Looks like even the minor crazies are distancing themselves from the wrath that is about to descend upon the bestial cult that is IS and it's kidnapping habit.
Looks like even the minor crazies are distancing themselves from the wrath that is about to descend upon the bestial cult that is IS and it's kidnapping habit.
Even IS release people when they've been paid, otherwise no-one would ever pay, would they?
Don't hear much from Libya nowadays. Another blinding success for British/Western foreign policy.
Don't bet trt, you'd lose. I am on record on another thread on AB as opposing the payment of ransoms. I have discussed it with my family and we all agree it's wrong, hard as it would be, to pay.
Very good news and, as I suspected, a ransom had been paid. Britain, is remaining consistent by not paying them.
I wonder though, regarding the US and British captives held by ISIS, would they be released if ransoms were paid by countries who have participated or backed air strikes?
Do you think they would ask for a ransom if they had no intention of releasing the hostage ag? Don't think I am crediting them with any morals by asking this question, I'm not.
It would be interesting if there was a policy change from either the US or Britain regarding the payment of ransoms. As things have moved on and aerial bombardments taking place from both countries, how would ISIS react?
I think we know the answer but what of the other G8 countries who signed up not to pay ransoms but have done so?
I guess the answer is No ag, they would still go ahead.
The last I heard about other countries paying ransoms after agreeing they wouldn't, was that an annoyed David Cameron was going to have a word. Not heard anymore since.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.