There has been an increasing phenomena of westerners heading to war-zones as 'humanitarian' aid workers, where Jihadist's are operating, and knowing full well that they are primary targets for kidnap, ransom or beheading. They put themselves deliberately in harms way, with no regard for the welfare of the others working with them .... their self justifying raison d'être seems to be, that if they don't do it, no Muslims will aid other Muslims. So its up to some Westerner to do it, or perhaps they do it just to gain admiration from family and friends back home ... who knows?
In any event, these people should be considered a menace to both us and the people they are 'helping', and the question we should be asking is, when European 'humanitarian workers' go to war zones where they are known targets for hostage taking, should we risk lives, or pay huge ransoms, to 'save them'?
Are they not in fact just a little bit mentally unstable, or simply 'attention seekers', going to a place like Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan, knowing that the IS, or Taliban, or Al Queda (e.g. al-Nusra Front), want to capture them, parade them on propaganda video's, and then either get huge ransoms for their lives, or kill them?
If a person willingly puts themselves in harms way, then surely they should willingly accept the consequences of their action. After all, they are actually very selfishly putting their co-aid workers at greater risk of being killed, when the nasty men inevitably come a calling (a fact which apparently bothers them little, or not at all), and often their capture comes with a butchers bill of dead security men, and the other native helpers.
But instead of accepting that they are paying the price for their own stupidity, they come on TV and 'plead for their lives', demanding that 'someone do something', or spouting Islamist propaganda on behalf of their captors.
When and if a ransom is paid (and seemingly only the USA and UK regularly resist doing so ~ although prisoner swaps for soldiers by the US, have sullied that record), by the governments, such as those paid by France and Italy, who have done so on a number of occasions ... the money paid over is used to finance the killings of hundreds, or thousands, of locals. So any good the captives could remotely claim they did by going to the trouble spot, is far outweighed by the blood on their hands, created by their capture and eventual ransoming, or even troops killed in failed rescue attempts.
The latest of these selfish people, were *two Japanese hostages for whom an unprecedented $200m (£130m) was being demanded (Japan has paid $6m (£4m) to the Red Army Faction in the past), and two Italian women, Greta Ramelli, 20, and Vanessa Marzullo, 21, who were 'freed' by the al-Nusra Front after being held captive for 6 months in Syria. What were they doing risking their lives there? Why were they going to the IS captured province of Aleppo? .... Apparently its all covered by the term doing 'humanitarian projects' for the aid group 'Horryaty' (a small medical charity).
Yet as as non-Muslims, and Europeans to boot, they were obviously prime targets, so why go? Needless to say, they were captured and on Jihadi videos, faster than you can shout Allahu Akbar, and putting the pressure on the Italian government.
"We are in big danger and we could be killed," said one of the women, speaking in English. "The government and its militaries are responsible [for] our lives."
What about their responsibility? What about the lives of the local aid workers they risked by going? How many were killed when they were kidnapped? .... its not being reported, but you can bet there was a human blood price.
In the end they were mysteriously freed, but as usual there is a story that a ransom worth up to $15m (£9.9m) was paid via Qatari middlemen. How many bullets bombs and deaths will $15m buy? Well probably only the Syrians will know, but you can bet your live that it will be a lot more than two Italian 'do gooders' ever saved by doing doing 'humanitarian projects'.
The Italian government should at least charge the two women and their families for the full cost of negotiations, ransom and air fare of their release. Maybe that will finally bring home to the do gooders that that there is a price to pay for their reckless behaviours.
*Sadly, both the Japanese hostages were brutally murdered, because the Japanese don't pay ransoms ... unlike the French and Italians who do.
In any event, these people should be considered a menace to both us and the people they are 'helping', and the question we should be asking is, when European 'humanitarian workers' go to war zones where they are known targets for hostage taking, should we risk lives, or pay huge ransoms, to 'save them'?
Are they not in fact just a little bit mentally unstable, or simply 'attention seekers', going to a place like Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan, knowing that the IS, or Taliban, or Al Queda (e.g. al-Nusra Front), want to capture them, parade them on propaganda video's, and then either get huge ransoms for their lives, or kill them?
If a person willingly puts themselves in harms way, then surely they should willingly accept the consequences of their action. After all, they are actually very selfishly putting their co-aid workers at greater risk of being killed, when the nasty men inevitably come a calling (a fact which apparently bothers them little, or not at all), and often their capture comes with a butchers bill of dead security men, and the other native helpers.
But instead of accepting that they are paying the price for their own stupidity, they come on TV and 'plead for their lives', demanding that 'someone do something', or spouting Islamist propaganda on behalf of their captors.
When and if a ransom is paid (and seemingly only the USA and UK regularly resist doing so ~ although prisoner swaps for soldiers by the US, have sullied that record), by the governments, such as those paid by France and Italy, who have done so on a number of occasions ... the money paid over is used to finance the killings of hundreds, or thousands, of locals. So any good the captives could remotely claim they did by going to the trouble spot, is far outweighed by the blood on their hands, created by their capture and eventual ransoming, or even troops killed in failed rescue attempts.
 |
| Are These 'Humanitarians' Or 'Selfish Egoists'? |
The latest of these selfish people, were *two Japanese hostages for whom an unprecedented $200m (£130m) was being demanded (Japan has paid $6m (£4m) to the Red Army Faction in the past), and two Italian women, Greta Ramelli, 20, and Vanessa Marzullo, 21, who were 'freed' by the al-Nusra Front after being held captive for 6 months in Syria. What were they doing risking their lives there? Why were they going to the IS captured province of Aleppo? .... Apparently its all covered by the term doing 'humanitarian projects' for the aid group 'Horryaty' (a small medical charity).
Yet as as non-Muslims, and Europeans to boot, they were obviously prime targets, so why go? Needless to say, they were captured and on Jihadi videos, faster than you can shout Allahu Akbar, and putting the pressure on the Italian government.
"We are in big danger and we could be killed," said one of the women, speaking in English. "The government and its militaries are responsible [for] our lives."
What about their responsibility? What about the lives of the local aid workers they risked by going? How many were killed when they were kidnapped? .... its not being reported, but you can bet there was a human blood price.
In the end they were mysteriously freed, but as usual there is a story that a ransom worth up to $15m (£9.9m) was paid via Qatari middlemen. How many bullets bombs and deaths will $15m buy? Well probably only the Syrians will know, but you can bet your live that it will be a lot more than two Italian 'do gooders' ever saved by doing doing 'humanitarian projects'.
The Italian government should at least charge the two women and their families for the full cost of negotiations, ransom and air fare of their release. Maybe that will finally bring home to the do gooders that that there is a price to pay for their reckless behaviours.
*Sadly, both the Japanese hostages were brutally murdered, because the Japanese don't pay ransoms ... unlike the French and Italians who do.
