May 22, 2006

Ransom Paid for Iraq Hostages.

Why do the terrorists take hostages? Because sometimes it pays.

The Times: FRANCE, Italy and Germany sanctioned the payment of $45 million in deals to free nine hostages abducted in Iraq, according to documents seen by The Times.

All three governments have publicly denied paying ransom money. But according to the documents, held by security officials in Baghdad who have played a crucial role in hostage negotiations, sums from $2.5 million to $10 million per person have been paid over the past 21 months. Among those said to have received cash ransoms was the gang responsible for seizing British hostages including Kenneth Bigley, the murdered Liverpool engineer.

There is a lot more at the above link. IÂ’m glad these people are free. My concern is we have funded the enemy and only encouraged more kidnappings. The UAE Diplomatic hostage comes to mind. There is still no word on his release. Maybe the terrorists think they can get more and are holding out for a better deal. Given this, itÂ’s a reasonable assumption.

Hat Tip : Guy who getÂ’s pissed off too easy. A note on email links. I appreciate the help. But if you send a link that does not make the blog itÂ’s just a time thing. DonÂ’t take it personally. I bet IÂ’ve sent Rusty at least 100 that didnÂ’t make it. Get over yourself.

Posted by: Howie at 03:49 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The Euro weenies have been paying off terrorists since the Barbary pirates. Then along came Thomas Jefferson, president of the new kickass country called America, and he wiped them all out rather than pay the dhimmi tax. Our first war on terror. Same thing happenning today. The Euros pay the dhimmi tax and we don't.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 04:47 PM (8e/V4)

2 More than likely the UAE Diplomat " hostage " is resting with his hookah comfortably on plush cushions while being entertained by belly-dancers and watching Al-queda training films.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 05:25 PM (FCC6c)

3 No Carlos maybe that was in some movie. If you look in Wikipedia you will find that Thomas Jefferson had to pay a ransom of 60,000 dollars at the conclusion of the First Barbary War 1805. (see aricle 2 of the treaty) in order to affect the release of some 300 American prisoners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War The Second Barbary War 1815 was somewhat more successfull they paid the USA 10000 and agreed to stop enslaving our cirtizens. However after we left the failed to honor that treaty and it took the Anglo_Dutch and a 9 hour bombardment to settle things right. this is the link to the wikipedia Second Barbary Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War

Posted by: john Ryan at May 22, 2006 09:53 PM (TcoRJ)

4 john, "Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Jefferson had advocated war against the Barbarys for years, but the peacenik president John Adams chose instead to pay the dhimmi tax. Not Jefferson's fault. When he became president he quickly ended the dhimmi tax and when GWOT on them. http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 10:21 PM (8e/V4)

5 john, but notice how you Libs always find yourself dissing your country no matter what the argument. I point out that our country's history is exceptional, you try to find a way to deny it. You're not even factual in your dissing! I guess if you're a Lib it just goes with the territory! No wonder so many people think you're all traitorous scum and want you hung from overpasses!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 10:28 PM (8e/V4)

6 I am just trying to set the historical record straight. At the end of the first Barbary Pirates War we did pay a ransom of 60000 dollars. Is that a fact ? It is in wikipedia. Carlos was a ransom of 60000 paid ? And when did we wipe them out ? Wasn't the major engagement done by the euro weenies ? the Anglo Dutch ? The ransom was paid durring the time Jefferson was president in 1805. Are these facts in dispute ? Also it was the federalists under Adams hardly a peacenik, that built up the navy, backed by New England shipbuilders and ship owners. here is more from wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson

Posted by: john Ryan at May 23, 2006 10:45 AM (FBW1e)

7 Also according to wikipedia the US continued to make payments until 1815 POlewas see the section titled Barbary Pirates and the US Navy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

Posted by: john Ryan at May 23, 2006 10:58 AM (FBW1e)

8 >>>are these facts in dispute ? Yes, they kinda are. I am not aware that a ransom was paid while Jefferson was president. It would obviously be contrary to his well-known feelings about paying such ransoms. "On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war (hmmm, sound familiar?), they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Furthermore, the euroweenies did not wipe out the Barbarys. The extent of their engagements previous to America's efforts was the occassional bombing of Barbary ports, but never as part of a campaign to end their pillaging. Too much time and trouble, easier just to pay the dhimmi tax. They were weenies then, just as they are now. Nothing has changed. It took American resolve to get the Barbary's to start signing peace treaties. Nothing has changed apparently. If you want to know more, read: Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786712325/104-9077234-3113568?v=glance&n=283155

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:20 AM (8e/V4)

9 It seems that during the War of 1812 against the Brits, the dhimmi tax was paid to the Barbarys because we couldn't afford to send a fleet over there. But once that war ended with the Brits we once again went to war with the Barbarys, and it was then that we finished the job in 1815. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War The Euroweenies apparently continued to pay the dhimmi tax until 1830. lol!!!! "It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the U.S., although some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#Barbary_pirates_and_the_U.S._Navy

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:35 AM (8e/V4)

10 Not so. Terrorists take hostages because they are to cowardly to fight straight up.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 05:27 PM (BEvWK)

11 Allways the them kidnapping people for ramson was the reason the America sent my beloved Marine Corps to kick their asses. A great tradition still in use today.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 05:35 PM (BEvWK)

12 I can agree with marines kickine their asses as being great but not the kidnapping.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 08:15 PM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
24kb generated in CPU 0.0165, elapsed 0.156 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1481 seconds, 261 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.