ON THE DECISION TO ALLOW JAMES FOLEY TO BE EXECUTED

Yesterday I asked why the ransom for James Foley was not paid while the ransoms for other hostages were, reporting that the broker for the payments was Qatar.

I asked if the decision to not pay the ransom for Foley implied that he was being sacrificed to provide the casus belli for war on Syria.

Today The Guardian has reported that an international treaty forbids payments for hostages.

But as we have seen, other nations have ignored that treaty.

Apparently only the UK and USA have remained committed to that treaty.

All major western countries signed a 2013 G8 commitment not to pay ransom to terrorist groups – an accord reinforced by a UN security council resolution along the same lines in January this year. However, only the US and UK have stuck to that commitment, while other European states – including France, Italy, Spain and Germany – have found ways of channelling money to militant groups in exchange for their citizens.

[source : Terrorist ransoms: should governments pay up or stick to their principles?, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/22/terrorist-ransom-government-pay-james-foley, 23rd August 2014]

Yes. The UK and USA are so law abiding and considerate, aren't they?

BOLLOCKS!!

Foley's ransom could easily have been paid. It would have cost far, far less than any war that will be executed in his name!!