Can hostage-taking ever be considered justifiable?

TalkingPoint · Post by **TalkingPoint** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:38 pm

Can hostage-taking ever be considered justifiable?

hostage: a person seized and held as security for the fulfilment of a condition
justifiable: excusable; for a good reason

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 10, 2005 5:16 am

authorityquery · Post by **authorityquery** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:36 pm

Never be accepted. It's a crime.

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:05 am

NO!!!

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:32 am

Sorry but the correct answer is "yes." If you think long enough on the possible scenerios you will each find one where even you would do it.

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:38 am

danyet wrote:Sorry but the correct answer is "yes." If you think long enough on the possible scenerios you will each find one where even you would do it.

Speak for yourself no situation or circumstance would convince me to take another person hostage!!

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:51 pm

The question is quite broad. I mean really, you can't think of one situation where it would be justifiable to you?

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:28 pm

danyet wrote:The question is quite broad. I mean really, you can't think of one situation where it would be justifiable to you?

No I can't. What situation would you find it justifiable?

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:09 am

shazzam1452 wrote:
danyet wrote:The question is quite broad. I mean really, you can't think of one situation where it would be justifiable to you?
No I can't. What situation would you find it justifiable?

Good one.

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:57 am

Very simple. Lets say you live in a lawless land and two brothers had come to your house one night and stolen your little sister while she slept. Your tracked them down and managed to capture one brother.

Are you saying that you would not hold that brother hostage and use him as a bargaining chip in exchange for your sister?

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:14 am

danyet wrote:Very simple. Lets say you live in a lawless land and two brothers had come to your house one night and stolen your little sister while she slept. Your tracked them down and managed to capture one brother.

Are you saying that you would not hold that brother hostage and use him as a bargaining chip in exchange for your sister?

Strangers, sweetie, strangers. Don't use ebonic language on me .

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:56 am

LennyeTran wrote: Don't use ebonic language on me .

Don't jump to conclusions. Just answer the question

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:32 am

danyet wrote:Very simple. Lets say you live in a lawless land and two brothers had come to your house one night and stolen your little sister while she slept. Your tracked them down and managed to capture one brother.

Are you saying that you would not hold that brother hostage and use him as a bargaining chip in exchange for your sister?

Ok, I'll forget your "two brothers" and answer your question like you asked me to. Well, firstly, it depends on whether you would punish your hostage or not. If you were beating that person up and down and screaming, "where's my sister? Where is she? You'd better tell me or I'll chop your weenie off." And then you'd get your knife near his little soldier . If that was the case, then it would not be justifiable. It's because you'd do the same thing like other torturers doing to their hostages. If you were not doing all that, well, this is hard to say since I don't see the picture of you wouldn't torture someone you called as a hostage. Right?

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:24 am

I hope you are joking, I don't know what kind of English you speak but anywhere I have lived two brothers means simply that. So in the scenerio your sister has been stolen. And you have captured one of two brothers. Most people would go to great lengths to rescue a family member but the original question mentions nothing about torture. The reason I used two family members as hostage takers in the scenerio was to try to avoid the torture question if possible, because an even exchange of hostages is more likely with the presence of blood ties, without the need for brutality. So, somehow, from your answer I get the feeling that we agree. There is justifiable hostage taking. It must be scary for you. This revelation I mean.

So, how about torture? Would you refuse to beat your hostage even though you know that if you did you would be saving the life of your sister? I mean time is running out, since she is buried in a box with very little air left. Oh, what to do. ....Let sister die or beat the information out of bad guy..Hmmm!

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:27 pm

danyet wrote: The reason I used two family members as hostage takers in the scenerio was to try to avoid the torture question if possible, because an even exchange of hostages is more likely with the presence of blood ties, without the need for brutality.

So you're telling me a member of a family is kidnapping another member of the family? What kinda ~ is this?

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:29 pm

LennyeTran wrote: So you're telling me a member of a family is kidnapping another member of the family? What kinda ~ is this?

No. The two bad guys are related. It will be assumed that if one of the bad guys is captured the other will be open to negotiations to get him (his brother) back.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:30 pm

danyet wrote:
LennyeTran wrote: So you're telling me a member of a family is kidnapping another member of the family? What kinda ~ is this?
No. The two bad guys are related. It will be assumed that if one of the bad guys is captured the other will be open to negotiations to get him (his brother) back.

So two strangers who are brothers, not your brothers, kidnapped your sister?

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:26 pm

Yes. Just two sociopathic brothers. I meant no reference to race. I don't even know how to talk like that.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:52 pm

Ok, this is my thoughts for this scenario. Firstly, well, I'm gonna put aside the fact that it makes no sense.
Secondly, would it be justifiable that those two brothers kidnapped your sister for whatever reason? What did she ever do to them? Was she a bad person? Even if she was, it wouldn't be their job to take the laws into their own hands.
Thirdly, you think it'd be justifiable to hold one of the brother as a hostage in exchange for your sister and torture them? I remember you said,

danyet wrote: So, how about torture? Would you refuse to beat your hostage even though you know that if you did you would be saving the life of your sister? I mean time is running out, since she is buried in a box with very little air left.

Don't you think you're doing the same thing like they're doing to your sister. In another words, it's not justifiable. Just because you have an excuse, it's okay to do so? Well, they have an excuse to kidnap your sister, too. It's just a different one from yours.
Fourthly, if you wouldn't torture that guy for kidnap your sister, was there a chance you would hold your anger for what he did to you? That's why people kidnap others as their hostages for. To torture, to release their anger, to get information and so on. And thus, it's the reason why hostage-taking is never justifiable and you also said,

danyet wrote: but the original question mentions nothing about torture.

don't you think it's already implied? You think people would not torture their hostages to get whatever they need from that person? Yeah, big fat chance .

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:27 pm

You are still adding your own interpretation to the original Question. The question askes if hostage taking can
ever be justified. You are now pondering what the sister did to deserve kidnapping. This is a moot point. You are also stating things like we should not take the law into our own hands. This is also a moot point since I have already set the scenerio in a lawless land.

When it is totally up to you to save your sisters life you will do whatever it takes to get her back or you will allow her to die. It is that simple. So far from your posts I think that I am glad not to be your sister.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:51 pm

danyet wrote:You are still adding your own interpretation to the original Question. The question askes if hostage taking can
ever be justified. You are now pondering what the sister did to deserve kidnapping. This is a moot point. You are also stating things like we should not take the law into our own hands. This is also a moot point since I have already set the scenerio in a lawless land.

When it is totally up to you to save your sisters life you will do whatever it takes to get her back or you will allow her to die. It is that simple. So far from your posts I think that I am glad not to be your sister.

Don't you think you're doing the same thing with your "scenario" And if your scenario had happened, my "moot" point would have happened. Just look at things that way, okay.

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:23 pm

Ok, you have convinced me. You are right. The bad guys have there own reasons to kidnap, rape and kill my sister and I see now that I should respect that and not try to beat the information out of them. I will just let them kill her. Yes, that's it because afterall, I would not want to be guilty of harming in any way, a vermin ridden phsychopathic killer bent on the destruction and torture of everyone he meets. As a matter of fact I think I'll just kill myself now to save him the bother!

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:44 pm

danyet wrote:Ok, you have convinced me. You are right. The bad guys have there own reasons to kidnap, rape and kill my sister and I see now that I should respect that and not try to beat the information out of them. I will just let them kill her. Yes, that's it because afterall, I would not want to be guilty of harming in any way, a vermin ridden phsychopathic killer bent on the destruction and torture of everyone he meets. As a matter of fact I think I'll just kill myself now to save him the bother!

So you think it's right if anyone has the same excuse as yours, "yeah I should kill that bastard because he's kidnapped my sister" blah blah blah and blah. Let me tell you when someone wants an excuse to cover his bad deed, there are million of excuses to cover it. Look at Bush and you'll see how his a$$ has been lying to the American people. Yeah sure, it was okay to keep those people as hostages and it was okay to torture them. Don't be a smart a$$ and make all the 'scenarios' before thinking of the action and result. If you think being in denial to convince yourself that holding a hostage is okay then go ahead and do so. I've proven to you that those two brothers were wrong and their action taking your sister as a hostage was not justifiable and I've proven to you that if you hold someone as a hostage, you would likely torture them for your own pleasure. What have you been proven huh Mr. Smart-A$$? Some 'scenario' will work and holding someone else as a hostage would be okay? Or instead of trying to 'rescue' your sister, it'd be better to torture the kidnapper for what his team-mate was doing to your sister. Wow, the scenario is great and it works. Yaaaay, high five to you.

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:52 am

danyet wrote:I hope you are joking, I don't know what kind of English you speak but anywhere I have lived two brothers means simply that. So in the scenerio your sister has been stolen. And you have captured one of two brothers. Most people would go to great lengths to rescue a family member but the original question mentions nothing about torture. The reason I used two family members as hostage takers in the scenerio was to try to avoid the torture question if possible, because an even exchange of hostages is more likely with the presence of blood ties, without the need for brutality. So, somehow, from your answer I get the feeling that we agree. There is justifiable hostage taking. It must be scary for you. This revelation I mean.

So, how about torture? Would you refuse to beat your hostage even though you know that if you did you would be saving the life of your sister? I mean time is running out, since she is buried in a box with very little air left. Oh, what to do. ....Let sister die or beat the information out of bad guy..Hmmm!

Still doesn't mean you will get the result you are looking for does it? Using your case scenerio "you beat the hostage for information". What happens if you don't get the information; and your sister still dies? What have you achieved?

Certainly not forgiveness!

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:00 pm

shazzam1452 wrote:
Still doesn't mean you will get the result you are looking for does it? Using your case scenerio "you beat the hostage for information". What happens if you don't get the information; and your sister still dies? What have you achieved?

Certainly not forgiveness!

I am not looking for forgiveness. I have not done anything that needs to be forgiven and I am certain that my prisoner is not looking for forgiveness, otherwise he would tell me where his brother is hiding my sister.

So what does has "forgiveness" have to do with this?

You ask what I have achieved? I have custody of one of the perpetrators who will be punnished for his crimes.
What did you think? He would be let go?

shokin · Post by **shokin** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:39 pm

Could you repeat me any other way the meaning of the "hostage-taking" ?

That is one first discussion that I don't understand.

And I am not at home (so I have not any dictionnary).

Edit : oh ! you don't need to explain me ! I understood !

No ! this is not the good question !

taking hostage is only one "after" of what one did. The answer is in what he did and why he did so.

Inself, taking hostage is a double-weakness : by taking hostage (or one gun) you show that you "cannot" solve the problem without it (actually you don't know what to do) and you take a charge on you, which make you less mobile (less possible move). Moreover you don't want to kill the hostage (or to use your gun). So you don't feel more in security. (but more dependant, by believing that hostage can help you)

Shokin

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:13 pm

What I meant was "forgiving yourself". I mean beating someone to no end (no result) etc...how could you live with yourself. You are just as bad as the perpetrator. I still don't think your argument justifies taking another person hostage. I agree with SHOKIN it is a sign of weakness!

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:52 am

So far, all you "gentle people" have shown me is that you think that your sweet and innocent little sister's life is equal to that of a sadistic murderer's.

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:08 pm

danyet wrote:So far, all you "gentle people" have shown me is that you think that your sweet and innocent little sister's life is equal to that of a sadistic murderer's.

We will have to agree to disagree on this topic. I really don't have anything further to add. In my mind hostage taking is a form of terrorism; and nothing you or anyone else can say to me can justify that course of action.

I wish you all the best in life.

Signing off!