General Chat

i totally agree paul.they know the risks.not only has it put his life in danger but his family must be totally anxious about what has happened.what about the companies that employ them.can't they have a say whether they go or not.they know it's unsafe for them to work out therexxxx(:paul do you think i have gone abit mad on the amount of threads i have put on today?been savin them up all weekxxxxxxx(:

lisa the simple fact is that they dont like the british but they hate the americans. thats why they were done first. i have total sympathy for the families, all of them, but surely westerners should have left the country when the war started? x

the terrorist play on people's heartstrings as we are all decent humanbeings and to us this is barbaric and ruthless.the question being asked by me and my husband is why did they kill both americans first.and why the americans weren't given a chance to appeal for there survival.i think they want blair to back down and the only way to do this would be to get the genaral public to deplore him if he doesn't back downxxx(:

Maz... very well put

No, of course it's not safe to work there, it's effectively a war zone still. Those that choose to work there are either very brave, very foolish, or a combination of the two. As for giving concessions to the terrorists holding captives... that's a difficult one. The heart says yes, do whats necessary to get these people back... but the head says no.. if you do, then you set the precedent, and everyone will be fair game for the kidnappers.

in iraq at the moment,with threats of abduction and death like the two americans who were executed this week.do you think tony blair should do as the abductors say and their demands be met.if he does will it mean this could happen time and time again.what do you think?xxxx(: