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
“In theory we stand together in not rewarding kidnappers, but in practice it seems some administrations have parted with cash and so it puts other foreign nationals at risk from gangs who are confident that some governments do pay,” one senior envoy in the Iraqi capital said.
That’s ultimately better than going to war, though, isn’t it? Yea, diplomacy!
Could also be that the Europeans believe in the Muslim cause and are funding the “terrorists” to get the Americans out of the Middle East.
That’s not Diplomacy, that’s subjugation. Terrorists hold people hostage, terrorists get millions which will no doubt go to purchasing weapons/explosives, terrorists win. I’m not suprised that France, Italy, and Germany are on there.
I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, but I find it interesting that Germany was opposed to the war…you know, since the US found advanced avionics packages in some of the MIG and SU Iraqi aircraft…that came from Germany…and were sold while Iraq was supposed to be under a UN sanctioned embargo.
The problem is that if, say, Italy paid for a hostage, the hostage takers would then be encouraged to grab more Italians. Saving one could put more at risk.
Some government administrations spend millions to save their own people’s lives, as opposed to a few others which spend BILLIONS to get their own (and many other) people killed, all the while remaining perfectly safe themselves in heavily guarded Whit^H^H^H^H fortresses.. So which of these administrations are the real cowards?
It could be worse, your goverment would have touted “We will not negotiate with terrorists” and instead use the beheading of a fellow citizen as an ad campaign aganst terrorism.
Not just the Muslim countries. Despite our rhetoric about never giving in to terrorists, America has done exactly that.
Most famously was Reagan’s bold public declarations about not-paying terrorists but handing over the cash anyway.
And it was not just pay-offs to Iran. Reagan also $2 million paid to the terrorists who were holding Americans in Lebanon.
It’s not well known but it was reported in the mainstream media. (Google it yourself)
I think Reagan getting away with this tremendous disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions was a role model for Rove and GW Bush.
Before Americans get carried away by smugness they should be aware of this little tidbit:
“as have some US companies with lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq. At least four businessmen with dual US and Iraqi nationality have been returned, allegedly in exchange for payments by their employers.”
Because of the privatization fetish of Bush baby’s administration many of the companies involved in reconstruction are also carrying out military and intelligence duties in Iraq. These companies are basically acting as instruments of the US government. In other words America is doing it by proxy but with official knowledge and sanction.
America is (again as GregAllen points out) paying off terrorists!
The only way to stop terrorism without succumbing to their demands, is retribution so swift and terrible than no western power would sanction it. The Roman empire was willing to slaughter thousands if one of their citizens was attacked abroad. If a Roman was killed in a village, it and it’s inhabitants would cease to exist. In other words you become a far worst terror than the terrorists. So we live with it the best we can. Sometimes that means they win the day. but thousands of innocents gets to live. The cost of morality is often high.
@Angel Wong:
Point? I assume you’re saying that campaigning against beheadings and/or terrorism is a BAD thing? The mind reels…
@Rob:
Every German or Italian who’s trying to work with Iraqis to rebuild their country must now deal with the fact that there’s a hefty price on his hide. They are profitable targets ever since Susanna Osthoff. Your idea of ‘courage’ is disturbing.
And what this has to do with Reagan is a total mystery. The hostages were released on the day of his first inauguration, so it can’t be that.
#10 And what this has to do with Reagan is a total mystery. The hostages were released on the day of his first inauguration, so it can’t be that.
That is only because you are not a believer in the conspiracy theory regarding George H. W. Bush [Reagan’s Vice-President] making a deal with Iran to not release the hostages until Reagan took office. [grin]
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile3.html
I wonder if it is possible – even with today’s technology – to keep track of all the conspiracies which are “documented” on the web?
Wouldn’t it be nice to have “Google – Conspiracy (beta)” to peruse on a boring workday?
Rube:
What I’m trying to say is that politicians could and would use something as crude and tragic like a beheading to help them in their political career.