Well obviously we should try to prevent hostage situations in the first place, but the entire point of this discussion is what to do when they occur.
"The Associated Press report does not indicate who paid the ransom for Fowler and Guay".There is no evidence here either.
I know we tend to mistrust our governments these days and ransoms may well have been paid. But I'm also very reluctant to trust terrorist groups, or any Mid East agencies.
Well obviously we should try to prevent hostage situations in the first place, but the entire point of this discussion is what to do when they occur.
If terrorists find that holding hostages is a successful way to get money, they're going to use their power to take more hostages and get more money because they know that families will give in. As wrong as it feels to prohibit this sort of thing, allowing it to continue encourages terrorism.
They should be jailed and fine.Because when someone paid ransoms to terrorists they bought those terrorists weapons and paid for more members in the terrorists
army to kidnap and kill more innocent.
In May, 2001, the Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group Abu Sayyaf kidnapped Martin and Gracia Burnham, a Christian missionary couple living in the Philippines. While Bush was out in the Rose Garden making his tough-sounding speech, his administration was negotiating a ransom payment to retrieve them. They arranged an indirect payment of $300,000 to the terrorist network in exchange for the couple — which, by today’s standards should have had Oliver North and the rest of the Republicans up in arms — yet, the ones who screech the loudest now were the quietest then. To make matters worse, the trade failed: Abu Sayyaf refused to release the Burnhams, and Martin was killed when the Filipino police raided the encampment. Gracia survived and moved back to the U.S. with her children.
That Time Bush Paid a Ransom to Terrorists and the Right Said Nothing | Americans Against the Tea Party
AATP is not a citable source.
RSN is not a citable source.
I'm sorry.
Iran-Contra, as you'll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weapons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by the United States). In a clumsy and illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, the proceeds of those sales were then funneled to the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as the New York Times recalled, Reagan's fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from the Gipper himself..........
Ronald Reagan, the president who really negotiated with terrorists
Well gollly gee wiz I guess that since Bush did it then it makes it okay to basically buy terrorists a crate of guns and pay for more innocent people to be kidnapped and or killed by paying ransoms.In May, 2001, the Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group Abu Sayyaf kidnapped Martin and Gracia Burnham, a Christian missionary couple living in the Philippines. While Bush was out in the Rose Garden making his tough-sounding speech, his administration was negotiating a ransom payment to retrieve them. They arranged an indirect payment of $300,000 to the terrorist network in exchange for the couple — which, by today’s standards should have had Oliver North and the rest of the Republicans up in arms — yet, the ones who screech the loudest now were the quietest then. To make matters worse, the trade failed: Abu Sayyaf refused to release the Burnhams, and Martin was killed when the Filipino police raided the encampment. Gracia survived and moved back to the U.S. with her children.
That Time Bush Paid a Ransom to Terrorists and the Right Said Nothing | Americans Against the Tea Party
You are also buying them weapons and paying for more people to get killed.This is a difficult decision. On one hand paying ransoms just encourages more kidnappings and ransom demands. And we have A LOT of people abroad. Which makes such things easy to do.
On the other hand the families of those victims deserve to be able to help get their loved ones back.
You are also buying them weapons and paying for more people to get killed.
DailyKos is not a citable source.
*waits for motherjones next*
I disagree with you, and of course FOX News hasn't covered this, and they are the only credible source.
Well gollly gee wiz I guess that since Bush did it then it makes it okay to basically buy terrorists a crate of guns and pay for more innocent people to be kidnapped and or killed by paying ransoms.
I find it odd you think Fox is credible. I personally do not.
Nobody in my family is stupid enough to travel to places that US policy has generated such hate for Americans.
I guess you would prefer Bush to Obama then, since Obama has bombed more countries than Bush.
No, it doesn't. And that wasn't the point. USFP in the ME has been beneficial to Islamic extremists. I prefer containment, whereby we don't have these extremists running around. Nobody in my family is stupid enough to travel to places that US policy has generated such hate for Americans. Stop being stupid and you won't be asked to pony up a million to get your uncle back!
|You got something almost right. They are the MOST credible, not the ONLY credible. Poll: Fox Most Believable; CNN Least Believable - BreitbartI disagree with you, and of course FOX News hasn't covered this, and they are the only credible source. :roll:
Then you should be against people being allowed to pay ransoms to these terrorists. The terrorists are not using the money for am mortgage payment or car payments. They are not donating that money to the poor. They are not building a giant safe and filling it with money so that they can go swimming it like Scrooge McDuck.
|You got something almost right. They are the MOST credible, not the ONLY credible. Poll: Fox Most Believable; CNN Least Believable - Breitbart
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?