- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.
Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...
You have large sums of money available to fund terrorist organizations?I'd leave the country and make the payment, collect my loved one and deduct it from my taxes, sense the whole fact that the Islamic state and other groups are running freely about the ME wreaking havoc because of the power vacuums created by US policy in the region.
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.
Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...
No, they shouldn't allow it. But it's not about the money, it's about our country's resolve not to negotiate with terrorists. PERIOD
You have large sums of money available to fund terrorist organizations?
President Bush let people go as well. The war is over this was a prisoner exchange.And yet Obama gave into a ransom of, iirc, 5 known terrorists for what many people believe to be a traitor. I may be wrong but I don't recall ANY other President doing such an idiotic exchange.
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.
Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...
President Bush let people go as well. The war is over this was a prisoner exchange.
No, they shouldn't allow it. But it's not about the money, it's about our country's resolve not to negotiate with terrorists. PERIOD
95% of the ransom demands quoted in the mainstream media of these groups in the ME don't make any sense, and so they're probably not authentic.
According to these reports, the captors ask for more $$ than the families could possibly afford and/or borrow/raise, which renders the demand meaningless. Hello?!
In the fog of war where propoganda is slung around everywhere by all sides (yes, including by the US gummint), it's impossible to know who's kidnapping who and who's asking for what.
That being said, paying any money to someone claiming to promise to release a hostage in return is an incredibly stupid idea since there's no way to conclusively verify the identities of the recipients.
The war is over? Since when? Last I knew the War on Terror was still an on going issue.
ABC News ~ War on Terror
And only an idiot would trade what is considered 5 of the most dangerous terrorists for one soldier that is/was suspected of being a traitor. I know Bush was an idiot but I don't recall him ever making such a ****'d up exchange do you?
From what I've read, classifying the Bergdahl Five as some of the most dangerous terrorists is a bit of an overstatement.
You have large sums of money available to fund terrorist organizations?
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.
Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...
Yes, but only if it's someone I personally know.
I don't know, Mullah Mohammad Fazl, a man who is wanted for war crimes by the UN for murdering thousands of Shiites seem pretty darn dangerous to me.
New York Times ~ Mullah Mohammad Fazl
But we negotiate with terrorists all the time, and have for a long time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?