My opinion is, for countries like Australia who are currently playing a very limited role in rebuilding Iraq, everytime the terrorists take a hostage and demand the withdrawal of all that country's forces, that country should instead INCREASE their prescence.

Kinda makes it counter-productive then for the terrorists to take hostages, doesn't it?

Yes, it would, RJ. If you look over on Tim Blair's blog, you will see the Aussies are getting pretty angry about their citizen, Douglas Wood, being held hostage.

Why do you believe none of this is being already done? Apart from the military control of ops (a dangerous, if seemingly effective precedent)

Anger is the right reaction and I hope the Aussies find a way to express their displeasure with the hostage takers, because that's where the blame lies.

I'm afraid the one approach that does work is the Israeli approach. When a hostage is taken you just write him off as dead. You then proceed to find and punish the hostage takers with no regard for keeping the hostage alive. It works. After a while they don't take hostages anymore.

Dave

Many of the methods I listed would have elicited howls of rage the first time they were used. Examples: infiltrating al Jazeera and capturing people who provide the hostage videos to them and jamming satellite transmissions would have been noticed.

I've heard no such howls.

But I don't know. Maybe a lot of these things are being done covertly.

Dave has it about right. and lays in this statment by the author:

"Too aggressive, will get some hostages killed:"

It sounds cold, but... too bad, so sad.

Ask yourself this, how many Israeli's do you see in the news that have been kidnapped during the last two decades. If any exist it's damm few.

No they just get killed a lot. Much better.

Israeli is a happy place to live? With all due respect, walking around with a target on my back from a hate-filled terrorist 24.7 is not my idea of a free and open society.

What's the logic here folks?

(The preceeding was about the comments, not the post (sorry Carpe B.)

When Israel began not responding to hostage taker demands then the terrorists began suicide bombings. Since there are already suicide bombings in Iraq in addition to hostage taking, if we take a hard line on the hostages there's not really any way for them to up the ante there. Plus, although the hostage situations which make the news over here are politically motivated seizures of Americans or Europeans, the majority of the hostages taken in Iraq are Iraqis taken for ransom, not for political reasons. The terrorists have side jobs as thugs and extortionists. Those kinds of hostage takers can be stopped effectively by zero tolerance because they are economically motivated. If they know they're not going to get paid then they lose interest. They'll turn to some other form of crime, but it might be something easier to deal with.

Dave

What I'm reading is general consensus in favor of taking much more aggressive action against everyone involved in the propaganda and finance chains, including media organizations and ISPs.

Interesting.

I saw the same thing in the comments on my own blog and others that covered the topic. But those mainly represent people from the American Right.

The readership here is more diverse, so I expected some dissent. That is why I posted. I want to hear if there are any good arguments for not doing what I suggest. (BTW, just yelling at me or calling me a Nazi isn't an argument. It's abuse. I'm just saying.)

I'm beginning to think this is a pretty good idea.

Four people commented and it's a consensus?
Let me add my lame comments to the mix then. It is worth making the effort - a stronger effort. But you'll get mixed results and likely an equal number of deaths.

It will send an aggressive signal to people who are already very set in the ways and beliefs, to say the least.

When these mixed results result in civilian deaths of non-Americans, the unhappiness is going to grow. This could encourage countries to get stricter on terrorists, but there are many non-state based terrorists out there, who still won't care.

For example, arguably many of the hostage takers in Iraq now are trying only to make a political point and are not asking for money. They are requesting that XYZ country take themselves out of the battle.

I'm not sure the aggressive stance would work. They'd just kill them, as they do most of the time anyway.

On your last two points: Intercept, disrupt or destroy hostage broadcasts, by capturing the physical media, disrupting satellite transmissions or other methods.

and

Flood the Internet and pro-terrorist television networks with fake hostage videos. Don't forget peer to peer and Bittorrent networks. Additionally, download real hostage video files, infect them with useful trojans and reintroduce them to the propaganda distribution network.

I'm sure disrupting media outlets is already done, as much as possible, as Aaman said. Or are you talking about ANY media outlet? If ANY media, we'd need a pretty clear definition of media and terrorism and the goverment / military would have to adhere or the cooperation ends. Rightly so.

On spreading virus and such, - around the time of the many beheadings I noticed that mostly right-wing (or pro-this war) bloggers said they had downloaded the videos, and suggested others do so so they too could have the appropriate level of anger at the inhumanity and savagery exhibited (as if others couldn't already be sickened without viewing it).

In other words, there are many, perhaps quite a lesser number, who watch these videos who hate the terrorists and everything they think they stand for. These people would be hurt as well.

Remember Roy Hallums, the American hostage in Iraq and all of the hostages there. I have hope that Roy will be released one day. He was an innocent civilian that doesn't deserve what has been put before him for six long months. Think and say what you like , I feel we have so many foreign workers here in USA . I can't imagine kidnapping them and putting a price on them. My family is suffering and heartbroken and this nightmare stays within us day after day. We miss you Roy and think of you always. Susan

Susan, I'm very sorry for the ordeal Roy is going through. He is in my prayers, as are you and Carrie.

Thank you very much for telling your very painful story on the Jawa Report.

I think it's great that everyone is talking about such an important issue. I really enjoyed your article Carpe (I hope it is okay that I call you that)and everyone else's contributions. I am glad that my article could spark more conversation, and more contemplation about what we could do better to improve the situation for hostages in Iraq. Thanks!

Carrie, when I saw the email go by that you had commented also, my heart skipped a beat. I was hesitant to keep posting on the topic out of sensitivity to you and your Mother. I was very concerned that you would be offended by the discussion. But I pressed on anyway, hoping for the best.

So thanks for your kind words.

Your comment was very insightful that paying ransom might be good for one individual but bad for the group. Following my suggestions would be very risky for people like your Dad. But the intent is to rescue current hostages and deter future kidnappings.

So perhaps it strikes a balance?

Take care, and keep the faith.

Temple, I thought someone might disagree with the whole approach, suggest an alternative and give reasons why their way is better. So you are right. Four commenters is a pretty weak showing (so far). But still, no one has made a case for a different approach.

On Media, I envision a pro-terrorist network like al-Jazeera being put on real-time censorship. We watch their uplink. As soon as they start to uplink hostage-related terrorist propaganda, we jam them. When the segment ends, we stop.

You are right that it will be very tricky to set up an effective system with responsible media outlets. I realize there is a dangerous and steep slippery slope here. But desperate times...

On "viruses:" Note I suggest to infect video files with "useful trojans." That is different from destructive viruses. I'll leave the definition of "useful" as an exercise for the reader.

You bring up another good point. The hostage videos have negative propaganda value to the hostage-takers also. I have read several accounts of American diners, bars and other places falling silent when the videos were played. The rising anger is palpable when this happens.

I still want to do everything possible to stop them.

I think when people are on the internet they don't realize that the family members of hostages do read what is out there. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I do. I have read everything from people defending my father and calling him a hero to others saying they can't wait to watch him be beheaded and describing it in great detail. So, don't worry what you, or anyone else for that matter, talk about. At least, on my behalf. I realize everyone is going to have their own opinions and they may clash with mine. It doesn't offend me in the least. Take care,
Carrie

Those who take civilians hostage and threaten death are truly the lowest of the low. Theirs is an action of incredibly cowardice and barbarism.

They deserve the most horrific of consequences.