I cannot dig up anything better right now, but this economist article gives a few examples.
the policy is not enshrined in law and its application has been inconsistent. During the first Barbary war Thomas Jefferson paid $60,000 to free American sailors. After Mr Carter was turfed out of office by voters, Ronald Reagan traded arms with Iran for the release of hostages in Lebanon. And Barack Obama, though he refused to pay Foley’s ransom, exchanged five captured Taliban members for a soldier called Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan earlier this year. Moreover, nothing stops private American citizens from paying ransoms (as long as they are not seen to be funding terrorist organisations).
There’s not a lot of provable examples with paper trails because the wall of secrecy is maintained strongly enough to let the myth perpetuate.
something better than Thomas Jefferson, one instance of arms for hostages and one prisoner swap
Because those aren’t legitimate examples, why exactly? They all contradict the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” line and I think you’re just pissed that I undermined your original point. Someone has a sensitive ego.
I suspect you can. *edited to add: humans dont dehumanize and infantilize themselves. They need ideologues! A role you just played there.
See, there you go. Looks like falling-off-a-log easy for you to think that way. *edit: they may as well be senseless, idiots. Less than human, really. Cheap. You see that’s a fair interpretation of your words?
The thing I just can’t get over is how rapidly the younger, progressive peacenic types in my fb feed and blog comment spaces have shifted opinion. The 2 beheadings combined with a ton of reiterations of the news that they were selling Christian women in the marketplace (almost always accompanied by pics of Ashura festivities) have completely halted public criticism of invasions and put Obama in this position where they forced his hand and he has to return US involvement in the region to Bush-era levels. Swear I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I totally believe the US went to the moon and I don’t speculate crap about Sept 11th. I really do believe that in Boston some wannabe jihadists did some horrifying damage and I think the people who respond online with kooky armchair forensics claiming elaborate shams carried out by legless actors are kooks. But still, the accent of the executioner and BB’s piece on the Cats of Jihad, opened my eyes to how many Brits are over there jumping into a complicated conflict for a lot of complicated reasons. And then I see how a few months ago, everyone who sort of identified with progressive, rough and tumble get-the-truth out journalists seemed pretty staunchly against US and NATO attacks and now, pretty uniformly mimick older conservatives in sentiments. And I can’t get my head around how this would benefit either ISIS or Obama, but damn how a bunch of mercenaries and independent war contractors must be splurging on a really good whisky to celebrate.
Yes, separating the two is an excellent idea and one that many countries need to embrace. That is reasonable. Banning a religion, as you first proposed, is banning thoughts. That’s patently absurd, no matter how absurd the thoughts are. Yes, many people die in the name of those fabrications, but the number that would die in the ensuing wars over your proposed outlawing of thoughts wold probably dwarf that. And two wrongs don’t make a right.
Well let me know when you can dig up something better than Thomas Jefferson, one instance of arms for hostages and one prisoner swap, because I spent a while googling for more examples for quite a while. Maybe there aren’t a lot of provable examples because there just aren’t examples… From reading many of your other posts on BB I certainly feel that last bit of circular logic is… lame.
