Originally Posted by
Drummond
I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.
But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.
I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?
Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!
And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?
Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?
Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.
I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???
Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.
But then - I'm not a Leftie ...