should terrorist kidnappers be paid ?

Hard to tell a family whose loved ones have been abducted that they shouldn't pay.

There aren't enough options here. I say no, but not because they will kill them anyway (that's not necessarily true). I say no because it encourages other people to kidnap for ransom (but you're right, few families of the kidnapped would be so ready to say that). Also, why are we singling out terrorist kidnappers? The same question applies to all kidnappers who are willing to talk ransom.

Godfather. said:

PJ_Soul said:

There are enough options here. I say no, but not because they will kill them anyway (that's not necessarily true). I say no because it encourages other people to kidnap for ransom (but you're right, few families of the kidnapped would be so ready to say that). Also, why are we singling out terrorist kidnappers? The same question applies to all kidnappers who are willing to talk ransom.

you bet, but but the article used the term terrorist...so used that.

Godfather.

Ha, I didn't even realize there was a link there. Okay, well there are two sides and I agree with both, kind of. I don't think they should be paid because it encourages more kidnapping and legitimizes the tactic. But since they're just saying that it's the families making the decision and paying.... I don't know if you can force a family not to do it. If they try, then families will take matters into their own hands anyway, no? That could cause even more problems, especially if the families trying to pay against the government's advice will be punished for trying to save their loved one.... It's really a rock and a hard place I suppose. I still have to say they government needs to have a no exceptions rules against it, but no rules stopping families from trying to help independently. I don't think the government should be involved in helping the families negotiate.

I was shocked, btw, when Obama actually went through with that prisoner release last year in order to get that soldier back (was it from the Taliban? Can't even remember now). I didn't think that was a good idea at all.

Last-12-Exit said:

The government isn't going to pay, are they? I took it as the government won't stop the families from paying.

That's my impression from the article as well, but it sounds like the government wants to actively facilitate the families in doing so, which I also don't think they should do.

On the greater scale, I would say no, don't pay ransoms. However, if I had a family member that was kidnapped, I would do everything in my power to bring them back safely. I can't fault those that would want to pay the ransom.

Last-12-Exit said:

The government isn't going to pay, are they? I took it as the government won't stop the families from paying.

Right. This isn't about the gov't paying ransoms. It is about the gov't not blocking families from paying, and not prosecuting them for paying ransoms. I'm glad Obama cleared the way for families to have this as an option that might help to get their loved ones home. It would be a horrible precedent for our government to pay ransoms, but that's not what is being done here. Kudos to POTUS on this one.

Plus they would just use the money to buy more weapons to kill more people.

It looks like the Cult is having a busy week. Drowning people in cages. Setting people on fire alive. Blowing peoples heads off with Running Man like neck explosives. Cutting peoples heads off in France. Shooting tourists in Tunisia. They still have the weekend to go.