Options

Hooray hostage free / France donates more £ms to al Qaeda

What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
Forum Member
✭✭✭
""NIAMEY/PARIS (Reuters) - Four Frenchmen held hostage in the Sahara desert by al Qaeda-linked gunmen for three years flew home and were reunited with their families on Wednesday, with Paris dismissing media reports it had paid a ransom for their release."

"Earlier this year, after ordering French military intervention in Mali to prevent al Qaeda-affiliated Islamists taking over the country, Hollande announced that France would no longer pay ransom to release hostages.

Shortly afterwards, diplomats said Hollande agreed to a British initiative to enshrine a commitment not to pay ransom to "terrorists" in the communiqué of the Group of Eight leaders' "summit in Loch Earn, Northern Ireland, in June.

"Media reports, citing unnamed sources, that a 20 million euro ($27.5 million) ransom had been paid by France's external intelligence service overshadowed their homecoming, but the government said Hollande has banned paying hostage-takers."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE99T09220131030?irpc=932


How do you think of this?
- Hooray they are free

- Al Qaeda will never be defeated as long as
western nations fund it and encourage their hostage taking

- Are the lives of 4 westerners worth the thousands that will be terrorised using the ransom

- A mixture of the above
«1

Comments

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32,379
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    According to this BBC report there was only one hostage released. No mention of any payment.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30396903
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    woodbush wrote: »
    According to this BBC report there was only one hostage released. No mention of any payment.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30396903

    They salud that last time too. And the time before. Buy why relevase a hidrate uf tiene not being paíd?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/09/french-hostage-freed-mali-serge-lazarevic

    Hollande’s government insists it pays no ransoms, although US officials have said otherwise.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32,379
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They salud that last time too. And the time before. Buy why relevase a hidrate uf tiene not being paíd?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/09/french-hostage-freed-mali-serge-lazarevic

    Hollande’s government insists it pays no ransoms, although US officials have said otherwise.

    What does that mean.

    No ransom paid according to Hollande.
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hollande has lied about not paying ransoms before.

    And my previous statement was questioning for what consideration were they released if they weren't paid. It's obvious that France paid out again.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32,379
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ""NIAMEY/PARIS (Reuters) - Four Frenchmen held hostage in the Sahara desert by al Qaeda-linked gunmen for three years flew home and were reunited with their families on Wednesday, with Paris dismissing media reports it had paid a ransom for their release."

    "Earlier this year, after ordering French military intervention in Mali to prevent al Qaeda-affiliated Islamists taking over the country, Hollande announced that France would no longer pay ransom to release hostages.

    Shortly afterwards, diplomats said Hollande agreed to a British initiative to enshrine a commitment not to pay ransom to "terrorists" in the communiqué of the Group of Eight leaders' "summit in Loch Earn, Northern Ireland, in June.

    "Media reports, citing unnamed sources, that a 20 million euro ($27.5 million) ransom had been paid by France's external intelligence service overshadowed their homecoming, but the government said Hollande has banned paying hostage-takers."

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE99T09220131030?irpc=932


    How do you think of this?
    - Hooray they are free

    - Al Qaeda will never be defeated as long as
    western nations fund it and encourage their hostage taking

    - Are the lives of 4 westerners worth the thousands that will be terrorised using the ransom

    - A mixture of the above

    That report is from 2013:confused:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24735293
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    woodbush wrote: »

    Yes. And like today Hollande is again claiming no ransom was not paid just like the link to today's case where he is again contradicted by other reports.
  • Options
    viertevierte Posts: 4,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    woodbush wrote: »
    What does that mean.

    No ransom paid according to Hollande.

    Probably why release a hostage if they are not being paid? Looks like something my iphorn would produce
  • Options
    lemoncurdlemoncurd Posts: 57,778
    Forum Member
    Buy why relevase a hidrate uf tiene not being paíd

    Buy a what-now? :confused: I'm sure my chemistry teacher taught me never to relevase a hidrate.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,246
    Forum Member
    I don't agree with paying a ransom if there was one paid but great news that the hostage is free
  • Options
    culturemancultureman Posts: 11,701
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How different to this situation! (I do miss the 'roll eyes' symbol)

    Ransom payments to Somali pirates are estimated to have been between $339 million and $413 million in the period 2005-2012, according to a report issued Monday by the International Criminal Police Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the World Bank. In addition to Somalia, the study focused on Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and the Seychelles.

    During the years from 2005 to 2012, 179 ships were hijacked off the coast of Somalia and the Horn of Africa. The average ransom paid was $2.7 million,

    Clearly there's, 'not doing deals with terrorist' and, 'not doing deals with terrorists'.
  • Options
    ACUACU Posts: 9,104
    Forum Member
    All this "we dont pay ransom money" is total bollocks. You telling me if Obama or Camerons (or any other hight ranking official) kids were kidnapped, they wouldnt pay a ransom? Of course they would. What they mean is "we dont pay ransom for the plebs to be released, but we will for our loved ones".
  • Options
    lemoncurdlemoncurd Posts: 57,778
    Forum Member
    cultureman wrote: »
    How different to this situation! (I do miss the 'roll eyes' symbol)




    Clearly there's, 'not doing deals with terrorist' and, 'not doing deals with terrorists'.

    Those ransoms have been paid by shipping companies and their insurers.
    The US and UK are in the process of pushing through legislation making it a criminal offence for any individual, company, insurer or underwriter to contribute to ransom demands by any of the prescribed terrorist organisations.
    As Lloyds of London underwrite most shipping insurers, it will soon be very difficult for any foreign shipping company to pay out unless they do so from their own pockets (their insurers will no longer offer it as it effectively cannot be underwritten).
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You have to admire the French for actually caring about the citizens of France.

    The Americans and English care more about looking hard to the rest of the world than they do about saving innocent lives.
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lemoncurd wrote: »
    Those ransoms have been paid by shipping companies and their insurers.
    The US and UK are in the process of pushing through legislation making it a criminal offence for any individual, company, insurer or underwriter to contribute to ransom demands by any of the prescribed terrorist organisations.
    As Lloyds of London underwrite most shipping insurers, it will soon be very difficult for any foreign shipping company to pay out unless they do so from their own pockets (their insurers will no longer offer it as it effectively cannot be underwritten).
    He situation in France is different. The government isn't just turning a blind eye to French companies paying ransoms but is actively part of the negotiating team. They have just switched (if they have done that) to actively funding terrorists to facilitating the funding of terrorist organisations.
  • Options
    ArmiArmi Posts: 3,317
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Al Qaeda and others like Isis get enough money from the Saudis and the other bloated gulf Arabs without having to rely on western hostage ransom money to survive.
  • Options
    jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    ACU wrote: »
    All this "we dont pay ransom money" is total bollocks. You telling me if Obama or Camerons (or any other hight ranking official) kids were kidnapped, they wouldnt pay a ransom? Of course they would. What they mean is "we dont pay ransom for the plebs to be released, but we will for our loved ones".

    Sounds more like it.
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ruthus wrote: »
    The Americans and English care more about looking hard to the rest of the world than they do about saving innocent lives.
    Who funded the attempted genocide against Yazidi and who funded the attempts to help them?

    It's not just westerners that are innocent.
  • Options
    jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    They salud that last time too. And the time before. Buy why relevase a hidrate uf tiene not being paíd?

    Can you read your posts before submitting them. It's not too much to ask is it?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Who funded the attempted genocide against Yazidi and who funded the attempts to help them?

    It's not just westerners that are innocent.

    I'm not sure.

    I was talking about health workers, constructions workers, oil people and stuff who get sacrificed for the 'war on terror effort'.
  • Options
    culturemancultureman Posts: 11,701
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    He situation in France is different. The government isn't just turning a blind eye to French companies paying ransoms but is actively part of the negotiating team. They have just switched (if they have done that) to actively funding terrorists to facilitating the funding of terrorist organisations.

    But not significantly different. If the evil is the payment of millions to terrorists, then whether that is achieved as a result of turning a blind eye to the actions of British based oil companies, or by direct negotiations with said hostage takers isn't really the important thing.

    Don't recall Cameron et al publicly condemning the payments by businesses. By contrast, lots of 'Churchillian' posturing along the lines of; "We don't pay ransoms to / negotiate with terrorists" when (only) human lives are concerned.
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ruthus wrote: »
    I'm not sure.

    I was talking about health workers, constructions workers, oil people and stuff who get sacrificed for the 'war on terror effort'.

    And that was partly my point. France only seems to care about them. But by giving a terrorist organisation £10s of millions per Western hostage that enables them to terrorise an awful lot of villages or towns for a very long time. I think those lives count equally. Is a western life really worth 10s of thousands of non western ones including children?

    The other issue is of course that if a French hostage is worth £20m then obviously that makes them a desirable commodity. Although admittedly I think US and British hostages are valuable in another sense - for PR and to be used as a warning to other Western countries of what might happen if they don't pay up.
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cultureman wrote: »
    Don't recall Cameron et al publicly condemning the payments by businesses. .

    The U.S. and Britain are leading the attempt to have it made illegal. It's mentioned in the already linked article. That's why it's a greater contrast that French ministers are actively helping companies to negotiate ransoms.

    There has also been this measure: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-why-theresa-mays-ban-uk-insurers-paying-ransom-claims-changes-little-1476341
  • Options
    Sweaty Job RotSweaty Job Rot Posts: 2,031
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    woodbush wrote: »
    What does that mean.

    No ransom paid according to Hollande.

    He is a liar then, his government has paid the ransoms.
  • Options
    stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lemoncurd wrote: »
    Buy a what-now? :confused: I'm sure my chemistry teacher taught me never to relevase a hidrate.

    I'm pretty sure "uf tiene" is something to do with Jawas.
  • Options
    Sweaty Job RotSweaty Job Rot Posts: 2,031
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ruthus wrote: »
    You have to admire the French for actually caring about the citizens of France.

    The Americans and English care more about looking hard to the rest of the world than they do about saving innocent lives.

    Politicians French or otherwise don't care, all it does is paints a huge target on every French citizen as terrorist now the effeminate clown Hollande has paid a ransom once again,
Sign In or Register to comment.