva Conventions (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)not all acts that break the geneva convention are equally abhorant. i personally believe hostage taking is less disgusting than mutilating bodies. i do however admit it is a personal judgement on my part. as for killing a wounded combatant, i don't know what the rules of war say, but i would regard it as acceptable if the person had not surrender and was still armed and able to pose a threat. that is a call the soldier in the feild has to make.

the footage aired here recently in nz and its undoubtedly the most disturbing footage ive seen aired here since 9/11.

the footage aired here recently in nz and its undoubtedly the most disturbing footage ive seen since 9/11.

Terrorists are cowards what can I say.

So Yesterday.

You would think they ran out of Americans to light up.

i havent seen the footage yet, anyone got a link? please?

So Yesterday.

It's this train of apathetic thought that makes today's generation so useless. Man I am ashamed to be a part of it because of the lack of caring for anything important. It's sickening! If an enemy was at the shores what would this generation do, my generation? Sit back and watch TV and spike their hair. It just annoys me to no end!

Obviously. People Going of on a rant when someone cracks a joke is a sign the sign of an overfocues mind.

These kidnappings bother me a lot. :(

Can anyone tell me when warfare was considered civilized.

When you cannot fight you resort to terrorism. Instead of taking hostages, field an army worth recognizing.

Warriors do not take hostages only the cowardly weak do.

And it takes more to live for your cause than to die for it.

The japanese hostages were released

Really? Good news if it is true.

Checked a few US news sites and the BBC and found no mention.....

meh, as far as I'm concerned taking civilians hostage is better than killing them outright. You can yell collateral damage all you want, but it's not bringing anyone back.

These kidnappings bother me a lot. :(

They bother me because theres no way to trump them.
You know what'd be really funny. If the Japs said they were gonna withdraw their troops, did so, got the hostages Then go straight back in again HaHaHa

Terrorists are cowards what can I say.


Even the ones who blow themselves up? Would you kill yourself for an ideal?

Yep just more Rhetoric. They only Say that Since its hard to defeat the tactics they use

When you cannot fight you resort to terrorism. Instead of taking hostages, field an army worth recognizing.


Why? This statement implies that the ability to raise military might somehow increases one's moral eligibility to get what one wants.

That's like saying that if someone tries to mug me, I'm obliged to either fight fairly or let him have what he wants- if I knee him in the groin then I'm in the wrong because I've violated the 'rules'?

By your argument, if al-qaeda had the resources available to attack and defeat America with conventional weapons, that would make their cause just. I don't believe that, and I imagine you don't either. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.