You might remember my post from the other day in which I mention an American Thinker article that says we should consider paying a ransom for the South Korean Hostages. I didn't agree then, and this article lends me some support.
"The consequences of these payments are disastrous, however. Due to the weakness of their governments, Germans, French and Italian citizens are coveted targetsDon't be too hopeful when Islamic leaders exhort the Taliban not to harm women either; the Taliban have a poor track record when it comes to the treatment of their own women, much less non-Muslim women. It suits their purpose to keep the hostages alive as long as they can hope to gain something. The minute the hostages cease to be of value, the terrorists will relieve themselves of a burden and go in search of fresh victims. It may seem like a dangerous risk, but the best thing we can do is attempt to rescue them. Some of the hostages may be killed in the attempt, but some may be saved; it is capitulation to buy their freedom with Taliban goons, and doing nothing will eventually mean their doom. If we respect the courage they are showing, then we must act. Of course, if the media followed this story with the same fervor that they followed Paris Hilton, it might be different. Alas, the silence is deafening.
for both terrorist and criminal groups. Every payment has put fellow
citizens at risk, making it virtually impossible for Westerners to work in
Iraq — and increasingly also Afghanistan."
And for those who think something still can be gained by negotiation? Watch this, and tell me again why we should treat with jihadists.