Giving them $135 million to fund their efforts to form the caliphate is ludicrous. Negotiating with them because they might be successful is offensive, but I realize diplomacy occasionally requires distasteful conversations.
In this case, I think you are being naïve. No one believes they were seriously trying to negotiate. And at this point, what would we negotiate for? Give us back everyone you’ve kidnapped, withdraw from Iraq, and retreat to, where, exactly? I don’t think anyone wants the sadistic barbarians. I think we, and everyone else involved, would settle for their unconditional surrender at this point.
Pretty sure they just replaced Al Qaeda on the top of our “to do” list.
It was his choice to go walking around Iraq, who cares? Sad for him and his family, but if you don’t want to get kidnapped and beheaded, stay out of Iraq. Giving ISIS the money sets a bad precedent as well and I think we helped them out enough with all of our military vehicles they’re now in control of.
Repeating: You present no meaningful argument demonstrating bombings have made them more likely to kidnap Americans. Terrorist groups primarily kidnap for financial or political reasons, sometimes both if they can get both. Continental European hostages are seen as highly valuable financially because while many continental countries won’t pay directly for hostages they will help facilitate say, a large corporate employer of a hostage or a coalition of the family + some interested benefactor paying a ransom. The American government will not negotiate on financials at all for hostages, and actually will (and did with Foley) tell the family that paying a ransom is technically illegal (although in the instances private concerns in America have paid the ransoms I’m not aware of prosecutions.) Thus Americans (and British) citizens are seen as political hostages. Foley was always seen as a political hostage.
They made very little effort to reach out to anyone to get money for Foley. He was being held for political purposes and yes, events conspired to make him valuable politically. But this is the same calculus that existed before the highly appropriate and desirable bombing of ISIS formations in Iraq.
He was captured in Syria, but I have similar feelings. I don’t feel that bad for Foley, it’s like roaming in Pictland or Germania as a Roman, the Romans built walls because some places were simply too barbaric and that’s what almost all Muslim countries are these days.
I’m not sure why you want to stake out the position that the US bombing of ISIL positions makes Americans no more likely to be kidnap victims than before, but suit yourself. I would agree that any American wondering in or near an ISIL position would be in danger regardless, but ISIL can also make more or less of an effort to seek out kidnap victims of a given nationality.
Maybe you didn’t mean to, but your post sure reads like you are equating Syria with “almost all Muslim countries these days.”
There is no way the would get anywhere near that much. In most kidnapping negotiations I have read about, the final amount paid is pennies on the dollar compared to the initial asking amount.
Do you have a cite for this fact? Regardless, I repeatedly said such a decision on this specific matter should be left to the experts.
Maybe, maybe not. These things have a way of changing pretty rapidly.
Definitely not. The guy was not working for the US government, he had a private employer. The Right is whining that the government didn’t do enough to get him released. It isn’t the responsibility of the federal government to go and winkle out everybody who gets in trouble in a war zone that we aren’t involved in.
There are a variety of these out there, essentially all variations on the theme. Starting price too high, the feeling that the negotiation were not serious.
It would appear that Foley’s employer was doing quite a bit behind the scenes. Can we broaden this a bit. Beyond the government responsibility, if the employer is also off funding ransom, or rescue, does that also cause the same problems? Or should I start a new thread?
Sure we should negotiate. Release the guy unharmed, and we won’t dip your corpses in pig blood when we kill you. Otherwise, you’ll meet Allah wrapped in bacon.
I don’t care what would make an imbecile roll over in his grave. He had a similar view to the Islamic world as you and got what such stupidity can lead to; the Islamic world is extremely barbaric and backwards. If not for trade with the West they would not have running water, electricity or et cetera, and most of the countries only have minimal of either of those. They are a medieval people that only begrudgingly accept parts of the modern world.
I don’t blame them or feel badly towards them because of it, if 1400s Europe suddenly had a technologically and industrially advanced Islamic world try to impose Enlightenment values through massively superior force I doubt that’d have gone well.
Aside from Turkey (which also for decades explicitly rejected Islamism) I can’t think of any Islamic countries in Eurasia that defy what I’m saying. There are some outlier countries like Indonesia, kinda sorta, but I don’t mean far flung parts of the Muslim world but the traditional, historical parts of the Muslim world.
Martin, I get what you’re saying, but (as I’m sure you know) Indonesia is the largest predominantly Muslim country in the world. Calling it an “outlier” only makes sense in some contexts. Yes, it’s pretty far from Mecca…but more to the point, it’s not in the news much lately, because bad news (especially bad news for Americans) is news that you read. So, this skews your idea of where the “center” of Islam lies, and what’s going on in this “center.”
Because, as everyone knows, bacon has the exact same effect on Muslims that garlic and holy water has on vampires, and there’s no possible way that a person of faith could argue their way out of a claim that desecrating their corpse against their will after being murdered would send them to Hell.
On which note, I understand that ISIS has come up with a foolproof plan to defeat America by dropping steaks on us once a week, since everyone knows that Christians go to Hell if they touch meat on Friday.
You don’t know the meaning of the word. Threatening to desecrate the corpses of rapists, murderers and slavers is not bigotry against Muslims. That’s not to say that many Muslims wouldn’t take it personally and call it bigotry against all Muslims, but that’s because there are too many people in the Muslim world who take everything personally.
Yeah, like this load of crap from you isn’t bigoted, too, hey? It most certainly is bigotry against Muslims when your chosen method of barbarism (and make no mistake, that’s what it is) is based on what you think you know about Islam and Muslims.
Can we have some cites? I suspect that a really good military strike will end, or slow down, (which, done enough, will *end *something) terrorism.
Too often, it is the US demands to negotiate that increase, or at least keep up, the levels of terror. Interference to make sure that the balance of power in the ME remains the status quo.
Didn’t Israel have Arafat ready for a hole in the ground, and the US interfered with that, only to get us back in the same cycle, resulting in today’s Gaza mess?
It’s different because of its history, Indonesia became Muslim through essentially a type of missionary activity (it spread from Muslim traders to various local rulers in Indonesia, who made sure their populaces adopted it), and has a far different history. The portion of the Muslim world in Eurasia, specifically centered around the Middle East and what some call the “Greater Middle East” have a very closely related history and in fact a series of Empires actually united many of these countries under a single ruler for a long part of history (Umayyad / Fatimid / Abbasid Caliphates, the Ottoman Empire.) Indonesia is far outside that history. There’s nothing about being part of the Muslim world that makes most Muslim countries backwards; certainly continued adherence to a primitive style of Islam that hasn’t undergone an enlightenment or been moderated for the modern age (as Christianity has in all the good countries of the world that have large Christian populations) is a symptom of the ills of these countries, but no more the cause of it than Christianity was the cause of Europeans being barbaric in the year 1200.