• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House to okay negotiating with terror groups holding U.S. hostages

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.

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.
 
"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.

Myself, a deal was made with the local govt paying the ransom.
 
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.

Thank you for clarifying the point of the OP.
 
It's a bad idea. First, if that's the case, they'll focus more on $$$ ransoms than political ones like prisoner releases or conditions.

Second, the $$$ will be alot more...good luck to the families raising it. And good luck to them actually getting their family members alive. Mexico & South America has a lot of experience with this stuff.

Third, it's not about money, it's about terrorism and leverage and emotional blackmail and public outrage. Start allowing individuals to minimize this impact and they'll either raise the stakes (as I mentioned) or come up with something else.

OTOH, this doesnt mean I think people should go to jail however it most certainly does weaken our country's position and in the end, will have even more dangerous downstream effects IMO.
 
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.

As did the removal of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad in the first place.
 
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
 
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
 
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

DailyKos is not a citable source.

*waits for motherjones next*
 
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.
 
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
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.
 
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. :roll:
 
I disagree with you, and of course FOX News hasn't covered this, and they are the only credible source.

I find it odd you think Fox is credible. I personally do not.
 
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.

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!
 
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.
 
I guess you would prefer Bush to Obama then, since Obama has bombed more countries than Bush.

I'm highly critical of both and have stated repeatedly that Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad did a far better job at containment of Islamic extremists than either Bush or Obama, and that decades of USFP in the region have been disastrous to security and beneficial for extremists. So, either the destabilization of the ME is intended USFP that transcends administrations, or successive incompetent administrations have failed, and neither is encouraging.
 
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!

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.
 
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.

Well, I am, unless it was somebody that I cared about, then I wouldn't give a **** what you or Obama said. That's just how it works.
 
Back
Top Bottom