Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

to think that if the government had been serious about trying to help Alan Henning

44 replies

textingdisaster · 04/10/2014 08:19

it (and parliament) wouldn't have authorised the British involvement in the bombing of IS until he had potentially been released?

I am so very sad about what has happened.

OP posts:

FlorenceMattell · 04/10/2014 08:21

Can't believe with all the satalites they don't know exactly where this group are.
Think that thr evil that are behind this group just want us to hate one another.

LeftRightCentre · 04/10/2014 08:22

So we are all supposed to get sit back whilst ISIS goes around killing children, selling girls into prostituion and advancing? You do realise they don't just leave people alone who don't bother them?

Andrewofgg · 04/10/2014 08:23

YABU. You cannot decide policy on the strength of one individual's position. The enemy would have seized another hostage, released Hemming, seized another, released the second, and so on.

soverylucky · 04/10/2014 08:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Moreisnnogedag · 04/10/2014 08:23

But surely that's just giving in to terrorism? And while yes there are lots of satellites I can't imagine he was stood outside with a giant arrow. It's terribly sad but there was only one way this was going to end.

DamnBamboo · 04/10/2014 08:25

Don't be so bloody stupid.

What on earth is the rest of the world, and i do mean the rest of the world including several Arab States who have also gone in, supposed to do? Just let them get on with it?

That man didn't die because of the government's actions, he did because of the actions of fanatical murderous lunatics and many more are set to if something isn't done!

Pantah630 · 04/10/2014 08:27

A secret special forces mission to eradicate them may have been more appropriate and successful, they're purported to be a smallish group. Blatant bombing surely gives more power to their cause, subtlety may be more effective. But then I'm just an ordinary person with no diplomatic/military skills, it's easy for us to give opinion when we aren't involved directly. It's a horrible situation and I feel for the families of the hostages. :(

DamnBamboo · 04/10/2014 08:29

They're purported to be a smallish group

Who is?

Cornettoninja · 04/10/2014 08:30

It is very sad I agree.

But the bigger picture means that you can't focus on an individual when you have many, many more to consider.

Fwiw I don't agree with the strategy but I understand it. The theory is you disable them enough so they are unable to do this to anyone else. Of course in reality there are lots of other reasonings and motives going on behind the scenes, a lot of which I am deeply suspicious of and disagree with, but I do acknowledge that battle with any group can't be fought for the benefit of one victim. We don't have the resources or time.

HeySoulSister · 04/10/2014 08:30

IS have plenty of other hostages awaiting the same fate. You know this yes??

And where will they go for the same shock/horror response when they have run out of hostages?? The streets near us? Shopping centres? Drag kids off the streets? Here.... In Britain.... It the US.... Wherever they fancy really

They have got to be stopped. Now. How would you suggest?

HeySoulSister · 04/10/2014 08:32

I've heard they have another 18-20 hostages...... If this is true then how many are British?

MajesticWhine · 04/10/2014 08:34

Why would they have released him? Pretty unlikely, bombs or not. We can't try and pander to these monsters. I would guess that if intelligence services had any idea where he was, then they would have sent a special force in.

HeySoulSister · 04/10/2014 08:37

Very naive op

Do you know what goes on behind the scenes??

Pantah630 · 04/10/2014 08:40

According to the radio report I was listening to last week, they aren't tens of thousands, but a small quite well disciplined army - special forces and a media ban would IMHO be more efficient. Both terrorist groups and our own Governments love to instill fear, it's a way of controlling the masses, there is as another poster said a much bigger picture here. The more media coverage of bombings, etc, the more likely those in the west that are susceptible to radicalisation are likely to join their cause. But as I said, I'm no expert, just my opinion.

GlitterIsJustVampireAsh · 04/10/2014 08:40

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

FoxSticks · 04/10/2014 08:40

That man didn't die because of the government's actions, he did because of the actions of fanatical murderous lunatics and many more are set to if something isn't done!

This, and if we had the intelligence to go in and attempt a rescue this would have been done.

DamnBamboo · 04/10/2014 08:47

Totally agree that giving them newspace is counterproductive. However, look at other terrible situations/genocides in the past - rwandan civil war, that was simply not reported on in any substantial way at all. I think there is a fine line that needs to be trodden here and a blanket-ban on reporting, is not the way to do it.

GlitterIsJustVampireAsh · 04/10/2014 08:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster

textingdisaster · 04/10/2014 09:12

I know there is a bigger picture (which I don't know enough about).

The other thing which I was wondering about is the payment of ransoms which the British and US governments apparently do a lot less than other European countries - hence the freeing of French Hostage Nicolas Henin for example.

Have to go out but can link to some articles when I come back.

OP posts:

HeySoulSister · 04/10/2014 09:15

Give them ransom money...... What, so they can use it to grow even bigger? To take on more hostages and to spread MORE terror? Really?

They would take more and more British hostages if they knew Britain would happily pay the requested ransom money!

DamnBamboo · 04/10/2014 09:16

I would be very angry if our government gave into ransom demands! Talk about opening the floodgates and endangering the lives of many, many more people.

This man was doing a wonderful thing, truly benevolent and selfless. He was however in a war zone in very unsafe territory for a British National, irrespective of his motives. If it was my husband, I would want ransom money to be paid if that was an option, that's my heart talking. My head however knows it's the completely wrong thing to do.

Cornettoninja · 04/10/2014 09:48

I don't know enough about it really, but if we had the kind of intelligence that facilitated a rescue mission would it not be more focused on destroying the group? I would guess at a fingers crossed lets hope not too many hostages are killed, but I don't think that would be their aim.

Latara · 04/10/2014 09:55

Sadly I suspect that the only outcome of murders like this will be to stop aid workers going to places like Syria.

Longdistance · 04/10/2014 09:59

I too think op is being naive.

They would have killed him regardless of giving into their demands. IS are not to be trusted and are two faced to their religion they're making the rules up as they go along. Regardless of satellites/drones the army have, the country is so much more bigger than the Uk, so quite impossible to track IS down with one hostage. The IS group would be fast moving, day and night, they're not just in one place.

ILovePud · 04/10/2014 10:06

The whole situations horrific and desperately sad. I thought that parliament agreeing to the bombings was signing the death warrants of those poor hostages but sadly I think their deaths are almost inevitable what ever happened. I can't begin to imagine what they are their families are going through.

Flip

1 2