Let me start by saying, YES!!! They killed one of the bastards and for that I thank God...


RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - An al-Qaida cell beheaded American engineer Paul M. Johnson Jr., and in a swift retaliation Saudi security forces tracked down and killed the leader of the terrorist group in a shoot-out Friday.

Here is the rest of the Story

Dead Terrorist, one down many to go... (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBT0COYMVD.html)

So you feel it’s justified, to act just as inhuman as the terrorists?

Originally posted by Overdose
So you feel it’s justified, to act just as inhuman as the terrorists?
Toward the people who cut the head off of an innocent man? Damn right, only mad because he was only shot, not beheaded, which the Saudi would have done.....
Ask The family of Paul Johnson.........

Sorry too that the crook was shot.
I would have personally liked to cut his head off starting at the feet. I got a nice sharp machette. :D

I think a buckwheat would have been more appropriate. For those that do not know what a buckwheat is I highly reccomend you wath the movie "Things to do in Denver When You are Dead"!

Originally posted by Overdose
So you feel it’s justified, to act just as inhuman as the terrorists?

can someone slap this kid?

Originally posted by The Republican
I think a buckwheat would have been more appropriate. For those that do not know what a buckwheat is I highly reccomend you wath the movie "Things to do in Denver When You are Dead"!
You mean like this?

Typical buckwheat hit is to shoot a guy up the a**. Yeah, uh, ba-bing. A slug up the a**, you don't die so much as contort for a good 15 minutes, then you die. I imagine it's like crappin' white-hot razor blades."

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
You mean like this?

Yup! Sounds about right.:D

Originally posted by Travh20
can someone slap this kid?
Trav he is a kid who doesnt see the evil out there. SO I have tried to cut him slack but he is gonna come around. I know, he will see that there are many shades of gray and not all or any is black and white.

OD sometimes you have to do what you wouldnt otherwise do, if you hesitate you will die. This is how I see combat against an enemy who doesnt play by the rules we do, so maybe we need to suspend the rules and destroy all members of the terror groups, one or one thousand at a time. I am not person who owns a gun anymore but I would in a second kill brutally those who belong to any group associated with AL Qaeda.
I would do it in the name of Jehova.

have to be a long barreled weapon for me to do that to one of these cowards, but maybe we could do it another way, can you say Laaw rocket in the same place?

I must say I have not been here in a bit but right on guys. He got the easy way out, while we know mr johnson was beheaded we did not see it or how long and drawn out it could have been. His killer in turn gets a bullet and I hope he suffered greatly on his way out of this world. By Devils Wings May He Reach His Eternal Home.

welcome back Honesty, notice I said honesty not honey LOL
I coudnt agree more, this life form deserved nothing from us and he got more than he should have.

nothing to do with post but how can i put my pic on here?? lol im a tech moron

I just hope they diped the bullet in pigs blood so that he could not visit alla

He was so damned by his own people prior to his death. The main Iman in Mecca said he was not going to see Allah.

Good, he does not need to see Allah cause he is so damn evil

The be happy anyone dies is just sickening. To be happy terrorists die, is sinking down to their level. It’s hypocritical to kill a terrorist for killing. It’s committing the same crime, that we call “evil and inhuman”.

I firmly believe that killing is wrong, and if we are truly “high and mighty” and “above the terrorists” we should no sink to their level of killing.

And that is a good position except when dealing with an enemy who sees that as weak and easy to attack. When dealing with a group who uses a human life to commit terror then you must speak their language.
I am not an advocate of killing, I dont hunt, I dont own a gun, I dont go out of my way to even fight but when it comes to a life form that can take a knife and cut the head off of a human and take pictures then it has given up its rights to be treated as a human and can be destroyed like a bad dog.

During WWII we treated our POW’s like kings, and our POW’s were living through hell. We didn’t “speak their language” And you know what happened out of that war, we came out looking like the hero’s of the world.

It’s the same now. If we support and act like the terrorists, there is not difference between us. It’s making us become apart of the very thing we hate.

Speaking their language only motives them to do the same back to us, again and again. It makes us look exactly like the terrorists. I refuse to support the killing of them, because they killed us. That’s childish and unethical.

Originally posted by Overdose
During WWII we treated our POW’s like kings, and our POW’s were living through hell. We didn’t “speak their language” And you know what happened out of that war, we came out looking like the hero’s of the world.

It’s the same now. If we support and act like the terrorists, there is not difference between us. It’s making us become apart of the very thing we hate.

Speaking their language only motives them to do the same back to us, again and again. It makes us look exactly like the terrorists. I refuse to support the killing of them, because they killed us. That’s childish and unethical.

Not childish or unethical. When did war become ethical? Or when did we decide that terrorist who saw a mans head off deserve the same treatment as a soldier? Soldiers at least generally dont cut innocent peoples heads off.
You can feel about it the way you want and I understand that, but there will come a time, maybe after many friends of yours are slaughtered at the hands of terrorists and your views might change.
Calling it childish is a little childish or condescending though.

How do you think Johnsons children, wife, brother or anyone else who had to sit here and wait for him to be brutally murdered felt? DO you think they want humaine treatment for the animals who cut his head off and then dumoed his body in the street? They might say it in public or they might call for the absolute destruction of these animals.

I'm probably asking for it here, but I have to speak my mind as everyone else has. :matrix:

OD, look at it this way....like the saying goes..."Make a fool of me once, shame on you, make a fool of me twice, shame on me." It runs along those lines. If we allow them to commit inhuman acts upon people, they will keep on doing it over and over again. And I agree with some of the people here that view you as simply too young to understand how the world must work in order to keep from blowing ourselves up. Simply ignoring the wrong doings doesn't make it better because they don't learn any kind of lesson from that. I also try to think of it in a parenting sort of way. Spanking (not beating)was supposed to be a way of conditioning a child to never do the bad behavior again. It has since been considered inhuman and children are becoming more and more out of control. B_V and I don't spank, but only because of the taboo that runs with it nowadays. Hence the reason we have a teenage daughter that thinks she is the boss and tries to tell US what to do. Had she been aware through the years that a spanking was in order whenever she cussed at us or perhaps ran out the door when she was told to stay in, maybe she wouldn't be so quick to act badly now. Anyway, this is the way I try to think of this whole terrorist thing. If they simply get a slap on the hand for acting this way, they will continue to do so at the expense of many more lives.

OD, put yourself in that mans position than put yourself as one of his family members. What would you be thinking about the situation than. When that group of people stoop as low as they did, it does not matter anymore. You have to do what is neccessary to get the job done. Even if it means killing. You cannot fight fairly against a organisation that does not care for human life. You would have to change the way you fight and adapt to their way of thinking.

Only one cure for a mad dog.

When it comes to terrorism it is kill or be killed.

The easy way out makes it harder in the long run.

You spend your time telling us that we're just children. Yet you act like feuding kids on the playground. "He did it!" "But he started it!"

Two children are fighting. "Yout two, stop acting so immature." "But we're just doing what daddy did!"

Killing is either OK for everyone or not OK for everyone.

It's one thing to kill someone in order to save your own life, or the lives of others, but quite another to do it out of revenge. No doubt the people who killed Berg and Johnson felt they were justified in doing so, but that doesn't make it right. Just because we feel we're justified in killing someone doesn't make it right either. Perhaps the killers of Johnson felt they were getting revenge. They take revenge, we take revenge for that...where does it end?

Now, apparently the guys who killed Johnson were killed in a gun battle wth police, and that's fine with me, but to suggest that we should just kill people because we are seeking revenge would be to act as barbaric as the people we say we hate.

As to the contention that OD feels the way that he does because he is young and inexperienced, I agree with him and I'm not young and inexperienced. I have first-hand knowledge of what it's like to kill someone, so it's not an abstract concept to me. It's a horrible and final thing to do to anyone, and not something that should be done out of revenge, fear, or hatred.

Big Worm, you suggest that we might feel differently if we were a member of Johnson's familly, and no doubt we would, but I don't expect people who are emotionally distraught, like many on this thread are, to make a rational decision on the subject. That's why in our criminal justice system we have juries, and they are not shown evidence that is considered inflammatory.

We should hunt down these people, and where possible, arrest them. If they resist with deadly force, their lives are forfeit, but we really should try and capture some of these people if we want to gather intelligence on these terrorist cells.

Dan Russell I'm with you ,only one cure for a mad dog and we all know what it is !!!

Originally posted by Vilepagan


It's one thing to kill someone in order to save your own life, or the lives of others, but quite another to do it out of revenge.
Well I would have to say that it was ok to kill those that have killed innocent people in the name of terror.
To kill to protect others is what we are doing by killing a group of people who have declared war on ALL Americans. That includes OD, You and me in fact ever American on this board. None of us have been safe from Al Qaeda since 1993 and we are not now, unless we kill all of them.

You think that by killing all of them, they'll just go away? If we locked every single active member in a room, and then nuked it, that they would go away? This is not an organized army, this is a terrorist group. Not only is it impossible to kill every single one of them, it wouldn't matter anyways. They aren't ruled by a leader, they are ruled by ideas. And as Sean O'Casy put it:
"You cannot put a rope around the neck of an idea; you cannot put an idea up against the barrack-square wall and riddle it with bullets; you cannot confine it in the strongest prison cell your slaves could ever build."

We have to find different tactics to fight this "war". Conventional warfare would never work.

Blib, there are few options, we can fight with convential tactics, bullets and such.
We can take an attitude equal to theirs and try to bluff them down. We could cover our eyes and hope they leave us alone. We could combine one and two and back them down and then as more are recruited destroy them as they would us.
When dealing with people who are willing to die for a belief you have very few options.
Either target them or be a target.
Do you have any other suggestions? I would like to hear them.

:)

You are right Blib in saying different tactics are necessary to eliminate the total problem. Education is the answer.
The statistics I have seen show that even in Saudi that 95% of the people are uneducated.
In order for a totalarian ruling to work the people must remain uneducated. An uneducated person exposed only to the rederic of a particular belief is akin to a mental slave.

But, right now force must be met with force to eliminate those that indoctrinate hate and death upon any that tolerate domocracy. Once these forces are weakened other means can be used.
It will be a slow process, requiring patience and sacrifice, so that the world can eventually be a safer place for democracy.

My suggestion would be exactly what Dan said, in the first part of his post. This has been used before, during other wars to small extent, and during the Cold war. This new war and the Cold war are both ideological wars, and have to be met in that arena. Unfortunately the enemy now is slightly more violent. However you cannot fight an idea with weapons that fire bullets.

However, to portray yourself as better then them, that your idea is better then their's you cannot also lower yourself to their level. That creates distrust, we're going to have a hard enough time removing the distrust they've had for years, we can't make more. You can liberate a country, but what would it matter if the people you liberated don't know why? Or even worse, don't care. What Dan said, by weakening them. The leaders must be weakened so we can get through their defenses. That's a basic of war for milenia, however, the field we are fighting on is not a physical one, it's still ideological. If you think that by conquering them will weaken them, that's wrong. It will only create more distrust, and it will essentially strengthen their idea, and weaken ours. That we would drop to the same level as them. As Ghandi said, "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
As dan also said, it will be a slow process requiring patience and sacrifice. The sacrifice will be ours, that we will stand up to them and fight back. But as kind people, not murderers. As ones who are open, not intolerant as they are. We've been fighting another war on an idea for almost a hundred years. The war on drugs, we met it with violence and punishment, and guess who's still winning? People must be disciplined, not punished. Punishment breeds hatred and distrust. Discipline will breed friendship. The undermining must be of the political and ideological forefront, not physical. This is a new age, and must be met with new tactics. People will join us if they see us as kind, prejudice only goes so far. For man's nature is one of understanding and kindness, it is only society that corrupts us, the idea of Rousseau.

Blib
Education is a good thing and done at the right time might help in our fight, but to expect Al Qaeda to lay down their fight and listen is insane. Not that you are insane but the expectation is, they will percieve our dialogue as nothing more than weakness. And that will of course allow them to build support for their cause by preaching victory over the infidels.
Radical muslims like these groups only have one cause and that is to destroy all of those who do not believe in Allah.
I do not like war or killing but at times we have to destroy those who will destroy us, if we can educate the rest before they begin to sway to the radical views that is good, but I unfortunately dont see it happening any time soon.
In Beirut we had to deal with Shiites, Sunni, Shia, and Syria all fighting each other and us as well.
They would stop fighting each other to crush us because we dont believe in Allah.
ALl we can do is to weaken these groups enough that we can expect safety at home. If we can not accomplish that then we can expect to be attacked and maybe live in the fear that Israel does.

I guess the news is bad for a South Korean National, he is being held and the kidnappers say they will behead him. Should we still try to talk to them? or maybe it is time for more military action.

To properly address this issue, it is necessary to wonder : what would be a victory of democracy against terrorism, and what would be a vistory of terrorism against democarcy ?

A victory againt terrorism would be the end of bombings or terrorist acts against democracies. On the long term. This is unlikely. Even if Ben Laden is caught, there will always be violent groups resorting to violence.

A victory against democracy would be
1- turning our democracies into oppressive regimes. This is something that could happen, if the govts use the issue of terrorism to scare people and increase their control on prvate life.
2- getting a worldwide support for their cause and their actions. This is happening right now : in muslim countries all over the world, an important part of public opinion is now against the USA.
A relatively small group of fanatics has managed to turn their personal fight against the USA on a full-scale civilization confrontation. This is the real issue. This must be stopped. By starting the war against Iraq with bad reasons, by assimilating the fight against terrorism to a new crusade, the Bush govt has been falling in the trap set by Ben Laden. They have turned the worldwide sympathy post 9-11 into hatred for many muslims, and distrust for many other people.

Astra we have no options when 3k of our people are killed in one day and when we are facing more attacks around the world.
If you see what you call the trap then others must see it also and ignore it. In other words why allow them to win? If we stopped fighting they would take a different approach and it might come home to you or me and that is unacceptible.
To say Bin Ladin is using this to pull opinion his way and then to be in opposition of the war on terror is aiding the enemy. Al Qaeda will use the aid as a way to attack not only us but the entire non-muslim world. We are not the only targets of these beasts and someday France and more of Europs will feel the sting we felt on 9/11 and when that day comes we will be there to support you.

The new hostage is going to die unless SK pulls it troops out of Iraq and they are in there for reconstruction. Hmmm does that tell you that they will use any reason to kill non muslims or that they do not care about the Iraqi people at all? They have killed over 300 Iraqis in the last two months with car bombs all in the name of Allah who is also the God of the dead Iraqis.

*Screams profanities and slams his head into the desk repeatedly* STUPID COMPUTER! It crashed again, and I had something long written up.

Education is a good thing and done at the right time might help in our fight
The time would be.. *Looks at watch*, 30 years ago.

but to expect Al Qaeda to lay down their fight and listen is insane
Of course. But you can't kill curiosity. Information has to freely availiable. It would be virtually impossible for one who condones what they do to be able to stand up and logically defend it against practically anyone. What they do is not in their religion, it has no backing other than what the leaders say.

Not that you are insane but the expectation is, they will percieve our dialogue as nothing more than weakness.
Yes, I know, decency and mercy has always been considered a weakness. But who's ideas survived longer? Emperor Nero, or the underground Christians? It would be better to be considered merciful, decent, kind and weak, then cruel, ruthless and arrogant. We can either appear weak to some and have a chance at winning, or continue to kill each other unto eternity.

Astra we have no options when 3k of our people are killed in one day and when we are facing more attacks around the world.
That's just an excuse. My mother once told me(Wow, something logical coming from her, she must have gotten it somewhere else), that if you are angry at or fear somebody, they have the power and control over you. To think we only have one course to follow, only one option is placing the power in their hands, and removing it from ours.

Actually Rome lasted longer but not Nero.
And of course Islam is older. but neither of these is the point.
If you are suggesting that AL Qaeda would slowly change if we just attempted to educate them I would have to say you are wrong or maybe idealistic. And thats not a bad thing but we would have to control them long enough to educate others so they wouldnt learn to hate and of course we would still be seen as crusaders bent on wiping them out.
No single country has ever been able to change that thought. The radicals have been fighting the crusades since the crusaders entered the middle east, and of ccourse as long as their are CHristians or Jews they will never stop.
These radicals are not logical or even willing to do any less than die for their cause.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran

If you are suggesting that AL Qaeda would slowly change if we just attempted to educate them I would have to say you are wrong or maybe idealistic. And thats not a bad thing but we would have to control them long enough to educate others so they wouldnt learn to hate and of course we would still be seen as crusaders bent on wiping them out.

One way to educate people without controlling them is by example.

No single country has ever been able to change that thought. The radicals have been fighting the crusades since the crusaders entered the middle east, and of ccourse as long as their are CHristians or Jews they will never stop.
These radicals are not logical or even willing to do any less than die for their cause.

I think your views of the radicals is somewhat simplistic if you are suggesting that all they want to do is die. These people are not just looking for a ticket to paradise, they have reasons for their violence. Some of them are bent on destroying us, or Israel, for no other reason than religious hatred, but I doubt all of them are so full of religious zeal that they simply want to martyr themselves.

Vile look at the thread OMG they are going to kill another, I have posted part of their training manual and I would say your views are the simplistic ones. I am saying that we can sit back an allow them to destroy us our we can meet them on their turf and destroy them so they may not kill any more of us at home.
If we remove the bulk of the radicals then maybe when will have a chance for your plan to work.
On Friday the Iman of Mecca demanded that the terrorist release or keep safe Johnson, saying it was against their religion to harm those in Islamic custody, did taht stop them? No, so why would us talking to them stop it?

I never suggested that we talk to them.

What I said was, killing them will not solve the problem in the long run, it will simply breed more terrorists.

We have to stop making martyrs out of these people. We need to start treating them like the criminals that they are. whenever possible, these people need to be arrested and brought to trial for their crimes, so that the world will see them for what they are, and will see that the US is a country of laws and justice, not a heavy-handed bully that imposes it's will with guns and bombs.

Well that would work except for one fact, we would then have them in our prison system recruiting more terrorists. They are already recruiting from within.
Also it is hard to capture people who dont surrender but yet insist on shooting it out and either dying or killing.

Lets offer em all political asylum in the US in exchange for thier surrender......might as well let em in lagal if we are not going to fight to stop em. **rolls eyes and builds underground bunker**

I guess I could open a shelter business, only 10k for a good bomb shelter. Should be a bunch of them left over from the 50's and 60's :D

Actually Rome lasted longer but not Nero.
But not all Emperors acted like Nero. And underground Christianity still exists, it's just not in power.

we would still be seen as crusaders bent on wiping them out.
No, we wouldn't try to convert them, just show them their religion. Which doesn't have basically any of what they preach. Just like Catholism, they preached what was not in the bible.

No single country has ever been able to change that thought. The radicals have been fighting the crusades since the crusaders entered the middle east, and of ccourse as long as their are CHristians or Jews they will never stop.
*Slaps you* They weren't radicals back then. They had had control of that area for more time than the Catholic church had been in existance. The Christians invaded. The Christians were the radicals, the violent ones. The Muhammed of the Crusades spared everyone in Jerusalem, Christian, Jewish and Muslim alike. He attempted to build peaceful ties with those who lived there. When the Christians arrived from Europe, everybody was slaughtered. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike.

our prison system recruiting more terrorists.
Whoo, and that's were more education comes in. They can't recruit if the people don't think they're in the right. If they were held under Muslim courts to be blasphemers of their religion and murderers(and actually prove it), it would show the entire world that they were in the wrong. If we underminded the rules of tyrant radicals and assisted revolution groups the people could handle it themselves. By assisting true believers of Islam overthrow the tyrants we could insure a peaceful democracy. But by flat out invading and killing countless innocents and radicals alike we just create mistrust and hatred.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Well that would work except for one fact, we would then have them in our prison system recruiting more terrorists. They are already recruiting from within.

You're right Beirut, there is no way we, or any other country could safely imprison them, since you read somewhere that terrorists are recruiting from within our prisons.

:rolleyes:

Also it is hard to capture people who dont surrender but yet insist on shooting it out and either dying or killing.

Nobody said it would be easy. As I posted, I believe we should arrest them if possible.

Beirut, simply put, I believe your solution of simply killing as many of them as we can, has been shown by history to be an unacceptable solution.

I agree with you once more, Vilepagan.
2 more things :
- your previous avatar looked much better.
- to debate this issue on a religious basis is a mistake. Al Qaeda is mostly a political group which should be fought on a political basis, not on a religious basis. Of course from Bush's fundamentalist christian point of view, this is not obvious - hence the "crusade" logic. Speaking of a crusade and opposing western/christianity to eastern/islam only gives them a religious legitimacy as the true defendants of muslims.

Ben Laden objectives are politic, not religious : he only uses religion to reach his goals. The terrorists, unlike what is commonly said, are not religious undeducated fanatics. Many of the 9-11 terrorists had a high education level ; and their objectives are politics, not religious (otherwise they would have crashed the planes on the Vatican, not the Pentagon and WTC).

When did political groups fly planes into buildings? So maybe we can send an envoy to Al Qaeda but it should be someone we dont care about. Talking to these people means nothing. We have tried in the past, and we got nowhere. We talked to the hostage takers in Iran for over 400+ days and it took Reagan saying his first act as President would be to destroy Tehran to get the terrorists and you know what? They were falling all over themselves trying to release the hostages before he could. I know, I was there on Gonzo Station for 400 days and we headed toward Iran that day, planes on Deck of the Kitty Hawk bombs armed. So we were ready to attack when the hostages were released.
So where did talking get us then? Nowhere, talking or showing signs of weakness to the terrorists have led to where we are now.

I seem to remember a small scandal where Reagan's henchmen traded missiles to Iran to get the hostages back...:confused:

But not Iranian hostages, the hostages in Nicaragua....
And here is the story...


During congressional hearings the FBI testified that despite a crackdown to thwart such efforts Al-Qaida continues to recruit members in US prisons. In some instances, they claim, prison chaplains have facilitated Al-Qaida recrutiment.

Further testimony stated that the US prison system contains 9,500 Muslims, a figure which does not take into account members of the Nation of Islam or the Moorish Science Temple.

Steps to manage the problem have included identifying and tracking inmates with terrorist ties; managing the identified by confining them in "secure conditions", and monitoring their communications. These steps also include a moritorium on hiring any new Muslim chaplains that has been in place since 9/11 and will continue "until the completion of federal investigations."


SO I guess its not my imagination is it? I see imprisoning them in US prisons as a real problem and I guess so does the reports cited above.

Beirut, Reagan traded missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages held in Iran.


Iran-contra affair

The tangled U.S. foreign-policy scandal known as the Iran-contra affair came to light in November 1986 when President Ronald Reagan confirmed reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran. He stated that the goal was to improve relations with Iran, not to obtain release of U.S. hostages held in the Middle East by terrorists (although he later acknowledged that the arrangement had in fact turned into an arms-for-hostages swap). Outcry against dealings with a hostile Iran was widespread. On Nov. 25, 1986, Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese disclosed that some of the arms profits had been diverted to aid the Nicaraguan "contra" rebelsat a time when Congress had prohibited such aid. An independent special prosecutor, former federal judge Lawrence E. Walsh, was appointed to probe the activities of persons involved in the arms sale or contra aid or both, including marine Lt. Col. Oliver North of the National Security Council (NSC) staff.

Link:
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0149792-0&templatename=/article/article.html

As to the recruitment of terrorist in our prisons, I never denied it might be happening, I just suggest that it is a problem that can be easily controlled, and it certainly is no excuse to not imprison terrorists and kill them instead.

Let me say Vile, that if we had a problem with coyotes attacking people and teaching dogs to do it, would you lock them up together? Nope but we would destroy the coyotes.
Dont get all worked up because I used animals as an analogy, it wasnt intended to compare the terrorists to the civilzed animal the coyote. I like coyotes and would never do anything to hurt one.
:D
I dont see a problem with locking them up for life away from this country and away from any other prisoners who could be swayed by them. Maybe Alcatraz would be a good place.

But I would not ever say we should endanger the life of a soldier to capture them without killing them, so if they dont surrender then we use any force needed to subdue or kill them, this is a war not a raid on an illegal poker game.

I was wrong but these hostages were in Lebanon not in Iran. This was the group taken about the same time as Terry Waite and Alfred Schmidt.

Gee BV...nothing more to say about how the Iranian hostages were released? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Gee BV...nothing more to say about how the Iranian hostages were released? :rolleyes:
Read the above post again I put it in as an edit because I was looking up sources. :D

I guess I had my hostages a little mixed up...they were indeed held in Lebanon, not Iran.

Yes the Embassy hostages in Tehran were released on Jan 20 1981 the day Reagan took office, the hostages you speak of were released in 87 and a little earlier.
And I never supported that tactic or the tactic that Algeria pressed to Carter, free up 8 billion in Iranian assets and allow a protection from lawsuits for Iran so they would release the hostages. This was proposed in July of 80 and it was the reason they gave for releasing them. It was done to allow the Iranians to save face. But it is odd that at the moment we were sailing with 2 carriers and 6 war ships toward the coast of Iran they released them.

:D

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
When did political groups fly planes into buildings? So maybe we can send an envoy to Al Qaeda but it should be someone we dont care about. Talking to these people means nothing.

I did not suggest that talking with Al Quaeda was the thing to do. What I meant is that, rather than religious, their objectives are political. And that considering them only as religious fanatics is missing an important point.

Well in their mission it is said that they are out to kill all who do not believe in Allah, so maybe a political group but a religious state with an objective that includes our destruction. I cant think of a way to deal with these people other than on the battlefield. if they surrender then they live if they dont I guess they die.