Charity paying ransom to ISIS to purchase freedom for hostages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Victoria33

Guest
I’m reading this story. Charities may have limits as to what they can do, say if they are suppose to be there to feed the poor as their established cause. You would think it is a good cause to pay a ransom to free hostages, probably Catholic or Christian. So, I can see, how this “challenges” what would be morally correct to do.

To me, it seems an easy answer, yes, you pay ransom to free the captive but apparently, the catch here that they may be prosecuting the charity on is that then, if you pay a ransom, you are financing terrorism. I can see how one could establish a “racket” to do this. This probably did not cross the charity’s mind. Of course, in my mind, they freed people, all or most Christian I would think, I’m glad they did it. I believe I remember this particular situation. I’ve followed the situation over there rather closely, it never dawned on me that “paying ransoms” = “financing terrorism”.

Story:

http://aina.org/news/20190714143045.htm

UK Police Investigate If Assyrian Charity Paid Ransom to ISIS​

By Jamie Prentis

UK police are investigating a Christian charity to determine if it financed terrorism after its chairman was involved in the freeing of 226 hostages held by ISIS in Syria in 2016.

The Assyrian Church of the East Relief Organisation (Acero) is chaired by the bishop of Syria, Mar Afram Athneil, but is run by Andy Darmoo, 71, who is the director of a lighting company in southern England.

In its financial statements for the year ended July 31, 2016, Acero has an expenditure of £147,689 (Dh682,000) marked as “Iraq Hostages”. An Associated Press report in 2016 described Mr Athneil as being “almost exclusively” behind the year-long brokering of the deal to free the hostages. Three were murdered on camera by ISIS.
Click to expand...
Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I absolutely think that paying ransoms is financing terrorism. Here’s an old article (2014) that explains why quite well (note: Al Qaeda was still the prime terrorist actor back then). Between 2008 and 2014, Europe paid somewhere between $125-$165 million to terrorists! By paying ransoms, they incentivize the brutal tactic to continue and are significantly responsible for the next set of victims kidnapped, IMO.


“In its early years, Al Qaeda received most of its money from deep-pocketed donors, but counterterrorism officials now believe the group finances the bulk of its recruitment, training and arms purchases from ransoms paid to free Europeans. Put more bluntly, Europe has become an inadvertent underwriter of Al Qaeda.”
 
Last edited:
In centuries past, ransoms were often paid to Saracens/Mohammadens who had held Christians hostage. The problem today is that the cash might very well be used for increasing their strength or reach, or fomenting increased terrorism.
 
Sounds like a bad idea, sending them money they can utilize for future terrorist activities. Sort of perpetuates their kidnapping cycle also.
 
I suppose that was always the problem and always the business model. I do wonder how much, proportionately, ransom contributes - as opposed to the wholesale ransacking of cities, banks and assets that ISIS engaged in.

I think on a nation-state basis paying ransom is, much like Danegeld, a bad idea. On an organisational and individual basis it’s more complicated.
 
Last edited:
That was an important part of the charism of the Mercedarians, the payment of ransom to redeem captured Christians from ISIS like Moslems in north Africa and the Mideast.
 
Charity for the hostages is more important than what IS does with the money. It’s the problem of the army and the police to stop attacks from happening.
The logic of “paying ransoms” = “financing terrorism”. is like saying that the Church forgives a criminal following the morality of God the Church is sponsoring criminality. Being a Christian is more important than anything.
You can always offer prayers to God so that IS doesn’t use the money to sponsor their killings. But as a Christian you cannot just let people die and look the other so that you can be part of some scheme to discourage terrorism.
 
I believe Israel has a policy (and this was really more of an issue decades and decades ago) of not paying ransoms. Fair enough.

In this instance, it sounds like they had over 260 persons kidnapped, perhaps children and I believe Christians who are a minority over there. I can see how one would not want to see that kind of carnage as well.

It was a scary situation and somehow, most of these people were released.
 
Mary888 said:
The logic of “paying ransoms” = “financing terrorism”. is like saying that the Church forgives a criminal following the morality of God the Church is sponsoring criminality.
Click to expand...
This is an inapt analogy. Paying ransoms, especially to terrorists (as opposed to some one-time desperate low-level criminal) directly leads to them perpetuating more kidnappings - per the article I posted above that makes that causation link.

The Church forgiving a criminal doesn’t in any way directly lead to them committing more crimes, especially when the criminal justice system continues to do its job despite the Church’s forgiveness.
Mary888 said:
But as a Christian you cannot just let people die and look the other so that you can be part of some scheme to discourage terrorism.
Click to expand...
This assumes that ransom is the one and only way to deal with kidnappings. It’s not. Israel and Russia have both shown that there are other ways.

Is it Christian to pay a ransom to free one victim, knowing that by doing so you’ve doomed several other people to be kidnapped down the road? I don’t think so.

I think the causation link between paying a terrorist ransom and future kidnappings is much stronger than you’re willing to admit.
 
Last edited:
Wampa said:
Is it Christian to pay a ransom to free one victim, knowing that by doing so you’ve doomed several other people to be kidnapped down the road? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
It is one of those things one doesn t want to even think about…
One thing is to make a clear statement to your family that it is your decision not be rescued by ransom if anything.
Something very different is to make that decision for one of your children or a loved one.
One thing is what you sign to accept as a policy for example. Another one is to sign it in the name of loved ones.
It is one of those things one doesn t want to ever have to deal with…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top