ISIS beheads journalist, James Foley

Michael Wolfe · Aug 20, 2014

Dommo said:
What we need is for European countries to quit paying ransoms.

You want to know why Journalists get kidnapped? It's because they sell for a few million per head. This is one of the more profitable ways that ISIS and other terrorists fund their operations. If we want to stop the kidnapping, we need to keep people from paying ransoms. Take the profit out, and there's not much incentive to kidnap anyone.

On the surface, this does seem logical. But I wonder: if European governments are willing to pay ransoms while the American government refuses, why wouldn't a group like ISIS simply focus their kidnapping on Europeans and ignore Americans?

The issue may be a little more complex than what you suggest. Seems like the money is nice if you can get it, but there are political motivations at play as well, that are fueling these sorts of kidnappings and killings. IMO, of course.

Alessandra Kelley · Aug 20, 2014

Michael Wolfe said:
On the surface, this does seem logical. But I wonder: if European governments are willing to pay ransoms while the American government refuses, why wouldn't a group like ISIS simply focus their kidnapping on Europeans and ignore Americans?

I am confused. Isn't that what is wanted?

If not paying ransoms means your people are not kidnapping targets, then shouldn't the behavior of not paying ransoms spread?

Dommo · Aug 20, 2014

They keep on kidnapping Americans, because they hope that with every Foley they can sway the American public enough to get the US government to cave to ransom demands, and in effect capitulate to them. The money is a big driver, but just as much is the idea that they are able to command the USA to do something.

Kidnapping journalists is ideal because of the nature of media coverage. The fact that Journalists are now fair game is going to get the media worked up into a frenzy. If they can get the media lobbying the government, eventually the money is going to roll in.

Alessandra Kelley · Aug 20, 2014

"If once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

William Haskins · Aug 20, 2014

The English jihadist who beheaded the American journalist James Foley is believed to be the leader of a group of British fighters holding foreign hostages in Syria, sources have told the Guardian.

As an international manhunt got under way on Wednesday, the English-speaking militant was identified to the Guardian by one of his former hostages as the ringleader of three British jihadists thought to be the main guards of foreign nationals in Raqqa, a stronghold of Islamic State (Isis) rebels.

The militant who appeared on the Foley video, who called himself John and is believed to be from London, was said to be the main rebel negotiator during talks earlier this year to release 11 Islamic State hostages – who were eventually handed to Turkish officials after ransom demands were met.

The FBI, MI5 and Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism command were all on Wednesday night racing to identify the militant who fronted the propaganda video that showed the brutal murder of Foley, the journalist who had been missing in Syria since 2012.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/20/isis-militant-islamic-state-james-foley-guards-british

Michael Wolfe · Aug 20, 2014

Alessandra Kelley said:
If not paying ransoms means your people are not kidnapping targets, then shouldn't the behavior of not paying ransoms spread?

Of course. I'm just wondering if that's what would happen. Foley's kidnapping might seem to argue against that, since US policy of not paying ransoms failed to prevent it. OTOH, Dommo makes a fair point in response that perhaps the idea is that enough kidnapping will sway policy in the other direction.

Michael Wolfe · Aug 20, 2014

Dommo said:
They keep on kidnapping Americans, because they hope that with every Foley they can sway the American public enough to get the US government to cave to ransom demands, and in effect capitulate to them.

Again, that does make a certain amount of sense. In the case of Foley, you did have a more complicated situation though, because they had political demands they were making (ending the airstrikes).

Kidnapping journalists is ideal because of the nature of media coverage. The fact that Journalists are now fair game is going to get the media worked up into a frenzy. If they can get the media lobbying the government, eventually the money is going to roll in.

Maybe in some cases. In other cases, it seems the complete opposite. The author of this piece for example (who seems to share some of your POV, actually), notes that in many cases the kidnappers don't want media coverage at all. Including Foley's case, at least in the beginning.

Dommo · Aug 20, 2014

"If once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

Unfortunately the Europeans seem to have forgotten their own history. The Vikings used to do this all the time. This is just the modern day version.

Michael Wolfe · Aug 20, 2014

Dommo said:
Unfortunately the Europeans seem to have forgotten their own history. The Vikings used to do this all the time. This is just the modern day version.

If it's true that with Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane, then I'm not sure I understand your policy recommendation. The reference to Danegeld makes it sound like once you start paying up, there's no going back. And in that case, it makes sense to me that you'd opt for continuity, since then at least you might get your citizens returned.

Alessandra Kelley · Aug 20, 2014

Michael Wolfe said:
If it's true that with Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane, then I'm not sure I understand your policy recommendation. The reference to Danegeld makes it sound like once you start paying up, there's no going back. And in that case, it makes sense to me that you'd opt for continuity, since then at least you might get your citizens returned.

No, it means that once you pay off the criminals, they know you are a proven source of money and will keep on committing the same crime to squeeze more out of you.

It's the plot of ten thousand blackmail mysteries.

In theory (and I am not sure about this because people are weird and not all that predictable), not paying ransom should eventually tell kidnappers that kidnapping is futile.

But paying them means they will never leave you alone, ever.

Michael Wolfe · Aug 20, 2014

Alessandra Kelley said:
No, it means that once you pay off the criminals, they know you are a proven source of money and will keep on committing the same crime to squeeze more out of you.

I'm actually agreeing with you, it means that they'll keep on doing it. That's why I'm not sure I understand why European governments should change their policy. If paying up is a point of no return, then what's the upside in suddenly refusing?

In theory (and I am not sure about this because people are weird and not all that predictable), not paying ransom should eventually tell kidnappers that kidnapping is futile.

Maybe, if you wait long enough. Maybe it would mean that westerners who run into ISIS would simply be killed right away, instead of being taken captive. Given the cruelty of groups like ISIS, that does seem plausible, no?

Dommo · Aug 20, 2014

Michael,

It's also because by paying ransom, you are legitimizing the tactics and acts of the terrorist groups. Legitimacy or any kind of step where you give a terrorist organization a means of deflecting responsibility for deaths, is exactly what you don't want. Right now, ISIS is responsible for murdering Foley, but if we pay them, and then later decide to change course, WE will be the ones murdering the hostages. This is the exact kind of catch 22 situation ISIS is hoping for.

From a policy standpoint, I'd make it official government policy that we'd never negotiate with terrorists. We proceed politically, and militarily, as though the hostages are already dead. If we can rescue them, bonus, but if not so be it. Whatever we do, we cannot let ISIS dictate our options.

Michael Wolfe · Aug 20, 2014

Dommo said:
Right now, ISIS is responsible for murdering Foley, but if we pay them, and then later decide to change course, WE will be the ones murdering the hostages. This is the exact kind of catch 22 situation ISIS is hoping for.

Sorry, I'm not quite following. Earlier I thought you were saying European governments should, in fact, change course. But this makes it sound like that would turn them into murderers.

Whatever we do, we cannot let ISIS dictate our options.

Believe me, I'm very sympathetic to this sentiment. I would be OK with trying to mitigate the political cost by paying ransoms under the table, through an intermediary, at least in cases where that's an option.

I think it's a complicated issue. To me, the most striking example of how difficult it is can be found in Israel. The Israelis certainly have a reputation for being tough on terrorism of all kinds, and they try to project that image as much as possible. But they also pay ransoms in kidnapping cases. Sometimes you have to make painful concessions in these kinds of situations. Again, IMO.

Dommo · Aug 20, 2014

You don't negotiate. That's where Israel has fucked up. Other than public pressure, they've never had a real reason to negotiate. Gilad Shilat should never have been released, and the agreement was a kick in the teeth to a 100+ Israeli's who died at the hands of some of the released prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange#Israel

I'm sorry, but anyway you portray this, the Israelis were fucking dumb to pay the ransom.

Michael Wolfe · Aug 20, 2014

I was OK with the Shalit deal, but regardless, here's a question. Is there an example of a country that refused to pay ransoms and succeeded in preventing kidnappings?

Certainly for the US, it doesn't seem to have worked so far. I suspect that's a large part of why European governments would be hesitant to change course on this issue. The alternative is too speculative. You end up facing a future of uncertainty, where you weather a number of kidnappings and just hope that they stop at some point. That doesn't sound like sound policy, imo. But it does sound naive, by and large.

raburrell · Aug 21, 2014

To understand the Shalit deal you have to understand the societal agreement underpining the Israeli population's view of the IDF. There's a very paternal relationship there and a strong expectation that the government does everything it can to protect its sons and daughters. That said, a) I'm critical of the optics of any deal where one man is deemed to be worth over a thousand people who are already marginalized, and b) there's some evidence Israeli killed a captured soldier to avoid a repeat of the even this time around.

The whole idea that we don't negotiate with terrorists is a bit of pretty posturing anyhow, as we do it when it suits us. There's no doubt in any case that kidnapping is a big money maker for ISIS and that's unfortunate.

robjvargas · Aug 21, 2014

Michael Wolfe said:
I was OK with the Shalit deal, but regardless, here's a question. Is there an example of a country that refused to pay ransoms and succeeded in preventing kidnappings?

Gotta reject that question. The literal prevention of an act like kidnapping, that's an impossibility. From child custody disputes to sexual motives, to political and monetary goals, there's always going to be kidnappings in a world of more than 7 billion population (heck, in a world of more than 5 people, but that's a discussion for another time).

Can't answer a question with unrealistic criteria.

Michael Wolfe · Aug 21, 2014

robjvargas said:
Gotta reject that question. The literal prevention of an act like kidnapping, that's an impossibility. From child custody disputes to sexual motives, to political and monetary goals, there's always going to be kidnappings in a world of more than 7 billion population (heck, in a world of more than 5 people, but that's a discussion for another time).

Can't answer a question with unrealistic criteria.

Maybe you can't prevent everything, I agree, but that doesn't need to be the standard, imo. You can simply reduce the number and justify a policy on that basis, as well.

I'm just wondering if a policy of never paying ransoms can be justified by pointing to an example of its being put into practice. As an alternative, I could even leave out the last part of the question and simply ask, "Is there a country that's always refused to pay ransoms?"

William Haskins · Aug 21, 2014

Experts warned that British extremists fighting across Iraq and Syria were among the most “vicious and callous” killers in the region.

Shiraz Maher, of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College, London, said the more than 500 Britons known to have travelled to Syria and Iraq have become more “brazen” and “arrogant” in recent months.

The beheading of Mr Foley at the hands of a British jihadist suggests militants from the UK are no longer merely foot soldiers within Isil, but have worked their way up to senior positions within the organisation.

Another Briton, Waheed Majeed, carried out a suicide bombing in Syria earlier this year.

Mr Maher also warned that their bloodthirstiness meant they would pose a “very real threat” in the UK if they returned here battle-hardened from waging “jihad”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...eaded-journalist-is-Londoner-called-John.html

c.e.lawson · Aug 21, 2014

william, the article you just quoted also says around half of those 500 have now returned to the U.K.

And the article I quoted earlier says this:

The ISIS members who hold European passports are able to travel freely across Europe and the U.S. and are prepared to do the unthinkable. There are hundreds of Germans, Spaniards, Belgians, French.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/opinion/ghitis-isis-foley-beheading/

Those are two of the many reasons why we (hopefully NOT just the U.S.) need to do more to not just contain them, but to stop them.

William Haskins · Aug 21, 2014

western democracies have provided fertile ground to these scum for radicalization and indoctrination, usually while on the social welfare teat.

"we will use your democracy to destroy your democracy." - omar bakri muhammed, who for years was allowed to indoctrinate and conspire in the open in the UK

firedrake · Aug 21, 2014

It appears that there's some US wannabe Jihadis too.

I saw something last week. Can't remember which online paper it was, but it was intimating that these buggers are already 'home' and planning attacks. There were photos of cellphones with a 'we are here' type message, being held in front of the White House and I can't remember the location of the other photo, I think it was somewhere in the UK.

I'm not sure that being a social welfare recipient is a common factor. I've seen articles about UK wannabes who've come from good families, who had planned to go to University, etc. The 'recruits' could just as easily be disaffected, bored rich kids wanting to kill infidels for a kick.

William Haskins · Aug 21, 2014

Al-Awlaki said: "Leave the farming to the people of the book [Jews and Christians], you go and spread the religion of Allah [through jihad]; they will farm and they will feed you; they will pay Jizya [extra tax], they will pay Kharaaj [tribute], if the sustenance of the Prophet Mohammed was through Ghaneema [plunder] it must be the best and better than farming, business, shepherding and better than anything else because Mohammed said: 'My sustenance comes beneath the shadow of my spear.'"

Accordingly, the British-born Choudary states that Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of Jizya, an extra tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims, and a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

In another video, Choudary says: "We take the Jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [Allah is great]. We take the money. " He then adds: "Hopefully there's no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this."

Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a rather comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for by British taxpayers, year after year. In 2010, for example, The Sun reported that he takes home more than £25,000 ($38,000) a year in welfare benefits.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3605/uk-unemployment-jihad#

raburrell · Aug 21, 2014

Yeah, we have our share - there are the John Walker Lindh types, who tend to come from wealthy liberal families. There are those like the two numbskulls who murdered two cops at a Walmart a month or two ago (but they were white and used guns, so therefore people don't see them as terrorists).

As much as the ISIS cretins need stomping, I really, really, wish the urge to grant them the notoriety they so desperately seek wasn't being so readily met. They're disaffected sadists. Treat them like any other criminal or violent individual and stop feeding their delusions that they're speshul.

Monkey · Aug 21, 2014

I've seen this story several places, but this one has the best pics:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/0...-down-terrified-islamic-state-killers-images/

I'm all for this as a way to combat these terrorists.

ISIS beheads journalist, James Foley

Jambo Bwana

Sophipygian

On Mac's double secret probation.

Sophipygian

poet

Jambo Bwana

Jambo Bwana

On Mac's double secret probation.

Jambo Bwana

Sophipygian

Jambo Bwana

On Mac's double secret probation.

Jambo Bwana

On Mac's double secret probation.

Jambo Bwana

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Jambo Bwana

poet

poet

practical experience, FTW

poet

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Is me.