Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
So, reminding people that giving money to terrorists is breaking the law against giving money to terrorists is a threat?

Americans freely gave to the IRA. At least this is coercion through a ransom and not an act of charity.

Some American citizens gave money freely to the IRA. The US government did not, I know the FBI ran operations against persons smuggling arms and money to the IRA.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
How easy it is to be a heartless smartass on the internet when it's not your loved ones being tortured and killed. In a thread about lack of compassion, no less.

Have to agree with Blackfang on this one.

And European posters should remember-they are very much a part of this. It is reported that Europeans have paid tens of millions in ransoms to these guys for various people, and were known for paying ransoms for ship crews taken by Somali pirates. Its time honored European tradition. But like Blackfang, if it were my family, I could understand. I could give a fig for "policy."

"Millions for defense. Not one cent for tribute!"
-Some guy.

"I have a certain very special set of skills."
-Some other guy

"Rub my belly!"
-Rodney the wiener dog.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

jhe90 wrote:
You mean supplying money to a group on terrorist status is illegal and that the act of paying ransom is such.

Pretty obvious

Kinda like releasing 5 terrorists without consulting congress because the excuse was the hostage exchanged for them was going to die.

Thankls Obama! I'm surprised it took this long to go political.

But agreed, not seeing posts HERE to date being hostile. Dakka win for once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gonzo wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
So, reminding people that giving money to terrorists is breaking the law against giving money to terrorists is a threat?

Americans freely gave to the IRA. At least this is coercion through a ransom and not an act of charity.

Some American citizens gave money freely to the IRA. The US government did not, I know the FBI ran operations against persons smuggling arms and money to the IRA.

The vast majority of Americans 1) didn't; 2) would be shocked others did; 3) wouldn't have been able to identify the IRA or dare I say, Ireland, on a map. We're ignorant but we have a good time.

 Jihadin wrote:
I thought it was the US Government does not negotiate with terrorists....

If you believe that, then I have a bridge you may be interested in.

Relapse wrote:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Kohlmann

Kohlmann is a suit that works in an office. A suit who hasn't taken the time to learn Arabic, despite his supposed area of expertise.

Relapse wrote:
When Obama illegaly ransoms a hostage who became one by deserting his post, there's a Rose Garden speech with the hostage's parents by his side.

How was that action illegal?

I believe the illegality argument resulted in releasing the BG's from Gitmo without Congressional consent or notice (not sure which it was).

Americans may not be able to ID ireland on a map but on st. patricks day somehow everyone is magically 1/18th irish...

It's a tragedy what happened to their son. Its unfortunate that working in dangerous areas, is dangerous, but it is. Dangerous.

The way it was handled was poorly done, did they state if they made the response to the family before or after the botched rescue attempt?

I understand the family was probably not focused on their money funding terrorism, but rather felt powerless and wanted to do anything they could in their power to get their loved one back. I know if my kid was taken, I would be learning whatever language they speak over there and looking for ways to smuggle weapons in, or raise money to buy arms for anyone willing to go and kill them, hell I would be baking brownies and carving "F-ISIS" on bullets to send over to kurdistan or wherever so they can snack while they hopefully head shot the people responsible.

I'm curious as to how the ransom was meant to be paid. Bank transfer? Money drop?

Either way isn't there the opportunity to trace the money to it's destination or identify the bagman and track him?

At the very least you could possibly identify accounts used by the terrorists and shut them down (whilst retrieving your money), which could disrupt their cashflow.

At the most it might give you a lead on where the hostages were being held.

 Frazzled wrote:
I believe the illegality argument resulted in releasing the BG's from Gitmo without Congressional consent or notice (not sure which it was).

It's notifying, the other argument regards the use of funds.

All that is moot, of course, given that this is ultimately a Constitutional issue.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I believe the illegality argument resulted in releasing the BG's from Gitmo without Congressional consent or notice (not sure which it was).

It's notifying, the other argument regards the use of funds.

All that is moot, of course, given that this is ultimately a Constitutional issue.

I didn't say I was making the argument.

 Frazzled wrote:

I didn't say I was making the argument.

Nor did I say that you were.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I didn't say I was making the argument.

Nor did I say that you were.

Nor did I say that you were saying that I was saying...

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I thought it was the US Government does not negotiate with terrorists....

If you believe that, then I have a bridge you may be interested in.

Relapse the only one that caught my sarcasm.....

 Jihadin wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I thought it was the US Government does not negotiate with terrorists....

If you believe that, then I have a bridge you may be interested in.

Relapse the only one that caught my sarcasm.....

I thought about the look that was probably on your face as you typed that statement and just about snorted what I was drinking.

 Jihadin wrote:

Relapse the only one that caught my sarcasm.....

So it is your contention that the US Government has, in fact, negotiated with terrorists and you are making such an argument independent of the present Administration?

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Relapse the only one that caught my sarcasm.....

So it is your contention that the US Government has, in fact, negotiated with terrorists and you are making such an argument independent of the present Administration?

I play along

So the US Government made an offer on Craig List to trade five high end Talibans (say they would be printed on the Joker, Jack, Queen, King and Ace cards) for one dumb PFC who quite willenly walked off a FoB in Afghanistan. Qatar could not pass a deal like that and earned much esteem from both sides of the party.

 Jihadin wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Relapse the only one that caught my sarcasm.....

So it is your contention that the US Government has, in fact, negotiated with terrorists and you are making such an argument independent of the present Administration?

I play along

So the US Government made an offer on Craig List to trade five high end Talibans (say they would be printed on the Joker, Jack, Queen, King and Ace cards) for one dumb PFC who quite willenly walked off a FoB in Afghanistan. Qatar could not pass a deal like that and earned much esteem from both sides of the party.

I'll see that and raise you an illegal act by the president because it was done without properly notifying congress as per law, with the excuse being given that the lad was going to die if Obama didn't hurry.

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Relapse the only one that caught my sarcasm.....

So it is your contention that the US Government has, in fact, negotiated with terrorists and you are making such an argument independent of the present Administration?

I play along

So the US Government made an offer on Craig List to trade five high end Talibans (say they would be printed on the Joker, Jack, Queen, King and Ace cards) for one dumb PFC who quite willenly walked off a FoB in Afghanistan. Qatar could not pass a deal like that and earned much esteem from both sides of the party.

I'll see that and raise you an illegal act by the president because it was done without properly notifying congress as per law, with the excuse being given that the lad was going to die if Obama didn't hurry.

How can it be illegal? He Ebayed off Five Taliban leaders for a SGT......correction....a PFC

What th... Ebay? Why didn't I know that? I could have sworn it was a Craig's list deal!

Relapse wrote:
What th... Ebay? Why didn't I know that? I could have sworn it was a Craig's list deal!

Craig List "listing" was for a SGT
Ebay "Listing" was for a PFC

 Jihadin wrote:
How can it be illegal? He Ebayed off Five Taliban leaders for a SGT......correction....a PFC

He's a Sergeant.

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
How can it be illegal? He Ebayed off Five Taliban leaders for a SGT......correction....a PFC

He's a Sergeant.

He's a PFC. He has not been to Warrior Leadership Course.....Heck he never made points to make the cut off. He is a PFC with a SGT stripe. He is getting paid E5 rank but he is not a NCO.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
How can it be illegal? He Ebayed off Five Taliban leaders for a SGT......correction....a PFC

He's a Sergeant.

He's a PFC. He has not been to Warrior Leadership Course.....Heck he never made points to make the cut off. He is a PFC with a SGT stripe. He is getting paid E5 rank but he is not a NCO.

You can attend WLC after being promoted.

Convince me he is a NCO. Convince me he earned the right to lead troops (which he is not)

Do you not think prisoners of war should accumulate time in service and time in grade while captured?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you going to say that a soldier captured in Vietnam or Korea, who got promoted to Sergeant while in captivity isn't a real NCO and hasn't earned the right to lead troops?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
How easy it is to be a heartless smartass on the internet when it's not your loved ones being tortured and killed. In a thread about lack of compassion, no less.

The same criticism could be thrown at those who would pay the ransom. If the ransom was paid, that money would be used to murder Shia men and boys, and to capture Shia women and girls to sell as sex slaves. Being willing to actively aid ISIL in their acts of genocide because the victims aren't your family is abhorrent.

Call it heartless if you wish, but I'd rather see one journalist die than kill a hundred innocent Shia to save him.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
How easy it is to be a heartless smartass on the internet when it's not your loved ones being tortured and killed. In a thread about lack of compassion, no less.

The same criticism could be thrown at those who would pay the ransom. If the ransom was paid, that money would be used to murder Shia men and boys, and to capture Shia women and girls to sell as sex slaves. Being willing to actively aid ISIL in their acts of genocide because the victims aren't your family is abhorrent.

Call it heartless if you wish, but I'd rather see one journalist die than kill a hundred innocent Shia to save him.

It's the same issue with medical treatment we see day in day out. People make pleas for their family member to get some support and help ignoring the reality that in many cases helping one person dooms many more. It may seem heartless but it is the kind of choice that has to be made from a dispassionate point of view. I can understand people wanting to pay a ransom or get treatment for their family member, but you can't blame the relevant authorities when they make a dispassionate choice for the good of many. Money going to kidnappers just means they can buy more weapons and kidnap more people. Every ransom paid kills many more.

 Jihadin wrote:

Relapse wrote:
What th... Ebay? Why didn't I know that? I could have sworn it was a Craig's list deal!

Craig List "listing" was for a SGT
Ebay "Listing" was for a PFC

Now the real question is whether ebay took their usual 95% of the transaction in fees and, if so, can we prosecute them for terrorism?

 Hordini wrote:
Do you not think prisoners of war should accumulate time in service and time in grade while captured?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you going to say that a soldier captured in Vietnam or Korea, who got promoted to Sergeant while in captivity isn't a real NCO and hasn't earned the right to lead troops?

Since I was not even around for the Korean War I can leave that judgement for my deceased Grandfather who passed away a bit back. Since I was three when the Vietnam War ended and it was my father war he fought he can judge those individuals who walked off their Fire Base. OIF and OEF is my wars.

Yet you still have not convinced me that Bergdahl earned his rank. You have not convinced me Bergdahl earned the right to lead and mentor soldiers. You have not convince me he is a NCO. To me and many others he is still a PFC earning E5 pay and wearing the rank. A soldier who committed the ultimate sin of getting soldiers wounded and a soldier killed maybe a few others more depending on the OPORD by his action.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
How easy it is to be a heartless smartass on the internet when it's not your loved ones being tortured and killed. In a thread about lack of compassion, no less.

The same criticism could be thrown at those who would pay the ransom. If the ransom was paid, that money would be used to murder Shia men and boys, and to capture Shia women and girls to sell as sex slaves. Being willing to actively aid ISIL in their acts of genocide because the victims aren't your family is abhorrent.

Call it heartless if you wish, but I'd rather see one journalist die than kill a hundred innocent Shia to save him.

The same action can be also placed with Obama, who illegaly released 5 leaders back into circulation so they can pass their knowledge and experience on as well as cause many deaths. How is it he gets a pass paying illegal ransom and the family doesn't?

Just to be clear, I am against the paying of ransom in both cases.

Relapse wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wilytank wrote:

Relapse wrote:
A rundown of those illegally released as ransom by Obama in order to get back a deserter:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/who-are-5-guantanamo-detainees-swapped-exchange-bergdahl-n119376

"The five Afghan detainees who were released from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba Saturday could resume their previous roles as Taliban commanders, according to a terrorism expert-" Nope. Stopped reading right there. This dude is probably not a terrorism expert. If anything he's a guy in a suit who works in an office.

Be a good idea to do a little research on the man you dismissed as a suit who works in an office.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Kohlmann


http://nymag.com/news/features/69920/

So, he's not a terrorism expert, he's an expert in the study of terrorism.

This is a terrorism expert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

 Wilytank wrote:
This is a terrorism expert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

No, that's a terrorist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Do you not think prisoners of war should accumulate time in service and time in grade while captured?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you going to say that a soldier captured in Vietnam or Korea, who got promoted to Sergeant while in captivity isn't a real NCO and hasn't earned the right to lead troops?

Since I was not even around for the Korean War I can leave that judgement for my deceased Grandfather who passed away a bit back. Since I was three when the Vietnam War ended and it was my father war he fought he can judge those individuals who walked off their Fire Base. OIF and OEF is my wars.

Yet you still have not convinced me that Bergdahl earned his rank. You have not convinced me Bergdahl earned the right to lead and mentor soldiers. You have not convince me he is a NCO. To me and many others he is still a PFC earning E5 pay and wearing the rank. A soldier who committed the ultimate sin of getting soldiers wounded and a soldier killed maybe a few others more depending on the OPORD by his action.

Way to dodge the question.

What does a soldier have to do to earn his rank? I'd posit that while he didn't earn it in the traditional manner, he still earned it. Now, that doesn't mean he's a good sergeant or even a good soldier (it sounds like he probably wasn't/isn't) but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not he's a sergeant/NCO. And saying he's a PFC earning E5 pay because he got other soldiers wounded or killed is pretty disrespectful to PFCs, to be honest.