Why Is McKay On The Hot Seat?

[shoop]

That is quite the stretch.

You provided a link to a story saying that McKay was criticized for making comments that might further endanger the hostages. Who was saying this?

If I get you correctly it breaks down like this. Hostage-takers were not leaning towards harming the hostages. The Minister of Foreign Affairs offer encouragement to the families about hopes for that the hostages will be return safely. The hostage-takers hear this, so decide to harm the hostages?

Did anybody actually say this, or is your *proof* that the CBC reported that somebody said it?

But anticipating that you can't accept anything the CBC reports, can't you see how saying the hostages will likely be released safely is like saying the terrorists aren't serious with their threats? And can't you see how, by saying that, the hostages might be therefore endangered?

[BubberMiley]

I don't think it's a stretch at all--just sensitive to how remarks can easily be interpreted and/or misinterepreted. So it doesn't really matter who said it. I think anybody can see how saying something like that could totally backfire.

[geoffrey]

I'm sure poor Muslim extremist kidnappers watch the CBC.

[lonewolf]

I'm am no fan of the Harpercrite conservatives by far, but come on...

Give McKay a break. He didn't wake up one morning and say, "it's time to screw up the hostages' chance for survival." What he did was a very stupid rookie mistake and I hope to God he's learned from it. He's said sorry to the family and the family accepted it. He's got a tough job to do. I hope he finds a way to get our people back home.

So would I vote for him...Hell no because I don't trust his party.

But would I say he's did this on purpose. Hell no. I think in the end he will be a good minister.

Running a ministerial post is an awesome responsibility and I for one hopes he does good, for the sake of our people held captive and the future Canadians the will be in the same trap. We should be patriots before party lap dogs.... Now in this time of darkness we need to be supportive of our government and our ministers for the good of the country. When the election arrives then we should speak up. Until then just leave the guy alone and let him do his job...

[BubberMiley]

I agree we should be supportive when they make correct decisions, and I also agree it was just a rookie mistake. But if people aren't criticized when they make mistakes, they don't learn from them. Hopefully the hostages will be released safely, it will be no-harm no-foul, and we can move on to criticizing his next mistake.

[gerryhatrick]

Well I am guessing most hostages would want the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be involved in the attempts to rescue them.

Oh, so THAT'S what getting up in front of the press and running his mouth was...an attempt to rescue them! Thanks for explaining that for us shoop.

[gerryhatrick]

Uhhh, didn't I say that MacKay made a mistake in giving the families false hope?

But you don't address the other point. Why not? Is it because...beneath your partisanship...you know it's true?

[shoop]

Actually I did address the point about endangering the hostages lives. He didn't and nobody has provided any proof to say that he was. Oh there was one article posted with the CBC saying that *other people* said he endangered the hostages lives.

That was histrionics and unfair. McKay did the right thing by apologizing to the hostages families for raising false hopes.

The other point was just sad histrionics wihout support. Any counterpoint other than screaming *partisanship* gerry?

But you don't address the other point. Why not? Is it because...beneath your partisanship...you know it's true?

[gerryhatrick]

That is quite the stretch.

If I get you correctly it breaks down like this. Hostage-takers were not leaning towards harming the hostages. The Minister of Foreign Affairs offer encouragement to the families about hopes for that the hostages will be return safely. The hostage-takers hear this, so decide to harm the hostages?

The minister also said he believed the hostages had been moved several times. How was that giving encouragement to the families?

Look, you can toss out that you think Peter Mackay was trying to offer encouragement and hope to the families. That's all very nice. Bravo Mr. Mackay.

Put that asside though and honestly consider if you think drawing attention to the hostages as he did is - as a rule - considered helpful, unhelpful, or neutral in terms of endangering hostages.

Do not continue to argue as you have....that unless there is specific proof of specific harm caused (ie. "hostage takers hear this, so decide to harm the hostages"), because obviously at this point there isn't any.

It is not neccessary to prove the harm though.

Mackay was critisized for making comments that MIGHT endanger the hostages. The fact that his comments might endanger the hostages is common sense.

Here are possibilities in regards to that:

Hostage takers get wrong impression (as others did) from Mackays words that new information is being gathered on them. They decide to cut and run, kill the hostages and flee.

or...

Hostage takers hear Mackay say "we" think they've moved several times. Hostage takers start to feel vulnerable and kill the hostages and flee. Or decide not to move anymore....which is perhaps the most opportune moment to rescue that might present itself.

or...

Hostage takers realize that they have a lot of attention from Canada...helped to that conclusion by Mackay opening his mouth. They decide to make new demands as a result.

Do you see the common sense in these scenarios?

Don't tell me you don't see the folly in what he did from a hostage safety standpoint. I'm not "screaming" partisanship lad, but it's hard to see any other explanation for your defense of the undefensable.

[shoop]

Have any hostage-takers ever killed their hostages under the scenarios you have outlined?

That is a fair and honest question.

Are there experts on hostage-taking who have echoed those concerns?

I honestly haven't seen any.

I appreciate you are trying to paint Peter MacKay in the worst possible light. But creating a bunch of *what ifs* without historical or academic support is pretty sad.

Let's try these common sense scenarios.

1. The hostage-takers see that the new Candian Government is serious about winning the freedom of the hostages and begin negotiations.

2. The families of the hostage-takers feel thankfully that the Minister of Foreign Affairs took the time to talk to them personally about the confusion caused by the Minister's original statement. Their spirits are buoyed by this personal conversation.

3. The NGOs in Iraq working to free the hostages realize this situation is at the top of the new Minister's list of things to accomplish and re-double their efforts to free the hostages.

Oh yeah, wouldn't your second scenario actually be considered a good thing to arise out of the Minister's statement. Given that it provides the *most opportune* time to free the hostages, in your words.

Put that asside though and honestly consider if you think drawing attention to the hostages as he did is - as a rule - considered helpful, unhelpful, or neutral in terms of endangering hostages.

Do not continue to argue as you have....that unless there is specific proof of specific harm caused (ie. "hostage takers hear this, so decide to harm the hostages"), because obviously at this point there isn't any.

It is not neccessary to prove the harm though.

Mackay was critisized for making comments that MIGHT endanger the hostages. The fact that his comments might endanger the hostages is common sense.

Here are possibilities in regards to that:

Hostage takers get wrong impression (as others did) from Mackays words that new information is being gathered on them. They decide to cut and run, kill the hostages and flee.

or...

Hostage takers hear Mackay say "we" think they've moved several times. Hostage takers start to feel vulnerable and kill the hostages and flee. Or decide not to move anymore....which is perhaps the most opportune moment to rescue that might present itself.

or...

Hostage takers realize that they have a lot of attention from Canada...helped to that conclusion by Mackay opening his mouth. They decide to make new demands as a result.

Do you see the common sense in these scenarios?

Don't tell me you don't see the folly in what he did from a hostage safety standpoint. I'm not "screaming" partisanship lad, but it's hard to see any other explanation for your defense of the undefensable.

[Spike22]

Shoop rhymes with what? Oh yeah poop.

[gerryhatrick]

Have any hostage-takers ever killed their hostages under the scenarios you have outlined?

That is a fair and honest question.

It's not relevant. The principle that my scenarios explain..the concept behind them is common sense.

Why do you not address that?

As I wrote:

"Put that asside though and honestly consider if you think drawing attention to the hostages as he did is - as a rule - considered helpful, unhelpful, or neutral in terms of endangering hostages."

If you consider that a question, what is your answer?

Are there experts on hostage-taking who have echoed those concerns?

I honestly haven't seen any.

The fact that you haven't seen any is also irrelavent. The idea that if you draw attention to something you create more attention which can be noted by the hostage takers is undeniable.

The effect of that on the hostage-takers is unknown, but common sense tells you it might be negative.

That's why it's generally considered a bad idea to talk about hostage situations in public.

How could anyone think that creating buzz in the media could possibly be a good thing??

[geoffrey]

Again, I insist it makes no real difference to anyone that understands that the kidnappers don't watch CBC.

There is only a media stir in Canada, anywhere else in the world no one knows anything about it.

Stop being so egotistical to believe that anyone gives a shit about what MacKay says to the point that it gets broadcast on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera. Canada is a irrelevant mumble in the international scene.

MacKay did nothing by making those comments, no one was listening.

[BubberMiley]

MacKay did nothing by making those comments, no one was listening.

Probably, fortunately, his comments went unnoticed and there will be no negative repercussions. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't watch what he says on the assumption that no one is listening.

[gerryhatrick]

Again, I insist it makes no real difference to anyone that understands that the kidnappers don't watch CBC.

It's not necessary for them to watch the CBC. They google, perhaps? It's beyond the pale to think they're not in tune to the reaction to thier hostage taking.

Do you believe they're in a cave without electricity?

Stop being so egotistical to believe that anyone gives a shit about what MacKay says to the point that it gets broadcast on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera.

Egotistical? Exactly how is it "egotistical" of me to say that Mackay might get noticed by the hostage takers?

That makes no sense.

And it's not necessary for what Mackay says to get "broadcast on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera". Don't be so naive.

[shoop]

Well, I guess this at least proves that your arrogance, dickishness and total rudeness isn't just directed at me.

First you jumped on me to admit *some* fault by MacKay, which I had already done. Then you try and get me to come up with a lame answer to some stupid general rule, which wasn't really related to the situation at hand.

Then you jump on geoff for questioning your *common sense*.

You clearly, clearly have some anger issues gerry...

Egotistical? Exactly how is it "egotistical" of me to say that Mackay might get noticed by the hostage takers?

That makes no sense.

And it's not necessary for what Mackay says to get "broadcast on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera". Don't be so naive.

[Canuck E Stan]

Shoop rhymes with what? Oh yeah poop.

....and SPIKE two two rhymes with what?

Same thing isn't it, Spike poo-poo

[BubberMiley]

Then you jump on geoff for questioning your *common sense*.

Geoff wasn't questioning his common sense; he was displaying his lack of it. And who wouldn't get angry debating someone who says it's "egotistical" to think that hostage-takers might listen to what their captives' foreign minister says about them?

[shoop]

BM if you mean that gerry was displaying gerry's lack of common sense .... I completely agree.

Geoff's point was that it is egotistical of Canadians to think any non-Canadians ever watch the CBC. As much as Canadians whine about American's self-focus, we really need to take a look at ourselves.

When it comes down to it nobody has pointed out anybody who actually said that what MacKay did was a bad thing. Other than certain certified Harper-haters on this board.

Geoff wasn't questioning his common sense; he was displaying his lack of it. And who wouldn't get angry debating someone who says it's "egotistical" to think that hostage-takers might listen to what their captives' foreign minister says about them?

[BubberMiley]

But you had to resort to crying bully when faced with the logic that Mackay's loose lips could have been a bad thing (and I would take that further by saying it's logical that anybody criticizing Mackay could be further jeopardizing the hostages by making the issue more visible than it already is--maybe that's why nobody made a fuss). In this day and age, today's CBC report is often tomorrow's Reuters: you never know who your audience is.

Maybe we should shut up about it too.

[shoop]

Crying bully?

I have said repeatedly that MacKay made an error in getting the family's hopes up. He admitted the error and dealt with it.

Nobody has provided anything but wild conjecture as to how MacKay endangered the hostages. Without some sort of support, it is just chalked up to CPC-hating. Because that is what it comes across as.

Does CBC really lead the Reuter's news reports that often?

But you had to resort to crying bully when faced with the logic that Mackay's loose lips could have been a bad thing (and I would take that further by saying it's logical that anybody criticizing Mackay could be further jeopardizing the hostages by making the issue more visible than it already is--maybe that's why nobody made a fuss).

[Hicksey]

I think this whole thread is funny because you're all standing around taking turns beating the same straw man.

Does anyone really think that terrorists care what a single politician says? And a politician from a nation that as far as military force is concerned is impotent compared to the rest of the world?

Are they just sitting there waiting for a Canadian politician to give them an excuse to kill their hostage?

This is just funny.

[shoop]

Am I the strawman?

Thank you for succinctly saying what I have been trying to get across to these Harper-haters...

I think this whole thread is funny because you're all standing around taking turns beating the same straw man.

Does anyone really think that terrorists care what a single politician says? And a politician from a nation that as far as military force is concerned is impotent compared to the rest of the world?

Are they just sitting there waiting for a Canadian politician to give them an excuse to kill their hostage?

This is just funny.

[Hicksey]

The premise that the terrorists give a crap what any politican says is the fallacy. Take a look at Italy. They elected a new left leaning government that pulled out (read:appeased) as demanded by the terrorists and still got hit multiple times in their subway system.

They've proven over and over they don't care what the talking heads say. They're fighting a war. They make a demand and once they get what they want strike anyway to try to make the whole thing look like a show of force.

Am I the strawman?

Thank you for succinctly saying what I have been trying to get across to these Harper-haters...

I think this whole thread is funny because you're all standing around taking turns beating the same straw man.

Does anyone really think that terrorists care what a single politician says? And a politician from a nation that as far as military force is concerned is impotent compared to the rest of the world?

Are they just sitting there waiting for a Canadian politician to give them an excuse to kill their hostage?

This is just funny.

[gerryhatrick]

Geoff's point was that it is egotistical of Canadians to think any non-Canadians ever watch the CBC.

Actually, no. He had said: "Stop being so egotistical to believe that anyone gives a shit about what MacKay says to the point that it gets broadcast on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera."

And both you and Geoff miss the point anyway. It doesn't matter that it was the CBC (or reuters, or Globe & Mail, or Sun Media...all of which covered Mackay's comments and apology).

It's the media buzz. If you google Canadian Hostages you get quite a lot of media buzz thanks to Peter Mackay.

When it comes down to it nobody has pointed out anybody who actually said that what MacKay did was a bad thing. Other than certain certified Harper-haters on this board.

You're turning quite ugly shoop. Your denial of the obvious has been called out, and it seems to have made you quite angry. Pretty much every post of yours is including name-calling now.

The simple and UNDENIABLE point is that making comments to the media as Mackay did creates media buzz. That cannot be disputed.

The next simple and UNDENIALBE point is that nobody can predict how this increased media buzz might affect the behavior of the hostage-takers. Knowing thier hostage-taking has reached a higher profile could affect thier behavior.

That is why it's generally accepted that authorities do not draw uneccessary attention to these situations.