Did ABS-CBN and a certain female senator inadvertently aid terrorists?

[gearhead]

Here is the assumption. Some say that while the claim was no ransom was paid ABS-CBN did in fact "pay" the kidnappers. If the kidnappers did get money and are ASG, they would have gotten funds for their terrorist "cause".

The reason people are instructed not to pay off the terrorists is because terrorists would get used to it and keep doing it to get more funds. Also the funds terrorists get will go into terrorist activities which will actually hurt more people in the end.

Therefore, if ABS-CBN indeed paid the ransom aren't they complicit in aiding terrorism.

Of course the dilemma is human lives are used as bargaining chips in this evil fund-raising activity and it is a moral issue some say.

Also, someone stated that LL acted as bag carrier. If she did isn't she also guilty in indirectly aiding the terrorists? Assuming the allegations are true.

[uls]

Don't know about the link of Legarda...

but 1 thing is quite clear to me...

The reason why Abu Sayyaf and other bandits exist is coz there are people who want them to exist.

Gandang business yan e...

"Dadalhin ko sa inyo ang kikidnapin nyo, sisiguraduhin ko may ibabayad na ransom yan, tapos ako na bahala sa inyo."

[shadow]

why put the blame on the victims? aiding the terrorist cause or not, it doesn't matter you are at the mercy of the abductors.... lives are at stakes...

mabilis sabihin na bakit nagbayad dapat hinde, if you were in their shoes and anak mo yun na-kidnapped kahit anong pang policy na "no ransom" eh magbabayd ka pa rin...

tama sabi ni uls ang tanong bakit meron pa rin ASG, dapat matagal na inubos lahat yan..

they don't have the right to live one day longer...

question for TS, kung anak mo or asawa mo makidnapped and meron policy na "no ransom",
but you have the means to pay yun demand ng kidnappers, magbabayad ka or hinde?

[morrissey_05]

doesnt seem like aiding terrorists. aiding a desperate local politician is more like it hehe

[gearhead]

why put the blame on the victims? aiding the terrorist cause or not, it doesn't matter you are at the mercy of the abductors.... lives are at stakes...

mabilis sabihin na bakit nagbayad dapat hinde, if you were in their shoes and anak mo yun na-kidnapped kahit anong pang policy na "no ransom" eh magbabayd ka pa rin...

tama sabi ni uls ang tanong bakit meron pa rin ASG, dapat matagal na inubos lahat yan..

they don't have the right to live one day longer...

question for TS, kung anak mo or asawa mo makidnapped and meron policy na "no ransom",
but you have the means to pay yun demand ng kidnappers, magbabayad ka or hinde?

I totally understand. Therein lies the dilemma. Human lives are used as bargaining chips as I mentioned. It is a vicious cycle that perpetuates since the "business" relationship between the kidnapper and victim is not stopped.

There must be a reason why there are governments with no "payment" policies with terrorists. I am not an expert but wouldn't Israel for example take a harder line? But yes they have a good armed forces group. Again I reiterate it is a dilemma and as you put mas mahirap if it happened (god forbid) to anyone of us.

If the no paying of kidnappers policy is a problem what other option would you say is viable?

[pup2]

Puwede din siguro magbayad ka pero pag laya na, siguruhin mong ubos lahat ng kidnapper as soon as the victim is safely away ...

[Altis6453]

Well, I'm not convinced that the group which abducted Ces Drilon and her crew were in fact terrorists rather than common armed bandits roaming freely in the mountains. When terrorists strike, whether it be a bombing of a building, or kidnapping of a person, there is almost always a statement which is political in nature accompanying such acts.

Complicit in terrorism? If you were willingly giving aid to terrorists, then you are complicit. But, if you are being asked to pay under threat of having your loved ones harmed or killed, then its extortion, or, at the very least, grave coercion.

[Flagg]

...If the no paying of kidnappers policy is a problem what other option would you say is viable?

I would suggest the Soviet option. Of the many reasons that we don't hear of any Russians being terrorist victims during the Cold War, the one that is rarely talked about is this:

Everytime a Russian is kidnapped by any sort of terrorist, the ransom is paid. Quickly.

Once the victim is safe, overwhelming force is used. By overwhelming, I mean that everyone connected to that cell is disposed of in the manner which would severely hamper one's afterlife (depending on one's beliefs). Everyone meaning from the members of the cell, to their families, to their known sponsors, and everyone in between.

Of course, word of mouth gets around. This did not give 100% assurance, but it did minimize Soviet troubles with terrorists.