From the telegraph.co.uk: I'm not sure if this has been discussed on this board yet, but I have a real problem with this. Civilized nations do not negotiate with terrorists, under ANY circumstances. Your opinions? This, simply, does not improve my opinion of the nation of Italy any more than it already had been.
I think we have no right to judge how the italian government handled such a personal/national issue. They simply wanted to save one of their own from a similar fate. I would love to see the US to the same to save our individual soldiers though I know we are in an entirely different position than italy is in this mid-east conflict. When it is a televised individual plight such as this, even we try to jump to the aid of these people because when an individual face is put on a captive, its much different than hearing a number like 70 soldiers killed in battle. it is much less personal and sadly it seems expendable.... www.sportskool.com
I share some of your concerns, but I wouldn't want to be the one telling his family that he died horribly in the name of civilization. Frankly, I think civilized nations should go to great lengths to save lives.
And when they aid in the detonation of a car bomb that kills 150, we can talk to the parents of those victims. This is just how I view these types of situations. I personally have zero respect for the Italian government for such a thing.
I hate it when the republicans use the "But Clinton did it too!" excuse. It is pathetically lame. Buuuuuuut - Ronald Reagan.
Although I understand your point, I still think that in a situation like this, it's better to try and save a live than sacrifice a life in the hope that it will have spared other people's lives in the future.
I disagree vastly. I hope they take down the names of those terrorists, so that if those released are involved in a suicide bombing of a Baghdad market that kills 80 men, women, and children, the Italians will know what they have done.
Either journalists should be banned from war zones, or they should have to sign a document stating that they acknowledge that there will be no ransom paid or prisoner exchange for their release, if kidnapped.
There are others ways to save a life then releasing murderers. The kidnappers already killed one person in the entourage, why would anyone think they won't kill again.
good point. I can see the actions on a personal level, and I'm sure if this guy was my friend, relative, whatever, I would want to see him alive. BUT when you start appeasing the terrorists, you open the Pandora Box. What's to stop Taliban from kidnapping more Italians?
The lack of available italians? What we all have been told is much probably not the entire story. It's highly unlikely for example that Karzai did accept to release the prisoners only because Italy asked as an act of generosity. As it's highly unlikely that the US command did know nothing about that and didn't give green light to the operation. And there's no way Italy was going to call back the troops from afghanistan. So, there's a unofficial version rumored in italy. Can't say if it's true nor it will be ever confirmed even if it was true. Matrogiacomo was going to interview some talibans, he was infiltrated by a western secret service, ie his car had a tracking device and the driver was the only one knowing about it. The talibans had already being targeted before with a similar trick. This time they were not fooled, they stopped the car, found the device, killed the driver. SISMI, the italian secret service (already disappointed by the Calipari incident) knows about the tracking device thing and gets angry. Part of the government and SISMI menace to let the news be known (this would mean big outrage among the italian public opinion and consequently the very likely end of the italian mission in afghanistan) if everything is not done to free mastrogiacomo. That everything = 5 talibans.
It's not like there are many talibans outside of afghanistan. The talibans are afgan, mostly pashtun. The only other country where pashtuns are is pakistan.
Well, no. Talibans were not part of al qaeda. They allowed bin laden to stay inside afghanistan but they were not linked to al qaeda. It has been said that there have been times they were near to allow the US to hit bin laden. For example under the Clinton administration. Talibans are a pashtun fundamentalist movement. A guerrilla force who won the control of the most important portion of the country (Kabul) against the various warlords. They never controlled all of afghanistan, that's why the US were able to use the so called northern alliance against them. Many of the "backward" laws, for example burkas, the talibans are accused of are actually pashtun traditions. Only after the US attack and with the current occupation they started to use terrorism as a tactic. And probably have more links to sunni fundamentalist terrorism, even though they still are not part of "al qaeda". We could also discuss what "al qaeda" really is.
Even if what you say is still true today, I believe this precedent will open doors to not only Taliban, but other terrorist groups who have something Italy can offer them. It's not likely that once Italy negotiated with Taliban, they won't negotiate with other groups.
I will only add that Italy cannot be lectured on how to fight effectively terrorism especially by people who comes out with moronic notions as "war on terrorism". We actually fought terrorism and won that battle. And war was not the way we fought it.
I never said that the "war on terrorism" was an intelligent statement. However, there are still some actions which we do correctly; one of them is refusing to negotiate with terrorists. The Italians in this case are an absolute disgrace. Anybody knows not to make an idiotic decision like this. How did the Italians "fight terrorism and win that battle"? By releasing terrorists who can easily aid in a strike later on? Hell of a victory.
Talibans are not terrorists, they are a guerrilla force, their main way of battling is thru guerrilla warfare. They conquer land and have land under their control. A force who still have a huge backing among the pashtun people (the largest ethnic group in afghanistan), backing who is increasing and increasing together with the growing disaffection with the foreign presence in afghanistan. I wouldn't underestimate their strenght, chances are that the western adventure in Afghanistan will end as the soviet one (and prior to that as the english one). Therefore you can see the exchange as a prisoners swap. Also, blaming only the italians can be convenient but it's not factually correct since Karzai ok'ed the move and if Karzai ok'ed the move it means also the US command gave green light to the operation. They can't admit it openly because 1) people like you would criticize the move 2) people unlike you would like the eventual kidnapped US citizen to be freed instead of being killed.
I agree with you here (don't faint....... ) and would go even further to suggest that many terrorist organisations or groups or freedom fighters or whatever - don't always see the difference between the different countries in the West. Therefore this could be a potential problem where ever the Italians operate under UN mandates. E.G what is to stop now any group kidnapping and just grabbing a random Italian whilst they are at it. This puts any allie of Italy in potential danger as well.
Cant ban them from war zones because many would just ignore the ban in the name of journalistic integrity. Having served three internships at the Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicles I do know for a fact that staff writers and photographers do sign a release of liability for the paper. Staff journalists have the benefit of an news orginization to take on their plight if they get abducted, freelancers are all on their own. These folks know exactly what they're signing on for. As far as the Italian government is concerned, they made a mistake. By negotiating with terrorists they've justified the behavior of murderers. The fact that they would trust them in the first place is puzzling.