3 Japanese Hostages in Iraq - HUGE news in Japan

silver angel · 13 Apr 2004

I just heard that they went back on their word. Are they going to kill them or let them go?

Ulubatli · 13 Apr 2004

Think that you have taken hostage some innocent people. Your lands under invasion by multi-national army. Your first opponent is very powerful, it is dominating the world. Also there are armies of superpowers in your land.

You try to defend your lands. In order to do this, you have to try different methods since your equipments, gears, technology and army is not enouht to defeat them.

Fırst you will try to scare them. In order to scare them, you will bluff and swagger that you are going to kill 'em all. After several months, you couldn't do anything but be defeated several times. Either, nobody is scared of your bluffs anymore.

Second, you will try to attack tactically to weak points of invaders. Suicidal bombings are one of these tactical attacks. Another tactical attack is to take hostage civillians. You know that civillians are innocent people and invaders have to reply. If it were soldiers that has been taken hostage, invaders wouldn't care so much since soldiers went there venturing their lifes however civillian lifes are important.

Once you have taken hostage some civillians, you have two things to do:
1. Continue to threat the invaders using innocent hostages.

If the invaders does not withdraw;

2. Either free hostages or kill them.

If you kill innocent hostages, you are no longer a hero in your lands. You will no longer get help from the international society since you have killed innocent people. No organisation can endanger the help of international society. And if you kill the innocent hostages, you will give a reason to the invaders and make it legitimate to be invaded.

So, don't worry, they are not that much stupid to kill the hostages. They will be freed very soon... I am very much sure about that...

Satori · 13 Apr 2004

Mass Antiwar Protests in Japan

Maybe I should have posted at the end of this thread instead of the one I created here:

Mass Antiwar Protests in Japan

Mandylion · 13 Apr 2004

Ulubatli said:
Second, you will try to attack tactically to weak points of invaders. Suicidal bombings are one of these tactical attacks. Another tactical attack is to take hostage civillians. You know that civillians are innocent people and invaders have to reply. If it were soldiers that has been taken hostage, invaders wouldn't care so much since soldiers went there venturing their lifes however civillian lifes are important.

If you kill innocent hostages, you are no longer a hero in your lands.

If things gave gotten so bad that a force needs to take and threaten to kill civilians, I don't think the people you are representing are going to hate you if those civilians are killed. Just look at Israel and Hamas. Suicide bombings in Israel haven't turned their supporters against them. I don't see how three Japanese being killed are going to turn Iraq against terrorist groups.

If your theory was true, 9/11 should have been the end of Al Qaeda.

So, don't worry, they are not that much stupid to kill the hostages. They will be freed very soon... I am very much sure about that...

You don't take hostages unless you are ready to kill them. When you take hostages you get in a big game of "chicken" (person who gives up first wins). If you want to be cold about this, killing the hostages woul not be stupid. It would be smart. Now, everyone has to take you seriously when you take hostages in the future.

No great terrorist organization / revolutionary force ever got to the position they are/were in through playing nice. If Hamas or Al Queda only issued empty threats, what is the point?

Ulubatli · 13 Apr 2004

In fact, you made a good point. But the thing is that are they terrorists or rebellian groups? We know that terrorist (one who tries to achieve a purpose by using act of violence) do not care about civillians or international society... However, if you are a rebellian group, that you should take into account the opinion and thought of international society about you. Does Al-Qaeda or Hamas able to get any help from the international society? No... However, a defensive army of a rebellian group should take these into account in order to get help and legitimize itself...

If they are terrorist groups like Hamas or Al-Qaeda, than you are right, you made a good point... However, they seem to be a defensive group.

Mandylion · 13 Apr 2004

Well, said Ulubatli - that makes your first post a bit clearer to me now. Thanks But we are still talking about using violence to bring about change right? If the people holding the Japanese in Iraq are freedom fighters and not terrorists, they are using violence to achieve an end - I doubt those three Japanese asked to be taken hostage. Their captivity was begun and was/is maintained through the use or threat of force.

On top of that a group like Hamas probably does not consder itself a terrorist group but rather a liberation/rebellion group and neither do most of the people they are trying to impress. They don't seem to realy care about international opinion since most of it seems to be going towards Israel (despite all the stuff with walls as of late). The only people they are concerned are other like-minded groups.

The problem with revolutionary groups is that terror is one of the biggest weapons they have. It has almost never failed to be used. They try and shape the public relations fall-out that the people they kill were somehow connected to the regime they are trying to overthrow. Oftentimes that is not the case. This pattern is played out again and again. Civilians will always be caught in the middle.

I'm not up to date on the particulars of revolution in the last century, but has there recently been (as in since the Russian Revolution changed the name of the game) a violent revolutionary movement that did not use terrror to some extent?

senseiman · 13 Apr 2004

The comparison with Hamas is interesting because one of the groups of kidnappers in Iraq (not the one that took the Japanese though) claims to be acting in the name of the late spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheik Yassin, who was recently assasinated by the Israelis.

There are some differences between Hamas and the Iraqi resistance though. They are both fighting foreign occupation of their land, but Hamas has the additional aim of conquering Israel, the homeland of both the Palestinians and their oppressor's. The insurgents in Iraq just seem interested in ending the occupation, which is a much more realistic goal than that of Hamas. In that regard, you can see why international public opinion would be more valuable for the Iraqi insurgents than for Hamas. Hamas' goals and views are so out of whack that few people outside of the occupied territories would sympathize, if for no other reason than that they are completely impossible. Some Iraqi groups, like Sadr's militia, are obviously aiming at goals which they reasonably believe to be achievable and thus are more likely to court international opinion.

Mandylion · 15 Apr 2004

Ah, well put senseiman. I can see how that would work.

But isn't hostage taking such a distasteful tactic (esp. in this case when your hostages are third party humanitarian workers) that you are not going to win any points beyond the people who already argee with your cause?

Elizabeth · 15 Apr 2004

What is still unclear to me is any evidence that these previously unheard of fringe terrorist cell groups are even looking for or require national or international support. Governments from Russia to France to the Phillippines and Japan are already either beginning evacuations of their nationals and/or peacekeeping troops or considering it. The factors underlying this surge in kidnappings and street to street fighting over the last couple weeks hasn't been well explained either, but I doubt very seriously any conditions on the ground have suddenly become so unbearable that taking hostages has became a last resort. It's more likely a vulnerability such groups as the so-called Mujahadeen Brigade have been looking to exploit for some time and the opportunity has now, for whatever reason, presented itself.

senseiman · 15 Apr 2004

True, Mandylion, kidnapping isn't going to win the insurgents any sympathy from the international community. But the kidnappings can definitely change international public opinion about the conflict. The kidnappings of the Japanese, for instance, has put tremendous pressure on the Japanese government and may in fact cause it to collapse if things don't go well. At the very least, it will probably turn the Japanese public more strongly against Japan's involvement in the war.

senseiman · 15 Apr 2004

Elizabeth said:
What is still unclear to me is any evidence that these previously unheard of fringe terrorist cell groups are even looking for or require national or international support. Governments from Russia to France to the Phillippines and Japan are already either beginning evacuations of their nationals and/or peacekeeping troops or considering it. The factors underlying this surge in kidnappings and street to street fighting over the last couple weeks hasn't been well explained either, but I doubt very seriously any conditions on the ground have suddenly become so unbearable that taking hostages has became a last resort. It's more likely a vulnerability such groups as the so-called Mujahadeen Brigade have been looking to exploit for some time and the opportunity has now, for whatever reason, presented itself.

The kidnappings seem to be directly related to the US seige of Fallujah. Almost all of the abductions occured in the area between Fallujah and Baghdad and most of the groups involved have specifically mentioned the ending of the siege as the main condition for the release of their hostages.

The siege is an absolutely senseless atrocity being carried out by the Marines in my opinion. According to hospital sources over 600 people have been killed so far, most of them women, children and the elderly. About a third of the population of 200,000 have fled the city and hundreds of people's homes have been destroyed. The cause of the siege was the Bush administration's desire to be seen acting to avenge the deaths of 4 US mercenaries whose grizzly deaths in Fallujah 2 weeks ago shocked the American public. It is nothing more than a bloody act of vengeance and it has sickened Iraqis from all religious groups.

Yuka82 · 16 Apr 2004

Thank god the hostages were released and they are safe!

TuskCracker · 16 Apr 2004

sorry to say, Japan Government cant send the soldiers to purpose to fight constitutionally. therefore Japan need an alliance of another country army ironically.

Don't let pathetic bullies, with AK47's and RPG's push a great nation around.

Jean-Francois · 16 Apr 2004

The terrorists are trying to drive a wedge among the coalition force. Don't let them succeed. The Americans might make wrong calculations sometimes but they are NO BULLIES. What do you expect Bush to do? Sitting around and wait for the terrorist organizations to grow? Who started the war first? What about the Americans who died in 911?

playaa · 16 Apr 2004

Jean-Francois, finally someone who has the same opinion as me. So many ANTI-BUSH people it makes me sick. America is called a bully by everyone, even many of its own people, but what are we supposed to do, tuck our tails and run? Wait for the next attack? People fail to think that what if it was them that went under attack? What would they do? I don't think the answer is to hard to come up with.

bossel · 16 Apr 2004

Jean-Francois said:
Who started the war first? What about the Americans who died in 911?

Which relation does 9/11 have to the Iraq war?

Anyway, not all Iraqis who fight the invaders are terrorists.

senseiman · 16 Apr 2004

Jean-Francois said:
The terrorists are trying to drive a wedge among the coalition force. Don't let them succeed. The Americans might make wrong calculations sometimes but they are NO BULLIES. What do you expect Bush to do? Sitting around and wait for the terrorist organizations to grow? Who started the war first? What about the Americans who died in 911?

YEAH! This'll teach Saddam to think twice before he sends hijackers to attack America again!

Oh...wait! Wasn't that some other guy who the Americans let escape in Afghanistan because they were too busy preparing to attack Iraq?

I'm all confused now.

den4 · 17 Apr 2004

Seems like two of the former hostages want to remain in Iraq, despite their family and government's view they should leave. Seems like efforts are also being made to put a condition that if future reporters/volunteers insist on remaining in dangerous territory, that they will have to pay for any rescue attempts that becomes necessary.
The Photographer dude, the one with the attitude, appears not to be very grateful that he was rescued...unless he was just getting over his shock...but if his attitude shows that that is how he is, then the next time he gets held as hostage, he should pay for his own rescue, rather than having the people of Japan worry about him like they have up to now....including his mother...whom according to the news had called him an idiot for his comments....

Maciamo · 17 Apr 2004

One more important thing about the Japanese civilians and Self-Defense Forces in Iraq ; First I thought that the SDF were forced against their will by the government (themselves under US pressure), but I was told that most if not all of the 550 SDF soldiers in Iraq now volunteered to go to Iraq and personally wanted to go. Millions of Japanese would want them to go back to Japan, but aren't they free, like civilians, to go to and stay in Iraq if they want to.

If the problem is "using the taxpayer's money", that is an invlaid argument now. It may have cost a lot to send them first, but now that they are in Iraq, it would propably cheaper not to repatriate them, as life is much cheaper in Iraq (food, etc.), and the gov. would have to sustain them for doing virtually nothing in Japan.

And last but not least, why call back troops now that they know that (Japanese) civilians can be in danger. Isn't it also the roles of these troops to protect their country's civilians ? Leaving now would be cowardice, even more when 2 of the 3 hostages decide to stay. Then, what about their responsibility. They are in Iraq to protect civilians, and leave once the slightest trouble comes up ? What's that for an army ? Is that really the kind of people Japanese expect to defend their country ? No, SDF could only stay in Iraq now, even if it wasn't a good idea to dispatch them in the first place.

playaa · 17 Apr 2004

Good post Maciamo.

AND Senseiman: The U.S. did not up and leave that case, I know first hand there is still if not more military enlisted personel in afghanistan right now, then ever.. Looking for Osama. You do not hear much about it because that is not where live fire, and resistant forces are, afghanistans fight is over, its basically a man hunt now over thousands of miles of mountains for 1 guy. So before you make acclaims of stuff like that get some facts.

I am currently an active duty U.S. Navy enlistee and know of atleast 130 people who are on cruises right now for specific afghanistan missions and nothing to do with Iraq, Along with the thousands of other enlisted personel over there.

Elizabeth · 17 Apr 2004

den4 said:
Seems like two of the former hostages want to remain in Iraq, despite their family and government's view they should leave. Seems like efforts are also being made to put a condition that if future reporters/volunteers insist on remaining in dangerous territory, that they will have to pay for any rescue attempts that becomes necessary.
The Photographer dude, the one with the attitude, appears not to be very grateful that he was rescued...unless he was just getting over his shock...but if his attitude shows that that is how he is, then the next time he gets held as hostage, he should pay for his own rescue, rather than having the people of Japan worry about him like they have up to now....including his mother...whom according to the news had called him an idiot for his comments....

I gather this is the same one mentioned in this article who had been criticized for recklessness and irresponsibility, although it didn't give his comments or any reasons. One thing at least it never hurts to have the French on your side outlining all the humanitarian good of being able to help so many Iraqi civilians now that Saddam is no longer a threat

http://www.asahi.com/international/update/0417/011.html

bossel · 18 Apr 2004

Maciamo said:
If the problem is "using the taxpayer's money", that is an invlaid argument now. It may have cost a lot to send them first, but now that they are in Iraq, it would propably cheaper not to repatriate them, as life is much cheaper in Iraq (food, etc.), and the gov. would have to sustain them for doing virtually nothing in Japan.

I doubt that. They very probably import most of their food from around the world, only some fruits & vegetables will be of local origin, if anything at all. I don't really know about the Japanese troops, but the German troops in Afghanistan import virtually everything they need, from water to potatoes.

Accommodation also should be rather expensive, since they have to live in extra-secured compounds.

I know that German troops get additional payment for missions abroad, I suppose that's valid for Japanese also.

Costs are therefore probably much higher than if they were being sustained for doing nothing in Japan.

playaa said:
that is not where live fire, and resistant forces are, afghanistans fight is over, its basically a man hunt now over thousands of miles of mountains for 1 guy. So before you make acclaims of stuff like that get some facts.

The fight is over, hmmm?

This is from the US DoD, Central Command Operations Briefing of Friday, April 16:

"there's not just the al Qaeda, but the Taliban and the HIG [Hezbe Islami Gulbuddin], the three insurgent elements inside of Afghanistan that we're constantly in hot pursuit of, that we -- again, we develop intelligence, we do precision attacks"

I don't know which news sources you have, but I hear rather regularly of attacks & ambushes in Afghanistan. There may be less fighting going on, there may be fewer US casualties than in Iraq, but the fight is far from over.

Maciamo · 18 Apr 2004

bossel said:
I doubt that. They very probably import most of their food from around the world, only some fruits & vegetables will be of local origin, if anything at all. I don't really know about the Japanese troops, but the German troops in Afghanistan import virtually everything they need, from water to potatoes.

And they call themselves soldiers ? Shame on them. Even young backpackers are tougher than them.

bossel · 18 Apr 2004

Hey, you have to keep your soldiers in a good mood!

senseiman · 18 Apr 2004

playaa said:
Good post Maciamo.

AND Senseiman: The U.S. did not up and leave that case, I know first hand there is still if not more military enlisted personel in afghanistan right now, then ever.. Looking for Osama. You do not hear much about it because that is not where live fire, and resistant forces are, afghanistans fight is over, its basically a man hunt now over thousands of miles of mountains for 1 guy. So before you make acclaims of stuff like that get some facts.

I am currently an active duty U.S. Navy enlistee and know of atleast 130 people who are on cruises right now for specific afghanistan missions and nothing to do with Iraq, Along with the thousands of other enlisted personel over there.

Don't get me wrong, playa, I used to be an enlisted man in the Canadian army myself and I know at least one guy I used to serve with who is in Afghanistan at the moment. The last I read there are about 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan fighting Al-Qaida and the Taliban as opposed to 135,000 or so in Iraq. Big difference.

According to Richard Clarke, immediately after 9/11 the Bush administration was so obsessed with attacking Iraq that they deliberately undermanned the invasion of Afghanistan so as to have enough troops ready for an Iraq invasion. This required the military to depend heavily on unreliable and dishonest Afghan allies, and this over-dependence is widely credited with having allowed many senior members of Al-Quaida and the Taliban to escape. In light of this, I stand by what I wrote above.

3 Japanese Hostages in Iraq - HUGE news in Japan

Resident Latina

後輩

先輩

Omnipotence personified

後輩

Omnipotence personified

先輩

Omnipotence personified

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

後輩

Dog Youkai

後輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

Dog Youkai

先輩

後輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

Similar threads