Three days ago 'Islamic State' threatened to kill two Japanese hostages, unless the Japanese government paid a $200 miilion ransom. See this article: Islamic State video threatens lives of two Japanese hostages | World news | The Guardian In the past the Japanese (and other) governments have paid for the release of hostages, but Japan seems unwilling to do so this time. What are your thoughts about paying ransoms? Do you have a fixed yes/no opinion, or does it depend on circumstances?
It depends for me. I think it's horrific what has happened to those men, but then I realize how much havoc ISIS can cause with 200 million dollars. These guys are causing enough trouble without the rest of the world basically funding them.
Japanese government are in a difficult situation. Paying will encourage terrorists and not paying and lose their men its a political suicide. Those who named themselves Islamic State are far from Muslims and they should be hanged in public squares to be a lesson to any group of psychos refer to themselves as Muslims or Islamic.
As harsh as it sounds but looking from a pragmatic angle - no ransoms should not be paid as it will only encourage more hostage taking.
I really don't think Abe's concerned too much with political suicide, he's already very unpopular with Japanese people. And this is not helping, people are really upset that he's appeared unwilling to pay the ransom. I think his main reasons are probably economical, afterall it's why he was elected and it's what he's known for ('Abenomics'). The Japanese economy is not good right now, there was a tax hike last year that was supposed to bump the economy, it failed, and now there's going to be another one in April. It's a really hard situation. I would not be able to make this decision and I feel so badly for the people that have to make it now. I mean...kill 2 innocent civillians or fund these murderous war-mongers. I don't think there is a right decision in this case, both options are awful and unthinkable.
I say no. Paying 200 Million Dollars is like throwing gasoline into a fire. It will only fuel their stupid hate-filled war. It's too much for 2 guys. It's hard to say "just let them die" but between having to let 2 guys die or hundreds, maybe even thousands, is feels obvious. 200 million is just too much.
Pay it in bullets? Bombs? Knives? I think it is more about to be listened than actual economical value. They have enough supporters already whose pouring money or other resources to them... openly or secretly. Worst part they are terrorists... they don't have any home or valueable targets to threaten them. They hit here and vanish to resurface there... in another country even with another "cult". You can kill or arrest the head of the group but like hydra they will grow a new one, even two new ones which would divide the group and you will have two terrorist groups to deal with. I guess/think best way to deal with terrorism is education. This is why most terrorist groups I know first target educational facilities and teachers. If they enlighten those young guys, give them a purpose in life terrorist groups couldn't find anyone to join them. Tho' that is very unlikely dream... humanity more inclined to violence, creating enemies so they can make themselves feel better and live in a wrongfull bliss that they are on the right side... and probably die for that perverted ideals.
That's a horrible situation... Obviously, we want those men to be safe, but what will happen when they get that amount of money? Saying "don't pay" seems to be the "best" option, but it's a horrible one. Every option is horrible, blah. =[
Its a horrible situation but paying a ransom will only increase the chance of someone being kidnapped. It will show that kidnapping is an effective way of making money and the money could be used towards buying weapons and causing more violance. I beleive in "never negotiate with terrorists".
This probably won't change some people's opinions, but it is something often overlooked... well, except by "terrorist organizations" and myself: Sure, taking hostages in an attempt to gain money may not work, but that's okay. Somebody will provide the funds, be it a sympathetic party or an institute wanting to take the moral high path. Even if nothing financially is gained, anybody who denies giving in to demands for hostages has already provided radicals, with something of more value: Propaganda. "See? Your government doesn't care about you. You're worthless; and you call us the bad guys?" This fits in to their whole message, because, in their own twisted logic that is presented to the public, it's worth more to keep precious money than to obtain precious lives. This spiritually bankrupt but financially consuming culture, to them, is a great evil, of which only a holy war can cleanse. What is worth pointing out also is, many of today's enemies were yesterday's allies. Reagan's administration had no problem funding anti-Soviet groups in Afghanistan, of which al-Qaeda would thrive. Bush's administration would have no problem funding anti-Saddam groups in or around Iraq, of which IS[IS] would thrive. The United States has this... habit... of trying to play proxy wars with regimes, and most of them backfire. This isn't a jab at just the right-wing politicians, they just make it easier. I have my issues with the left-wing as well, mind you. I've seen people defend these actions... except with Obama. For some reason, if Obama does anything any other politician does, he's the Anti-Christ, he's the "WORST PRESIDENT EVER", and so on and so forth. I have a few issues with Obama, but I also have issues with my favorite U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, as well. But the point I'm trying to make here is, if you're funding groups who are essentially traitors/rebels to the current regime/government, what in the hell makes you think they can't, possibly, do that to you as well? Again, American politicians seem to think, if you give anybody American money, it's this ultimate solution that quells tyranny and grants freedom... but this is becoming too American-centric, isn't it? There isn't a way to win without a sacrifice here. You can deny these organizations the money, but their message remains, or you can give them the money and their operations continue. Denying the money will result in the possible torture and execution of these men... followed by IS resuming their operations anyway. Just as giving in and paying the ransom would inspire possible kidnapping repeats, it would also inspire organizations to resort to other means, to get their funds acquire or their points made. Just observation, my dears.
