what do you believe ...now they do make a choice to work in a dangerous environments... to possibly get capture and some make it out and some did not... and with the USA not paying ransoms for negotiations... instead try and go in to save them an get them back that way ... when other country's or silent partners pay these terrorist not the governments... when they kidnap someone and some get released that way... which in some cases is contributing $ to help them run these groups... becouse they know if they do this most countries will pay to get their people back ... and another thing sometimes we don't even know they have captured someone...and does not get to the press all the time ... They made Foley a example becouse he was American and he was all ways the one they beat a lot ...some say becouse his father was in the military part of the USA air force and the younger the better I am sure they thought ...with getting more attention drown to them made those who saw this ...get more out raged after putting on the internet also ... and that brings up another good ? should we let terrorist put these kinds of deaths on line for everyone to see ... while trying to negotiate or going to try and save them... what is a shame now is they know they can kidnap the press and ask for $ more now ... so either we as USA get on board with other countries by paying these ransoms or no one should be allowed to pay these terrorist anything or anyone behind the scenes either ... and just say they do make a choice to work in these dangerous environments... and they should not be able to uses journalist for kidnappings ?... becouse it is just their jobs ... sounds cold but seems the only way to stop all of this ... thoughts ...

Since Vietnam news coverage has been increasingly censored.

I believe, there should be no, zero, censoring. Every shot, every bomb, every decapitation recorded should be aired.

Liveleak puts it all out there.

well, some would say they make a choice to accept all possible outcomes,,,so they 'deserve' it or bring it upon themselves

I say, they are choosing a job IN SPITE of dangerous consequences because they feel a need to get information out to the public


we cant, most will probably say, limit the access of 'terrorists' to post to the internet without walking the path of limiting access to others as well

after all, what is the difference between a terrorist posting footage of themselves killing, and an observer posting footage of someone being observed in a fatal shooting,,,?


we cant force other countries to pay ransom and I understand both sides of that debate , I understand that beginning to pay sends the wrong message and opens up the door to more demands

I also understand, to the families of those who lose their lives, what may happen after they have their loved one back doesn't seem nearly as important as getting their loved one back,,,,

no it is not that they deserve it

but like you said it is a choice

imo the proper thing to do

would have been for obama to start bombing isis hourly

this would last for 1 week

if they do it again the bombing would last 2 weeks

again 3 weeks and so on

till it cost more than they want to pay the actions will not change

I also think that 'some' go with the intent of HOPING to be captured...of course preferably by a less radical group, but they purposelessly don't take precautions to prevent it from happening. Now you may think i'm full of it for saying this,

But consider what 'some' people do who are released, they write a book, they are on this talk show, or that talk show, telling 'THEIR' story...and of course becoming famous and rich off of it.

I'd say before we start bombing, we should at curtail these types of individuals by saying something along the lines of 'can't profit, or gain fame, from any hostage situations' of course it'd have to be more that that, but that is the general idea.

what about just being made whole though?

if one is to lose years of ones life and livelihood, leading to a loss of income and presence in ones family and community

at what point would earning some compensation turn from being made whole to a 'profit',,?


and why should these people be any less able to earn profit than any other citizen?


I respectfully disagree on that point, I don't care so much their motive if they end up in such a deplorable situation,,whatever they have to do from that point on and whatever they choose to do if it allows them to live and thrive,,,, should be understandable and not illegal

they make a choice

they go in harms way

if people think they should not profit from it is wrong
(you dont have to buy their publications)

if you choose to get in your car and drive somewhere
and before you get there you are in an accident
should you be barred from profiting from the accident
after all you chose to get in the car and go
and more are killed or maimed in motor vehicles
than any other method

yes they made a choice

but when people stop making those choices

how will will get open reports from those areas

i stand by my last post

make the cost so high that they wont wanna pay it

You're right I don't have to buy their publications,(and I don't), but the way are current media is set-up you are most guaranteed to get famous for getting captured over-seas, American's are not the only ones that understand this, I'm not Naive enough to think that there are those working WITH some "Terrorist" for the pure purpose of gaining free frame, by way of our news don't exist. Some stories I believe, others I think are completely full of crap, but both are given the same coverage, same media frenzy, and free advertising for whatever book they may have written.


So consider the above, and revisit your post.

You have a journalist many of which have connections all over, with different types of groups, say they are one of the few who do it, not for sake of 'bringing a story' but as an intentional scam, people are greedy, inherently so, I don't think bombing a bunch of innocent people should be the 'go-to' action, it may come to that, but other things should be done first.

who said bomb innocent people

i am sure they know where their camps are

they are in the middle of an invasion

if there are those that choose to be in their camps
they are not innocent

other things were done first how long were there peacekeepers there
most of which were american

so no i still hold to my post

make their actions cost so much that they choose different actions

That is what they did... made the cost so high and never before ask for price ... but the point is ...do we get on board like other countries and pay to get the hostages out ... no matter what the cost an seems to me they new they asked to much and the terrorist wanted this execution to out rage the USA even more... I am not saying journalist should stop telling the news of whats going on in wars ... just seems like terrorist know this gets them $ most of the time by doing this ... I think there just should be a oath being a journalist in these wars its the chance you take and what you love to do ... should there be some kind of compensation to the family... if something happens to them ... yes ... just as if they are a soldier and die in the act of duty ... something ... I just hate the fact that terrorist can do this and make $ off of them ... and choose to kill them or not ...

All choices come with consequences.

Not all consequences are negative.

Two newscaster jobs just opened up.

like i said

no it is not that they deserve it

but like you said it is a choice

imo the proper thing to do

would have been for obama to start bombing isis hourly

this would last for 1 week

if they do it again the bombing would last 2 weeks

again 3 weeks and so on

till it cost more than they want to pay the actions will not change


pay ransom with bombs not cash

I agree with you and I believe that the President ordered more bombs after ... pay ransom with bombs not cash... but still compensate the families if something happens to their loved ones ... or the co. that they work for do the compensations ... his death was not in vein may he rest in peace and was a great man doing what he went there for they all are very courageous ... it was to out rage American ... and that is what they did ...but agree all should agree pay ransom with bombs not cash

no it is not up to any other than the murders to pay for murder
to the families

but heres the catch if some is supporting the group that commits
the murder they should be held accountable as a accessorize to
the murder

example

joe shmoe
from anytown usa
give donation to isis in this case they are charged in connection to
the murder

that is what some are saying ...how can this really be worked out becouse some countries and private donors on the hush hush are paying ... sure they should be held accountable but thats not how it works ... I agree on the oath of journalist... may get killed in the line of duty and who they work may give compensate to the family... that way nothing goes to the terrorist ... just the surviving family if something should happen to them ...

I'm American and I'm not outraged.

Media does not represent me and my view.

Choices, choices, choices.

Ya go to a war zone, ya gotta accept the fact ya could get killed or taken prisoner.

The reporters got paid well. If they neglected to get life insurance, their families are just chit outa luck.

The US needs to back the hell off and let the Mid Easterns take care of their own business.

The only reasons the US is involved are for the oil interests and the money big Corps makes off war.

Do you really think any insurance co. would cover these journalist ?
I would be surprised if they did ... there for the co. they work for should compensate the families ... and we went first on humanitarian reasons and then our own interest ... and not saying your not right on the oil part ...

That is precisely how you deal with individuals in the mindset of those jihadists.

Its not pretty but it's a language they understand.