I KNEW India was making a mistake negotiating with those terrorists in 1999.

[StageLeft]

A few years back an Indian airliner was hijacked. In return for the civilians they gave the hijackers 4 of their buddies. This from cnn

<< Sheikh, 28, was arrested for the 1994 kidnapping in India of three Britons and an American tourist and was released five years later in exchange for the freedom of 155 passengers aboard a hijacked India Air flight. >>

There is a damn good reason why many nations have a no-negotiatian policy. All India served to do, though saving 155 people, was to have yet more terorrists and nasty people around. You give these people an inch and they'll take a mile. 155 people were possibly saved (worse case scenario they all would have died) and now one of the people that was freed played a major roll in the kidnapping of the journalist in Pakistan. What are the others doing? Perhaps planning another hijacking or building bombs.

 

[pyonir]

unbelieveable. :disgust:

 

[Hammer]

This time maybe they'll execute him and be done with it.

 

[StageLeft]

<< This time maybe they'll execute him and be done with it. >>

Well if the Indians had him maybe they'd release him over another hijacking :| Nobody wants to be in charge when a plane of hostages they are responsible for (indirectly) blows up, but the pain simply gets put off. It's like not getting your toe removed because of gangrene and instead leave the problem to fester.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Skoorb, I'm not understanding. What do you think they [India] should have done?






KeyserSoze

 

[LuNoTiCK]

I think india did the best thing while put in the situation.

 

[StageLeft]

<< Skoorb, I'm not understanding. What do you think they [India] should have done? >>

I think that they should have done one of the following:

1) Told the hijackers that they are free to go but they aren't getting a damn thing (this is almost negotiating, but at least they don't benefit from it).
2) Continued to talk to them until they give themselves up.
3) Storm the plane

Tell me, do you think that if this happened in US soil the hijackers would get a free ticket home along with some buddies from Guantanomo? No they wouldn't. The US has already shown it is willing to blow up its own airliners full of civilians to serve a greater good. It's a tough choice and nobody wants to make it, but 155 people saved in 1999 (assuming that storming the plane would have failed - and although it would have entailed casualties I'm sure most people would have been saved) does nothing but send the message to hijackers that Indian airlines is a great target.

 

[KeyserSoze]

<<

<< Skoorb, I'm not understanding. What do you think they [India] should have done? >>

I think that they should have done one of the following:

1) Told the hijackers that they are free to go but they aren't getting a damn thing (this is almost negotiating, but at least they don't benefit from it).
2) Continued to talk to them until they give themselves up.
3) Storm the plane

Tell me, do you think that if this happened in US soil the hijackers would get a free ticket home along with some buddies from Guantanomo? No they wouldn't. The US has already shown it is willing to blow up its own airliners full of civilians to serve a greater good. It's a tough choice and nobody wants to make it, but 155 people saved in 1999 (assuming that storming the plane would have failed - and although it would have entailed casualties I'm sure most people would have been saved) does nothing but send the message to hijackers that Indian airlines is a great target. >>



Yeah, your right that we have shown we will do whatever it takes for the greater good. (I'm assuming your referring to the fact that there were rumors our jets were following the plane that crashed in PA on Sept. 11th.)

BUT, if hijackers had a plane at an airport on the ground, on American Soil. We wouldn't just blow the plane up. Yeah, we would negotiate, storm the plane, something like that, but we would not let those civilians die there, like that.





KeyserSoze

 

[Novgrod]

Don't forget the Reagan had a strict "we will not negotiate with terrorists" policy, but he was, in fact, negotiating with Iran to free American prisoners there (selling them weapons, then using that money to fund some south american contra movement).

So it's easy to say, but hard to do when lives are on the line. Though I agree, they ought not have done that.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Another question. Suppose they had Bin Laden, Our most wanted terrorist in the world right now, on a US plane here on American Soil. Right now, we would do anything to get him, but do you really think that the administration would kill all the US Civilians to get to him.

<Swordfish>Now fast forward to today, present time, same situation. How quickly would the modern media make a frenzy over this? In a matter of hours, it'd be biggest story from Boston to Budapest! Ten hostages die, twenty, thirty; bam bam, right after another, all caught in high-def, computer-enhanced, color corrected. You can practically taste the brain matter. All for what? A bus, a plane? </Swordfish>
(Sorry, had to throw that in there )




KeyserSoze

 

[StageLeft]

Swordfish is a great movie

Obviously if a terrorist had a nuclear bomb they were threatening to detonate in a crowded city policy may go out the window, but storming planes has been well executed in the past and would probably have been a better idea here.

 

[LittleWolf]

<< Continued to talk to them until they give themselves up.
3) Storm the plane

Tell me, do you think that if this happened in US soil the hijackers would get a free ticket home along with some buddies from Guantanomo? No they wouldn't. The US has already shown it is willing to blow up its own airliners full of civilians to serve a greater good. It's a tough choice and nobody wants to make it, but 155 people saved in 1999 (assuming that storming the plane would have failed - and although it would have entailed casualties I'm sure most people would have been saved) does nothing but send the message to hijackers that Indian airlines is a great target. >>



You do know that the plane was hijacked and landed in a Afghan city. Not the most friendly of places at that time... :Q

Maybe if the plane was on Indian terrritory, it might have been a different story.

It's always a tough choice for anybody/any country to decide. Inspite of all apparent willingness to blow it's own place, wonder whether US would *actually* do that.


-j

 

[StageLeft]

<< You do know that the plane was hijacked and landed in a Afghan city. Not the most friendly of places at that time... :Q >>

Though I hate to admit it, no I didn't know that

 

[LittleWolf]

Few links from CNN...


http://www.cnn.com/1999/ASIANOW/south/12/28/india.hijack.01/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/meast/12/24/india.hijack.09/


Not specifically related to the kidnap, but same group guys...:disgust:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/17/india.attack18.12/index.html


-j

 

[freebsddude]

I think it is easy to comment as to what India did and did not do. I would not want to be in anyone's shoes when dealing with terrorism. Lets put some of our American civilians as the 155 hostages in their place and see what our country would or would not do.

However it does legitimize India's claims that Pakistan harbors terrorists, what happens as soon as the guy is released ? He happily tip-toes into Pakistan! Maybe Pakistan should have apprehended him right then ?

 

[boolerboy]

aren't some americans being held hostage in the philippeans by islamist terrorists? we have consistently refused to negotiate with them. we didn't negotiate with the taliban when they were holding those two stupid women hostage. we didn't negoitate with iraq or let up the bombing when they were holding our downed pilots in locations that we were sure to bomb. agreed that india was in a difficult situation with the plane being on afghan land, but still, negotiating with terrorists is just wrong. india has a history of making concessions to these people. i don't remember the details, but some time back the daughter of the home minister was kidnapped by muslim terrorists (in kashmir, i think). the indians released 5 terrorists to get her back. there's some information about that event here.

 

[freebsddude]

Lets have 155 of them held!

 

[boolerboy]

155? all it took was 1. the minister's daughter incident was the one that set the precedence. it showed the terrorists the way to get concessions from india.

 

[tcsenter]

<< Don't forget the Reagan had a strict "we will not negotiate with terrorists" policy, but he was, in fact, negotiating with Iran to free American prisoners there (selling them weapons, then using that money to fund some south american contra movement). >>

In fact, it was never established that Reagan, in fact, knew this was going on, in fact. Try to get your facts straight before 'in-facting' foolishly, eh?

 

[AndrewR]

Terrorists deserve as much mercy as their victims received from them.

 

[The Stigenator]

Skoob,
its wrong of you to assume that India made a mistake. For one the United States would have done a similar event if one of its planes were hijacked and was in a forign country.

The problem was this, India never recognised the taliban goverment, though in days of the hijacking they sort of softened up so that the hostages could get food and get the plane cleaned out. They also had to put up an act to get the plane refuelled. India wouldnt have let the taliban storm their plane (even though the taliban had said yes they would be willing to do so), the problem is that the goverment of India and its administration didnt trust teh taliban. If the plane had landed in Israel or maybe some other country other than Afganistan maybe yeah they would have let the other country storm the plane. The taliban though they had weapons, you got to remember arent a "high trained" elite counter hijacking force, but rather a group of militia men who were once sponsored by the CIA in the 1980's.

The other point is that from a goverments point of view it would have been a "political disaster" if they blew up the plane. I am sure if GWB allows the airforce to take down a few planes his rating isnt going to be at 80% for sure.

At the situation, India really couldnt do anything. Here is their plane in a country where they dont recognise the goverment and a place where they cant send in their own commandos (there was talk of Indian Black cats going in..) but that would have meant that another countries army is invading a sovergien of another country. Though India never recognised the then goverment of afganistan, the whole situation was a really bad one. Infact I know that the US had tried to help in trying to figure out the best way to deal with it. With the plane sitting for a week on the tarmac Kandahar airport the situation was getting from bad to worse. Hence they let the hostages go. Infact if you look at it this way only 1 person was killed by the hijackers at that time. Though the same people were responsible for 14 other deaths when they attacked the Pariliment of India.

We had a huge discussion over this in class today. Stuff about US forigen policy and how its flawed... and how most people in the united states think that they are flawless and invincible, while the answer is quite the opposite. India could have very well attacked Pakistan over the December 13th Parliment attack, and it had every right to go over the border and attack pakistan while the United states blocked them from doing so, all the while they had crosses several oceans to fight a war in an unknown country (to most US citizens who never even heard of this country) to fight against an unknown enemy.

TGG

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

<< A few years back an Indian airliner was hijacked. In return for the civilians they gave the hijackers 4 of their buddies. This from cnn

<< Sheikh, 28, was arrested for the 1994 kidnapping in India of three Britons and an American tourist and was released five years later in exchange for the freedom of 155 passengers aboard a hijacked India Air flight. >>

There is a damn good reason why many nations have a no-negotiatian policy. All India served to do, though saving 155 people, was to have yet more terorrists and nasty people around. You give these people an inch and they'll take a mile. 155 people were possibly saved (worse case scenario they all would have died) and now one of the people that was freed played a major roll in the kidnapping of the journalist in Pakistan. What are the others doing? Perhaps planning another hijacking or building bombs. >>



Skoorb, I only read the first two posts so sorry if what I'm going to say is already discussed:

India COULD NOT deal with it any other way. Why?
1) Their Passivist attitude screwed them over once again.
2) They are scared of the US. This is not the first time we've been held up by the terrorists. Every time something happened, India could not do anything because the US threatened them with sanctions. However after Sept 11, things have changed.

Put yourself in India's shoes three years ago and tell me what you would have done. Also, the UN officials where there also who helped with the negiotations. India really should fight back, hopefuly now they will start since the US finally recognizes that terrorism is a real threat that can and already has affected them.

 

[LittleWolf]

<< 155? all it took was 1. the minister's daughter incident was the one that set the precedence. it showed the terrorists the way to get concessions from india. >>



Let's say one of the daughters of top governor's or senator's of this country (US) gets kidnapped. What do you think the reaction would be of the senator? Maybe for a sense of bravado/politico, the senator might act as if their children are "disposible" and they won't accede to the terrorist's. But do you really think, the senator or the children would want that ? Has any such thing occured here?

Think about it. It ain't that easy... Talking is quite easy, but when it comes to actually putting words into action , it is something else..


-j