Berlusconi caves
Italy to pay tribute. "Everyone pays. It has been done for centuries and centuries." Sure. There have always been appeasers, all the way back to Aethelred the Unready. From The Guardian, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
Three Italians held hostage in Iraq were poised for release last night amid growing indications that Silvio Berlusconi's government has been negotiating a controversial ransom deal.Top Italian government officials anticipated "positive news" within hours, while UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi predicted an imminent release.
"We confidently expect something to happen which should become clear in the coming hours," Mr Berlusconi said. His foreign minister, Franco Frattini, said: "We are waiting for positive news."
Asked if the way to get the hostages freed was to pay up, the Italian interim governor of Iraq's Dhi Qar province, Barbara Contini, said: "Everyone pays. It has been done for centuries and centuries."
Mr Brahimi, who was in Rome yesterday for talks with officials, said: "I think there is every reason to hope for a positive solution quickly."
Payment of a ransom would meet with an angry response in London and Washington where it would be seen as encouraging further kidnappings. But the release of the hostages, by whatever means, would take the political heat off Mr Berlusconi who, following the defection of Spain, is the coalition's most important ally in continental Europe.
With expectation of a resolution growing by the hour, Italy's defence minister, Antonio Martino, went to the headquarters of the military intelligence service, Sismi, to follow developments.
Four Italians were seized last week near Falluja by a previously unknown group calling itself the Green Brigade of Mohammed. On Wednesday, a video was delivered to the Arab-language satellite channel, al-Jazeera, showing one of the men being shot in the head.
Sources in Iraq and Italy have said talks for the release of the hostages have been unusually difficult because they work for a US firm and were carrying weapons when they were seized.
But in an interview with the newspaper Corriere della Sera, Ms Contini said she was "optimistic, very optimistic". She added: "The hostages will probably not be released straight away. But they will not be killed."
Ms Contini, a Middle Eastern expert, said she believed the four Italians had been seized by "local gangs" in a country where hostage-taking formed part of the tribal culture. The governor made her comments on her return to Baghdad from Rome, where she spent part of her time with the crisis unit set up to coordinate the government's response to the hostage-taking.
In an article citing "authoritative and confidential sources", the daily newspaper QN yesterday reported that a ransom had already been handed over. A foreign ministry official said: "We have no comment to make on this report."
There was also speculation of a link to the delivery of humanitarian aid to Falluja. It was reported that, on Sunday, the Red Cross's special commissioner, Maurizio Scelli, had telephoned Mr Berlusconi's office to ask for his help in persuading Washington to allow a convoy to take in water, food and medicine.
The convoy, two Iraqi Red Crescent lorries and one Italian Red Cross vehicle, reached Falluja yesterday.
According to Italy's foreign minister, Franco Frattini, the dead man and two of the other hostages - Maurizio Agliana, 35, from Prato in Tuscany and Umberto Cupertino, 35, from Bari in Puglia - were employees of a Nevada-based security firm called DTS Llc. The third man, Salvatore Stefio, 34, was said to be president of a company called Presidium.
Their kidnapping has revived controversy in Italy over the country's role in Iraq. Mr Berlusconi did not commit troops to the invasion but last summer he dispatched a peacekeeping force, which now numbers almost 3,000. There has been recurrent public concern over whether the force forms part of an occupying army or, as the prime minister has insisted, a humanitarian mission.
Despite deep-seated doubts, the main opposition in Italy has held back from demanding a withdrawal. But Romano Prodi, the European commission president and de facto leader-in-exile of the opposition, has expressed sympathy for the tough line taken by Spain's prime minister, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero.
How is the U.S. going to get out of this mess? The Iraqis don't want democracy, trying to force it on them is a fools game.
wrong question, monty rock. the correct question is how is jihadistan going to get out of this mess? given the underlying momentum of this war, jihadistan has but two options: (1) undergo an enlightenment, (2) undergo systematic destruction.
as for paying ransom for the hostages, it would be well for people to remember what has taken place in colombia where e.l.n. and f.a.r.c. have taken to hostage-taking as a source of revenue because it is so successful in extracting ransoms. negotiating with evil will only bring more of it.
Yea, ted. I think destruction is probably the only realistic alternative, given that sanitizing Islam would be all but impossible.
I was looking back on an older posting, and I must say that beating people up in any circumstance that doesn't involve defense of person or property is a violation of human rights.
As humans, we are distinguished from other living creatures because we possess the capacity for reason--that's our nature. Unfortunately, we are not under obligation to USE reason consistently, hence the requirement for things like the Constitution, laws, the courts, and so forth. If we lived in a town called "Perfect," like the one in the Walgreen ads, we would never fail to use reason (which, by the way, does not exclude emotion, contrary to popular opinion).
What is a "randian"?
The terrorists kidnapped the four Italians for one reason only, as everybody knows: "Withdraw your troops from Iraq, or we kill the hostages". Italy has not withdrawn its troops, to the despair of some "posh" european media, that would love to see Berlusconi chicken out of Nassiryah!
Will the Guardian (or al-Jazeera) report that the Italian Prime Minister has just announced that Italy will remain in Iraq even after June 30?
Instead of listening to the dying words of Franco Frattini, "Let me show you how an Italian dies", and using such heroism to rally the Italian nation against terrorism...
Berlusconi and other shallow minded Italians are taking to the words of Ms. Contini,
"Everyone pays. It has been done for centuries and centuries."
As a native born Italian and now a staunch and proud American I am saddened by such a naive, shallow, weak and short sighted attitude which seems to be adopted by Italy. The actions which Italy and Spain have taken add to the burden of the rest of world committed to peace and freedom. These countries should be ashamed of themselves.
Native Born Italian and now Proud American, if you read the Guardian or watch al-Jazeera you will never get the full picture.
I trust that you can still read Italian. If so, please go to www.ansa.it now and you will understand that it is the Caldean Church, in the person of the Patriarch Emmanuel Delly and Bishop Shlemen Warduni, that is in close contact with the terrorists holding the hostages.
I am preparing my family and especially my young
children for the coming wars ( I feel they are inevitable,
it has nothing to do with me wanting them ).
1) I have changed the evil characters of folk and
fairy tails to Muslims.
a) The wicked witch is now "Muslim".
b) The hungry predator wolf is now "Muslim"
c) The dishonest thief is now "Muslim".
The ideology of multiculturalism and diversity must
be expelled. We must acknowledge the evil and face
it with all the weapons at our disposal:
ESPECIALLY STIGMA
I am trying to do more than complain, whine,post
(though I do that) but I am trying to change to
direction of the future.
I am sure some of you will be offended. Again...
I don't care.
One you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
do you think the money will have rfid tags in it?
It's really just jizyah in action.
you know whats really funny is every major nation always says that "we do not negotiate with terrorists" ... but when it comes down to it they always do. the americans have done it in iran and lebanon in the 80's the israelis have done it recently with hizbollah the italians are doing it now. is ronald reagan a dhimmi? or whatever you call the appeasers for secretly trading tow missles and guns to iran when they where the great islamic threat?
Joseph:
I know of one war in which the US didn't pay
bribe money.
The young republic ( US ) fought a bloody war
with Muslim pirates off the coast of Libya / Tunusia / Morroco
in the 1790s.
The war was precipitated by our REFUSAL to PAY the
BRIBE MONEY.
In contrast the Europeans, particularly the French
regularly paid the bribe.
Oh, we won the war.
Oh, here is a link detailing the war
America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe
by Gerard W. Gawalt
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjprece.html
The US actually did pay ransom up to a point .But the Barbary states (which supported the pirates) got too greedy and demanded too much ransome.
Americans responded with a bombardment of Tripoli. That's why the Marines pledge to guard the US from the halls of Montezuma to "the shores of Tripoli."
Susan is correct in noting that the Vikings invaders returned season after season to the English coastline once they realized that the inhabitants were willing to pay them to stay away. Had they not paid, there would have been no incentive to return.
Kidnapping has become an industry in parts of the world. Some familes are actually multi-generational professional kidnappers, a concept that is difficult for us to accept.
Once the precedent is set, breaking the cycle is very difficult. Of course we know that the ransom money will fuel further jihadist activities and it may not actually save the lives of the kidnapped.
During the Second World War the Nazis/Germans regularly berated the Italians for their cowardice.
The tactics of the Islamofascists are those of the mafia.
Perhaps, the West should respond in kind? Hold a few terror inciting Islamic clerics and state categorically that these could be exchanged for the Western hostages. If they don't comply, perhaps some really severe penalties for inciting terror, sedition and treason should be imposed on those clerics by Western governments.
Additionally aid should be withheld from Islamic nations who do this sort of thing. Yes, it is the fault of the nations because it is the ummah who supports Islamic terror.
NO NEGOTIATION WITH TERRORISTS! ! !
Lili
The imam of Carmagnola, in Italy, whose wife predicted that "we will conquer you [the italians] by giving birtth to many sons, you who have no growth in your own numbers while ours doubles each year, and Rome will become the capital of Islam," was finally expelled from the country this past year; he is now busily bringing Wahhabism to Senegal. But he is, at least, out of Italy.
Would it not be possible for the Italian government to make it known that if all of its hostages are not immediately freed, the mosques in Rome, Milan, Turin and ten other major cities will be promptly and permanently closed? If the offer is rejected, and the Italians in any way harmed, after the massacre of the nineteen Italian soldiers at Nassariya who had come to supply food and medicine and to improve the lives of the locals (just as the American soldiers are performing the same thankless task) very few Italians will object to the subsequent closing of those mosques, which are centers of hyseria and hate leading, so far, only to the replacement of some of the most embarrassing imams, but not to a shutting down of the mosques themselves, even those where weapons and tapes of Al Qaeda have been found. These are meeting-places and hiding-places, places of collective planning and plotting, not of inidivudal worship -- not that individual worship really exists in Islam, for it is a belief-system entirely centered on the group and group-acts and group-think.
If the hostages are released, it will show that counter-threats to harm the "religion" of Islam, in fact work. Why are threats made only one way, by Muslims against non-Muslims? After enduring the attacks on civilians by the Nazis and the Japanese militarists, the Americans and the British took the gloves off, and bombed German and Japanese cities. The Israelis, who have endured decades of terrorism, have not even once done what might have stopped it in its tracks -- let bombs go off in "Palestinian" and Egyptian and Syrian and Jordanian restaurants and busses. Their suicidal scrupulosity, making them so prodigal with the lives of their own soldiers and civilians, must not be followed by other Infidels.
Why are not those who practice this geopolitical-cult-of-conquest not had their lives made much more difficult, if not impossible, in the lands of those they now live in, and which they so confidently predict they will one day conquer through da'wa and demography?
Even if governments are for now inhibited until a sufficient number of people begin to udnerstand Islam, and cease to be mesmerized, and offer automatic respect to, the word "religion," private citizens can certainly engage in their own economic boycotts. Why should one who fears the invasion of Muslims patronize restaurants run by Muslims, or buy rugs from countries, or dealers, whom one has strong reason to suspect do not wish one well? Why should one employ someone who, if he could, would do away with everything about our own country that should be dear to us, and worth protecting? If there were not a few million (most of them not-quite-halal "black Muslims" ) Muslims, but 20 million, what would that dimply for the lives of the non-Muslims? Would it not make those lives far more expensive (the terrific cost of monitoring Muslim communities for terrorism and other security risks), far more unpleasant (the constant and unceasing and growing demands for special treatment, from prayers through loudspeakers five times a day, to hijabs, to unisex classes, to prayer rooms in schools, to Muslim vetting of textbooks to make sure that they do not tell any unpleasant truths but are full of a sanitized version of Islam, as well as exaggerated and preposterous claims for the "Muslim" contribution to Western civilization), and dangerous (as one can see with the condition, becuase of large Muslim populations, of Jews, and also in places of Christians, within Western Europe). Nor is loyalty to anything but Islam permitted in Islam; certainly loyalty to the Infidel nation-state is absolutely out of the question. So whatever loyalty oaths are taken to gain citizenship, they must -- as a matter of religious tenets -- all be false, and known to be false by those who take such oaths. Come to think of it, a study of Islamic doctrine here would be important in deciding whether or not the INS can revoke citizenship -- lying when taking that oath could certainly be adequate grounds for revoking citizenship. These are not trivial or crazy considerations, and no pressure or howls of protest should prevent people from considering the real situation, not some theoretical and sentimental model of how "everyone wants the same thing." Muslims do not want pluralism, except insofar as they must temporarily embrace it in order to gain time in the Lands of the Infidels, until they are in a position of strength. Nor does democracy, nor free inquiry, nor any of the other things that are the essence of the West, appeal to them in any way. The refusal to take Islamic beliefs seriously, and to pretend that they are whatever, for various obvious reasons, some apologists now say they are (the "extremists" at least tell the truth), is maddening. Sentimentalism used in defense of Islam may kill the West, as the Nazis and Communists could not.
to cubed: a randian is a person who agrees with the ideas of ayn rand -- namely objectivism, probably most easily described as individual determination of one's own destiny and eschewing collectivism.
to joseph regarding his ridiculous query about whether the great ronald reagan is/was a dhimmi. i give you the following to chew on:
"The world looked to us -- not just because of our military might -- but because of our ideas of liberty and freedom. And, they knew we were willing to defend and promote those ideas in every corner of the earth. We rebuilt a demoralized, underfunded and unappreciated military. And we made it the most modern and respected force in the world. And who can forget those so-called 'experts' who said our military build-up threatened a dangerous escalation of tensions? What kind of fool, they asked, would call the Soviet Union an 'evil empire'? But as events have shown, there was nothing foolish in my prediction that Communism was destined for the ash heap of history. After decades of struggle, and with the help of the bold leadership of Margaret Thatcher, democracy won the Cold War and the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. The world watched with amazement as we put our house in order and took our rightful place as the most dynamic country in the world. And I firmly believe that history will record our era as one of peace and global prosperity. However, our task is far from over." --Ronald Reagan (1994)
btw, ,,don't know if it's been noted elsewhere but the mosques got approval to use there megaphones 5 times a day as long as not b4 6 or after 10..
Really not much of a surprise considering the outsanding victories the italian army has seen over the years; why would we think different of the inept government.
I hate to say it but I am starting to think Iraq needs a strongman to rule them with an iron fist.They don't know how to be free or what it takes to stay free.If they can't stand up and fight the radicals that are trying to take away their freedom they are doomed.Enough American blood has been spilled to free the people of Iraq and now it's time for the blood of Iraqi people to spill fighting for their own freedom.Do they hunger enough for freedom to fight for it?
willy seaweed is this the same dispute that was going on in michigan? don't tell me that the muslims one again. this is becomeing stupid, the american people being sold out by its own laws and its on state governments. This is how the muslim will win. Hope you all brush up on the koran.
Hugh, I have a question for you.
I have been looking for document or source of the comment about Islam making Rome their capital. Can you please direct me to that source?
Thank you.
xxx
Italy has paid to receive dead bodies.
It's very curious to me, that the two countries which gave into the terrorists are predominantly Latin (Catholic)!!! Hmmmmm
What does Islam and Catholicism have in common?
What does the almighty Pope have to say about this?
Sadam was the perfect leader for the iraqis.
They respected him because they had to.
There was no uprising,or if there was any,it was quickly dealt with,by killing of thousands.
That was and it still is the only way these savages can be dealt with.
Italy should announce that it is giving the terrorists 4 hours to set the prisoners free and unharmed.
If they fail to do so,Italy will level one iraqi city,for each italian prisoner killed,and this will be done immediatelly after the 4 hours expire.
Has anyone noticed that no one taking hostages has offered to exchange them for Saddam?
[I]"Has anyone noticed that no one taking hostages has offered to exchange them for Saddam?"[/I]
Posted by richard B at April 22, 2004 01:12 AM
LOL! Touche, Richard. It is quite revealing that the Iraqi people aren't clamoring to have him returned, isn't it? Still, at least he kept the population in control. I wonder if we should use him as a consultant for the rabble who remain. ;-)