The first rule of the game is "do not give in to the terrorist's demands".
So how come Senator Gordon appeared - initially and for some time - to be in-charge of, much less, part of the crisis committee handling the ICRC kidnapping case? His statements came out as if he was giving out the orders. At one point, he even sounded like a spoiled brat who wanted his playmate banished from a game - when Gen Sabban was not following his "directions".
He repeatedly said that it was not his choice if he was the one being contacted by the Abu Sayyaf. Yet, he was obviously 'elated' by the 'importance' accorded to him by the terrorists. As someone who has presidential plans for 2010, he cannot deny that he has a lot of free mileage to gain from the on-going media coverage and even after this incident. How much part sincere and part acting he showed during all these, we will never find out.
We can say that this case was handled 'by the book', except that it was from the book of must nots!
We know that in cases like this, only the designated negotiator is allowed to communicate with the perpetrators. His being the national chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross makes it the more reason why he must not be allowed to deal with the abu sayyaf because he is an affected party.
If he was truly concerned with the lives of the hostages, he should have given-up his supposed direct line with Albader Parad to the designated government negotiator, instead of trying to play the hero himself. He is not even a certified hostage negotiator, in the first place. He shouldn't have stuck his dick where he musn't.
As a result, the other side used the gullible Gordon, who can be blamed for the group's escape from the military cordon. If its true that he was fooled into believing that he was talking to Parad, when in fact he wasn't, this makes it more embarrassing for him.
From that moment, the responsibility for any dire consequence that would befall the hostages should fall hard on Dick's lap.
So how come Senator Gordon appeared - initially and for some time - to be in-charge of, much less, part of the crisis committee handling the ICRC kidnapping case? His statements came out as if he was giving out the orders. At one point, he even sounded like a spoiled brat who wanted his playmate banished from a game - when Gen Sabban was not following his "directions".
He repeatedly said that it was not his choice if he was the one being contacted by the Abu Sayyaf. Yet, he was obviously 'elated' by the 'importance' accorded to him by the terrorists. As someone who has presidential plans for 2010, he cannot deny that he has a lot of free mileage to gain from the on-going media coverage and even after this incident. How much part sincere and part acting he showed during all these, we will never find out.
We can say that this case was handled 'by the book', except that it was from the book of must nots!
We know that in cases like this, only the designated negotiator is allowed to communicate with the perpetrators. His being the national chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross makes it the more reason why he must not be allowed to deal with the abu sayyaf because he is an affected party.
If he was truly concerned with the lives of the hostages, he should have given-up his supposed direct line with Albader Parad to the designated government negotiator, instead of trying to play the hero himself. He is not even a certified hostage negotiator, in the first place. He shouldn't have stuck his dick where he musn't.
As a result, the other side used the gullible Gordon, who can be blamed for the group's escape from the military cordon. If its true that he was fooled into believing that he was talking to Parad, when in fact he wasn't, this makes it more embarrassing for him.
From that moment, the responsibility for any dire consequence that would befall the hostages should fall hard on Dick's lap.
Posts
