On Apr 11, 9:08*pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
....

The question is what is a desireable outcome here.

If you say freeing the hostages.......WRONG. *A desireable outcome is
to minimize future occurences. *This may be entirely different from
saving the hostages and not recognizing this fact will result in many
more deaths. *Obama is not capable of understanding this. *Paying
ransom is morally wrong because it results in more hostages being
taken. *Thus, the actiuons of the rest of the world to this point have
been both morally and logically wrong and have brought us to this
point.

--------------------------

I would say that certainly a desirable outcome is to minimize future
occurrences, however......

Our culture values life. *The purpose of law enforcement and the
military is to protect and secure civilian life. *There have been many
examples of police, firefighters and military sacrificing more than one
casualty or fatality in the effort to save one civilian life.

The primary objective right now is to save the civilian hostage if at
all possible.
Once accomplished, it will be time to minimize future occurrences.

Eisboch

Only a complete asshole would think it ok to sacrifice the ship's
captain, especially after he exchanged himself to further the safety of
this crew.

--
Palin & Bachmann in 2012 -
All Stupidity All the Time

ANY attempt at negotiation will CAUSE future incidents so logically
should not be considered. It is all well and good to feel for the
family of the hostage but we also have to feel for the hundrerds of
potential future hostages. This logically means no negotiations. You
may call being logical asshole behavior but it works better than
emotionalism.
Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future
incidents. I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can
either.