Are Jordans retaliation executions of isis prisoners the way to go?

It's not the way to go. Surely this is legitimising them? How long until negotiated prisoner swaps? The killing of the Jordanian was unspeakably barbaric, but tit for tat is not the right way. They should cut then off at the root, air strikes etc. Maybe this is merely a first step.

Reply 5

PopaPork

12

Yes

I suspect from now on many ISIS members won't even get to prison but will simply be killed at the side of the road.

But this is what happens when you think the rules of conflict don't apply to you and these Islamist idiots need to know 'You Reap What You Sow'

Reply 6

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Aj12

Seems pointless to me. Sure it will placate the popular desire for vengeance, but better to actually defeat ISIS than killing prisoners.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Middle Eastern mindset though.

Isis have gained strength through intimidation and in the arab world whoever is the most scariest is the strongest and gets popular support. It's a very playground type culture.

If you look at areas of Afghanistan for example, huge areas of te country were 'pacified' in recent history through some competly barbaric actions by one side.

The key is that it's arab versus arab. That way it stops our own failed second or third generation Muslim youth from getting drawn into the fray.

Reply 7

caravaggio2

OP

Original post by MatureStudent36

Middle Eastern mindset though.

Isis have gained strength through intimidation and in the arab world whoever is the most scariest is the strongest and gets popular support. It's a very playground type culture.

Something I (like most in the west) didn't know about until I read 'A God Who Hates' by the wonderful, brave Wafa Sultan.
I real eye opener and a key into the mind set of many Arab Muslim men.
Highly recommended.

Reply 8

Arbolus

13

Original post by s.a.u

It's not the way to go. Surely this is legitimising them? How long until negotiated prisoner swaps? The killing of the Jordanian was unspeakably barbaric, but tit for tat is not the right way. They should cut then off at the root, air strikes etc. Maybe this is merely a first step.

ISIS did offer an exchange... after they'd already filmed the killing of their own prisoners.

How can you trust the people who'd do something like that? I don't blame Jordan for not wanting to be lenient on ISIS prisoners when there's absolutely no reason to expect that ISIS would be lenient on any of their prisoners in return.

Reply 9

Yes I believe they should have executed the bastards

Reply 10

Original post by s.a.u

It's not the way to go. Surely this is legitimising them? How long until negotiated prisoner swaps? The killing of the Jordanian was unspeakably barbaric, but tit for tat is not the right way. They should cut then off at the root, air strikes etc. Maybe this is merely a first step.

It in no way legitimises them. The Jordanian government have not executed civilians , innocent people, women and children.

The Jordanian government have not raping women en masse and so on and on.

Reply 11

l1lvink

11

In my opinion, the way forward should be for the United Coalition to step up their anti-IS attacks massively; both from the air and against their income. As for executions of prisoners, I am for it (dependant on their crimes/guilty).

Reply 12

Original post by Native To Europe

It in no way legitimises them. The Jordanian government have not executed civilians , innocent people, women and children.

The Jordanian government have not raping women en masse and so on and on.

I don't mean in terms of legitimising their actions, but legitimising their claim to act as a state. They are not worth the dignity of revenge.

Reply 13

Original post by s.a.u

I don't mean in terms of legitimising their actions, but legitimising their claim to act as a state. They are not worth the dignity of revenge.

How on earth does it legitimise their claim to a state ?

Reply 14

Original post by Native To Europe

How on earth does it legitimise their claim to a state ?

Because it's a state playing tit for tat with a bunch of murderous barbarians. IS did this to provoke a reaction, and they got exactly what they wanted. In some twisted way, it's almost like Jordan treating them as a state. Do you think IS even care about any human life enough to even want their prisoners back? Of course not.

EDIT: Unless they were due to executed anyway.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 15

TheTechN1304

21

well what should they have done? Set them free? Smh. Stupid question OP...

Reply 16

Original post by s.a.u

Because it's a state playing tit for tat with a bunch of murderous barbarians. IS did this to provoke a reaction, and they got exactly what they wanted. In some twisted way, it's almost like Jordan treating them as a state. Do you think IS even care about any human life enough to even want their prisoners back? Of course not.

EDIT: Unless they were due to executed anyway.

i think the seriousness of these prisoners crimes warrants execution. And I do not understand your tit for tat statement, how does it legitimise their claim of a state ??

Reply 17

tengentoppa

18

The fact is that not a single ISIS member who is captured can be allowed to live, since that will lead to attempts to get hostages to perform a swap and that could potentially threaten people the world over.

So in that sense, it's the right decision.

Reply 18

Original post by Native To Europe

i think the seriousness of these prisoners crimes warrants execution. And I do not understand your tit for tat statement, how does it legitimise their claim of a state ??

Maybe not on the surface, but this is the first such instance. If states continue to take similar retaliatory actions whenever something happens, which are mostly symbolic and will do nothing to stem the rise of IS, then it will become normal practice. It shouldn't be the norm to act with a terrorist group the same way one would react to a state. This is the sort of thing states who are at war with each other do.

Reply 19