ISIS Demands $6.6M Ransom for 26-Year-Old American Woman

[candelista]

Source: ABC News

A third American hostage held by ISIS has been identified as a 26-year-old American woman who was kidnapped a year ago while doing humanitarian relief work in Syria. The terror group is demanding $6.6 million and the release of U.S. prisoners for the life of the young woman, who the family requested not be identified.

She is the third of at least four Americans who were known to be held by ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. American journalist James Foley was executed by the group in a video that appeared online last week. Another writer, Steven Sotloff, was seen alive but under duress in the same footage.

In addition to the multi-million dollar ransom, the terror group has also demanded that the U.S. release Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT-trained neuroscientist who was convicted by the U.S. in 2010 of trying to kill U.S. officials two years before, according to a supporter of Siddiqui who has been in contact with the hostage’s family.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/isis-demands-6-6m-ransom-26-old-american-164507768--abc-news-topstories.html

[IronGate]

1. Ain't gonna happen, especially the release of this terrorist.

And I support that.

[candelista]

3. Not going to happen or you don't want it to happen?

The US has traded prisoners before.

[IronGate]

4. Not going to happen and I don't want it to happen.

All it would do is encourage the terrorists to kidnap more Americans and the demands would get higher and higher.
If the parents want to pay the ransom, they're free to do so, but releasing a terrorist as part of the demand?
NO.
And what the US has done in the past has led to more kidnappings and more demands.

[candelista]

6. OK, you don't want it to happen.

That's all.

[IronGate]

7. I don't want it to happen and the US govt. won't trade a terrorist

for this woman, and rightly so.
Like I said, if her parents want to pay the ransom, they're free to do so, but they don't get to decide if the govt releases a convicted terrorist in exchange for their daughter.

[candelista]

16. The US traded 5 terrorists for Bergdahl.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/bowe-bergdahl-american-soldier-is-freed-by-taliban.html?_r=0

[IronGate]

17. Bergdahal is a US soldier, there's a difference, as has been pointed out to you in previous threads.

[candelista]

19. A deserter.

Regardless of what has been "pointed out to me" (by you) in previous posts, the question remains, why soldiers and not civilians? The US risked lives in an unsuccessful mission to rescue Foley. He was a civilian. So why not ransom or trade prisoners for a civilian? I understand your soldierly prejudices, but try to set those aside just for a moment and answer the question straight.

[IronGate]

20. A deserter?

When was he convicted by Court Martial of that?
As to your other question, a military member is, by definition, US govt property, a private citizen is not.
That's the difference, and I'm quite sure that if these hostages could be rescued, the US govt would attempt to do so, but to pay a ransom and release a terrorist? Not going to happen.

[TwilightGardener]

22. Right wing blather. The US Army did not and could not determine that

he deserted while he was held for five years. For all they knew he just went AWOL temporarily, or was even abducted. Even if found to be a deserter, the penalty isn't that we leave you forever with the Taliban until they cut your head off or let you starve to death. Goddamn, what bullshit. And since you're repeating your crap, I'll repeat this: The US Army put Bergdahl WRONGLY in harm's way (since he had obvious mental problems that kept him out of the Coast Guard). The US Army had the responsibility to bring him home, especially seeing as he was unfit.

[candelista]

24. "Right wing"?

You think all you have to do is call something "right wing" to refute it?

And where did I say we should have left him? My point is the inconsistency between calling for trades, ransoms and rescues for soldiers but not civilians. Civilians are the people that the army and the government are supposed to serve.

And your comment "Goddam, what bullshit" is offensive and stupid. If you want to have an argument, let's have one. But "Goddam, what bullshit" is not an argument.

[TwilightGardener]

25. Because it's bullshit. And it's RW blather. The Repubs demanded that Obama

bring our only POW home, and then he was pounded for doing so, and Repub operatives hired his former platoon mates to trash this kid everywhere for political damage. The POW exchange has no bearing on a terrorist group taking random Americans hostage, because the US government didn't mandate, sponsor, or advocate their presence in that country. In fact, the State Dept. warned against Syria for Americans. So it's very different. If you don't want me to call your posts bullshit, then don't post bullshit.

[bravenak]

2. I must be crazy.

I would pay. Just no prisoner release.

[TwilightGardener]

10. I wouldn't do either thing.

[eShirl]

15. You would fund this group's future actions?

spiffy

[bravenak]

21. who you think got them started.

I bet it had something to do with the bush admin.

[Blue_Tires]

29. Well, the U.S. supposedly has an ironclad policy of not paying ransoms

and sadly, as the European nations have proven (even though I understand their side of argument as well); once you've shown that you're willing to pay a ransom, you're only giving a green light to more kidnappings and higher ransoms...

[bravenak]

32. I bet they consider us kidnappers too.

We do whatever we want to whomever we want. We hold people in indefinate detention. We go to their lands dropping bombs and backing groups that later become terrorists. We are always pushing the leaders we want onto the people. I bet they consider us terrorists after all the civilians we killed.

We never consider how much we did to cause the problems in the middle east. We lose a few thousand lives, they lose a few hundred thousand.And we call THEM terrorists because of the personal manner in which they murder people. And we are the liberators because our bombs are awesome and we can murder a bunch of people at once.

I would pay them.

[Blue_Tires]

35. And in spite of all that, Assad

has still killed/tortured/imprisoned an exponentially larger amount of his own countrymen, and that's before I get to his chemical weapons use...So maybe ISIS would want to look in that direction for a change...

I agree that U.S.+Euro foreign policy shoulders a lot of the historic blame for everything wrong happening in the ME, but ISIS sure isn't making the situation any better...

[JDPriestly]

30. They will just become more audacious and take more prisoners. Americnas should leave

the area. Let ISIS find out what happens to them when the world press no longer reports on them. I am referring to the fact that the people they kidnapped were reporters. If they make it unsafe for reporters to go there, only governments will know what they are up to or even that they exist. And there will be no news about what the governments of the world decide to do to stop them. Taking hostages is a never-ending game. Mexico has learned about this.

[bravenak]

34. maybe so.

But, we have a superior level of audaciousness ourselves.

We need to stop going the hell over there and killing so many people and trying to force our leaders we prefer on them. Actions create consequenced, for them and for us. We created a monster and we have been feeding it for decades. We fund groups that become terrorists. Then we act surprised and put upon.

[flamingdem]

5. They dropped the price this time

but it's still a lot higher than what Europeans have paid.

[TwilightGardener]

9. They're fucking around with us. Playing games.

[flamingdem]

26. Maybe the goal is to make the US

Look bad especially if they do an on camera beheading of a female - imagine to humiliate obama

[TwilightGardener]

36. Possibly that's their goal, but it would just bring out our wrath.

[flamingdem]

38. Maybe in their deluded brains they think they'll prevail w/Allah's help

You never know with religious nuts, they might even believe their own press!

[TwilightGardener]

8. Pay them in bombs and missiles.

[IronGate]

11. +1000.

I find it repugnant that there are those who would agree to the demands of these murderous terrorists, knowing full well that it would encourage them to kidnap more Americans with the demands getting higher and higher knowing the govt. would meet their demands.

I'm glad that President Obama doesn't fall for these murderous terrorist demands.

[Rhinodawg]

14. " until Allah has enough virgins ready."

never heard that one before.

[Cleita]

13. I wouldn't pay. It's only funding them.

I doubt if they would dare harm her because she's a young woman and such a deed would be distasteful across a broad spectrum of politics and cultures. If they should be so egregious to behead her and post the video, it would be the last straw that sends the full force of the military on top of them, ours and our allies.

It seems that they think we would capitulate because she's a young woman. But the very calculation they made for their gamble is the one that will badly backfire on them if they carry out their threats.

[Enrique]

18. where is this information coming from?

it's odd that the story is missing the usual "according to intelligence officials" or whatever.

[TwilightGardener]

23. The family's trying to use publicity to force Obama's hand, is my guess.

Too bad they didn't counsel their daughter not to enter a middle eastern civil war. My sympathy is somewhat limited.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. She's a relief worker.

No doubt she knew the risks, but you don't have to be a prick about it. Given the inevitability of a bad outcome like a beheading I have a lot of sympathy for her and her family.


Then again you're an anonymous internet poster flapping your gums online and she put her ass on the line to actually help people, I can see your dilemma.

[TwilightGardener]

31. Sorry, but when everyone tells you to stay away from Syria, you should

probably stay away from Syria. And if you decide to ignore the warnings and proceed anyway, who then is responsible for your predicament? It's sad, but this is a lesson people are hopefully learning--listen to State Dept. warnings about trouble spots. If we have to send Special Forces to try to rescue her, then SHE is not helping, she's just putting more lives on the line.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

40. You have a pretty shallow outlook on things.

But the fact that you're not able to feel sympathy for someone (or their family) says a lot about you. I'm sure you tell the families of firefighters that "they knew the risks, they shouldn't have went into a burning building" too. People like her make the world a better place, people like you get in the way.

[TwilightGardener]

41. I didn't say I felt no sympathy. I said my sympathy was somewhat limited.

She wasn't snatched off an American or European street--she ignored warnings, she willfully went into a war situation, and now other Americans will have to put themselves in harm's way to try to save her. I'm not even sure what sort of aid organization would put a young American woman in harm's way like this, obviously without the necessary security.

[gordianot]

27. Since we have been told this group is "well funded" just who is doing that?

No ransom is fine.

I may be missing something but I have not heard that question from ever vigilant news media. That the leadership is being targeted sounds good but how about those funding this mess? There are many wealthy interests in the immediate vicinity which one? Answers are not being volunteered beyond rumors. Maybe the journalistic genius of Chuck Todd who says he does not take sides and brags that he is the access point for those outside the beltway could ask that question. Surely Lindsey and John must know or have an idea who is flowing the cash.

[AngryAmish]

33. The Administration has an absolute moral obligation to get her out.

Let us go back a year or so. Remember when parts of the Administration was trying desperately to get involved in the Syrian Civil War? Talk of red lines and such. Painting the Syrian government as the height of evil (Assad has to go!) while painting the rebels as lambs.

Well, you stupid motherfuckers, this is how aid workers decide to help. She went to help and I bet no one told her that the people she was helping are the craziest jihadis that can be found on earth.

We are damn lucky Obama was wise enough to ignore the calls for war. We were lucky Russia decided to help.

Along with the Saudis and Qataris, we created IS. We wanted to toss Assad on the cheap. And now we have videos of our citizens being beheaded.

I don't know whether or not to pay the ransom. Our government sure as hell isn't smart enough to figure it out.

Every choice is bad. And somehow we created a situation where the Alawites and Assad seem like good guys.

[Dems to Win]

37. Aid worker?

Would any legitimate international aid organization send a 25-year-old American woman to aid the Syrians?

I note the aid organization is not named.

Here's a sad story about 2 young Italian women who snuck into Syria to help refugees and are now kidnapped. Their parents pleaded with them not to go to Syria, but they did anyway.

No legitimate aid workers sneak into a country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724701/Two-Italian-aid-workers-kidnapped-Islamist-militants-Syria-ignoring-parents-pleas-not-go.html

Very sad situation, but they are adults who made their choice, against all advice.

I support the US refusal to pay ransom.

[flamingdem]

39. Wow, this makes joining Guru Maharaji or another corrupt guru

look like a cake walk! That was the trend in the 70s if you don't recognize the name.

[Cleita]

43. Faith based sometimes.

I personally know a young woman whose church sent her to Armenia to do aid work. I tried to talk her out of it, but after she was there she realized the organization who had sent her had done little to insure the safety of the young workers. Nothing happened to her, but the culture shock and realization that she could be in danger will make her think twice before she commits again.

[candelista]

44. Why not?

You don't know anything about her or about the organization that she was working for. Nevertheless you attack her in your post. The official name for this is argumentum ad ignoratiam, but I'll just call it "ignorance."

[True Blue Door]

42. Counteroffer:

[img][/img]