Country Living
Country Living, Country Skills
Country People - A Country Living Resource and Community
Message Board
Country Topics
Trading Post
Memory Lane
Country Skills
Country Cooking

The Kitchen

Photo Gallery
Vintage Photos
Special Collections

Country Humor
Country Sounds
Coloring Book
Interactive Story

Farm Tractors
Tractor Parts
Tractor Manuals

Classic Trucks
Antique Tractors
Modern Tractors
Site Map
Links Page
Contact Us

Country Discussion Topics
To add your comments to this topic, click on one of the 'Reply' links below.

Italy pays terrorist one million dollars
[Return to Topics]

Mike in tn    Posted 09-29-2004 at 11:54:57       [Reply]  [No Email]
for the release of two hostages. Is this not aiding and supporting terrorism. This is one million dollars that they will spend on weapons to fight our troops with. Will this not just add to the hostage taking by the terrorist? Just courious, am I the only one that sees it that way?

Paula    Posted 09-29-2004 at 13:33:56       [Reply]  [Send Email]
Giving ransom only encourages kidnappings for sure, but I'd
hate to be in the position of having to make that decision for a
loved one. Can you imagine if you were facing such a decision
you could refuse to pay the ransom knowing that from historical
(past kidnappings) data your wife/husband/son/daughter etc
would be killed?


ron,ar    Posted 09-29-2004 at 18:39:53       [Reply]  [No Email]
Paula has raised a very interesting point, one with no happy ending. I agree it is the worst possible thing to pay terrorist a ransom. Having said that.. if my son were held captive, and I had a million dollars, I would be very hard pressed to NOT pay it to get him back. A true moral dilemma this one is!

JOMO    Posted 09-29-2004 at 13:13:45       [Reply]  [No Email]
It's an awful thing, who wouldn't want do anything possible if it were their relatives taken hostage. But by paying, they have just opened the hunting season on every Italian, anywhere in the world that might be snatched up by terrorists. Italy will soon begin to see the awful mess they have gotten themselves into by allowing this ransom to be paid.

Alias    Posted 09-29-2004 at 12:05:40       [Reply]  [No Email]
If those dummies actually paid out a million, they are aiding and abeiting and showld be placed on GW's list of countries that support terriorist.
Of course they will justify their action by claiming the kidnappers were not terriorist. So, what does that make them smart businessmen....gfp

Bob Mi    Posted 09-29-2004 at 11:59:26       [Reply]  [No Email]
Dido This whole thing is turned into a money game Pack up the troups bring them home Pack up the politions send them over there to be targets!! You would see the end in a hurry

Red Dave    Posted 09-29-2004 at 11:58:50       [Reply]  [No Email]
Yep, all they did was encourage more of the same.
If it pays a million, why not do it again?

~Lenore    Posted 09-29-2004 at 12:39:26       [Reply]  [No Email]
Was it Italy the country that paid them or was it an Italian company?
Maybe the terrorists will realize Italians bring a premium and only kidnap them from now on.
Sorry, but if I were the terroist that is what message I would get from the transaction!
I do not understand anyone who thinks those terrorists are into negotiating with anyone.
I believe that paying them money is aiding and abetting them.

Jimbob    Posted 09-29-2004 at 12:36:53       [Reply]  [No Email]
Terrorists are the scum of the earth.
The little secret why troops are not 'sent home' (above) is the US really wants the oil fields. That is why France cried foul. France had billions invested with Saddam, in fact the largest invested ever in the middle east.

No oil? US ends up with a trashed economy. Bin 'baby' wants to control all middle east oil & thus the world like a new age Hitler- no brainer folks.

Darryl - MO    Posted 09-29-2004 at 16:51:38       [Reply]  [No Email]
<< The little secret why troops are not 'sent home' (above) is the US really wants the oil fields. >>

I don't think the US 'wants the oil fields' in the sense of 'owning' them or taking them from Iraq. I think what the US wants is STABILITY in the region. Saddam was a loose cannon who wanted to dominate the region, thus dominating the majority of the oil reserves. The US wasn't prepared to stand for that and the resulting chaos, so they (we) went in to remove him. I don't believe the goal was to keep the oil fields, but rather to ensure a stable supply and to remove a threat to the region's stability. If I recall correctly, when this began EVERYONE, Republicans & Democrats, were worried about 'Saddam's WMD's'. He sort of brought this on himself by denying the inspectors access to sites to prove he didn't have WMD's so what was everyone to believe but that he did indeed posess them? Blame can no doubt be laid to faulty intelligence and perhaps there was some effort to not dig too deeply before proceeding. Now whether our actions will result in a more stable region and reliable oil availability is quite questionable. It doesn't look very 'stable' yet, does it? I hope that if this thing goes down the toilet the American people remember to blame the politicians and not the men and women in uniform as happened during the Vietnam era.

Jimbob    Posted 09-30-2004 at 20:03:09       [Reply]  [No Email]
US wants to control the oil fields thru economics and having a democracy there in a free world market.

Bin 'baby' want to control the US thru economics & fear by controlling the oil including the oil in Saudi Arabia. No brainer here.

[Return to Topics]

[Home] [Search]

Copyright © 1999-2013
All Rights Reserved
A Country Living Resource and Community