Why Europeans Doubt Colombia’s Hostage Rescue
While Colombians and other freedom-loving peoples around the world were celebrating the spectacular July 2 rescue of 15 hostages held in the jungle by the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), many Europeans were incredulous.
Just hours after news of the audacious rescue operation codenamed “Checkmate” became public, the Swiss public radio station Radio Suisse Romande began quoting a “reliable” source as saying that the Colombian government had paid a $20 million bribe to secure release of the high-profile, long-term hostages. The hostages “were in reality ransomed for a high price, and the whole operation afterwards was a set-up,” the radio’s French-language channel said. The report raised doubts about the official version that the heroic mission involved tricking FARC rebels and then spiriting their captives away by helicopter.
It was not long before the conspiracy theory version of the hostage rescue was front-page news across Europe. France’s newspaper of record, Le Monde, suggested that Gerardo Aguilar, the rebel in charge of the hostages, had given them up in return for a promise of amnesty. “Was Aguilar turned by the army, or even bought? Questions and doubts remain,” Le Monde pondered.
The French online newspaper MediaPart, which was founded by the former chief editor of Le Monde and other “elite” French journalists, reported that the hostages had actually been freed through an agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC, which involved the payment of a ransom as well as political asylum for FARC rebels in France.
French state media raised questions about the healthy appearance of ex-hostage Íngrid Betancourt, a French-Colombian citizen, upon her release, compared with her gaunt and frail look on a video that was made public in November 2007. France Inter radio suggested that the hostages may have been given food and medicine before a planned release.
Dominique Moïsi, founder of the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI) in Paris and one of France’s most prominent foreign policy experts, told French state television that it was “probable” that money had secured the cooperation of FARC leaders. “They were bought in order to turn them around, like Mafia chiefs,” he said.
In Germany, the respected center-left newspaper Die Zeit ran a headline asking: “Ransom Paid for Ingrid Betancourt?” Germany’s leading business newspaper Handelsblatt said: “Betancourt’s Freedom Was Possibly Purchased.” The German tabloid Bild asked: “$20 Million Ransom Paid for Ingrid Betancourt’s Freedom? Puzzling New Questions About the Jungle Hostage.”
Germany’s leftwing Der Spiegel wrote: “The circumstances of Betancourt’s liberation from the FARC rebel camps are now at the center of speculation. Some say the Mossad was behind the operation. Then again, it is reported that the much-vaunted heroic operation never happened — instead 20 million flowed to pay ransom. Both rumors were immediately denied. The official version is still: Betancourt was free because the military undermined the rebels. But what are we to make of this, coming as it does from the world of secret intelligence agencies?”
European friends of FARC
Frederich Blassel, a journalist with the Lausanne-based broadcaster, told Colombia’s Radio W that the unidentified source was “close to the events, reliable and tested many times in recent years.” Colombian officials believe the source was Geneva-based Swiss diplomat Jean-Pierre Gontard, who had represented Switzerland in recent efforts to broker a peace deal with the FARC. The Colombian government suspects that Gontard, who by day was acting as an impartial mediator, worked by night as a cash courier for the FARC.
“European friends of the FARC are angry. How dare Colombia join the ranks of Britain, Israel, and the United States by refusing to negotiate with terrorists? How dare Colombia disprove the European mantra that all conflicts be resolved through diplomacy? How dare Colombia upstage post-heroic Europeans who, having lost the will to fight, believe anything can be bought for money?”
Nietzsche’s “Last Man” come into my mind, when I read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man
Typical Eurocoward bahavior. The same exact reasons why they hate “Cowboy Diplomacy”, it shows them as inactive cowards and fools.
The Euros conveniently forget that Chavez had announced a $500million hostage ransom last December, which came to nothing (my blog’s moving and it’s down for the moment so this link may not work yet).
If the Swiss want to believe that the FARC would accept measly $20million for this deal, then they must also admit that the Colombian government has weakened the FARC to the point where the FARC would take an amount which in the drug dealing world amounts to chump change.
Either way, it’s a victory for Alvaro Uribe and Colombia. The FARC’s four most valuable hostages, along with 11 Colombian officers and NCOs are free, and the FARC is on the run.
EEUUnuch Cowards are not worth defending. Bunch of AH socialist need to be hung from the lamp post.
The European elites won’t take the Columbia Hostage rescue at face value but they’ll take Mohammad Al Dura tapes at face value?
An old addage comes to mind:
When you stop believing in something, you’re likely to believe just about anything.
Many Europeans remind me of Muslims in this regard. It wasn’t widely reported, but insane 9/11 conspiracy theories and lrelosterlus tgeories aboit tge Iraq war have also flooded their media markets on Europe. Many of them relish paranoid conspiracy theories, and will go to tremendous lengths to contort facts to fit their various insane post-modern anti-American narratives. Many Euroleans also seem congenitally disposed to prefer blaming others rather than confronting their own deplorable impotency. Anything to blame America, Jews, and avoid at all costs looking in the mirror.
While we do all the heavy lifting, they bitch, moan, stick their thumbs in our eyes, and encourage the enemies of the West by helping to fuel the same propaganda machine designed to destroy us. This is true whether they’re parroting the Islamic line of lies and distortions, or the Leftist. In fact, it’s increasingly difficult to tell the difference.
Sorry for typos — posting on new iPod whose spell checker seems possessed!
Here is a report on a TV speech from Uribe reported on France24 on May 25.
If the Colombian government had already announced that it was willing to pay money- substantially more than the claimed $20 million- to release the hostages, then why would it not announce such a payment if had occurred?
A potential “reliable source” for those $20 million dollar rumors is Omar Arturo Zabala, the coordinator for the FARC’s activities in Europe, and a resident of Lausanne, Switzerland.
West European society, savaged by two massive wars in the last 100 years, is shell-shocked. It so firmly rejects any possibility of forceful action that the only avenue left to it is to pay tribute to the barbarians. “Decadent” is an appropriate word here.
A message from Uribe to the Europeans in a recent speech:
“Por ahí hay unos amargados que tratan de desacreditar esa operación. Pero esos amargados conocen a Colombia de lejos. En el frío europeo qué van a saber del ingenio colombiano. Ellos creen que el ingenio colombiano son los matones de las Farc. Algún día van a conocer esos muchachos del Ejército que hicieron esa operación.”
Zeno, I’ll give a translation of those remarks by Uribe:
“Somewhere out there are some bitter ones who are trying to discredit the [rescue] operation. However, those bitter ones only know Colombia from afar. Within the coldness of Europe, do they really know of the Colombian initiative? They think FARC’s killers are the innovators, not the rest of us! One of these days, they are going to meet those of our military who conducted the rescue operation.”
I live in europe, and I can say that I am sick of eurabian apeasement. When will we learn that IT doesn’t work?
Apeasing thieves only makes them stronger!
We need new european heroes.
As much as hate appeasing, bribe-paying European bureaucrats, I have to point out that British, Dutch, Danish, Italian, Czech, Polish, Macedonian, Estonian, French, Norwegian, Swedish, Portuguese, and Romanian combat troops are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some of these units are punching FAR above their weights, considering their small numbers and the insane rules of engagement to which they’re subject. Some, like the Czech and Romanian special forces, are probably operating in or near Pakistan.
Go to YouTube and search “_________ troops Afghanistan”: put in “Danish” or “Dutch” or “French” or any country above and you’ll get some pretty amazing combat footage.
Let’s differentiate between the bureaucrats and the warriors, is all I’m saying.
Git some, Europeans!
DoktorNo:
European friends of the FARC are angry. How dare Colombia join the ranks of Britain, Israel, and the United States by refusing to negotiate with terrorists?
America and Britain were badly served in the 70s and 80s by swallowing the Israeli line that violent political resistance was only a criminal activity, had no legitimacy, and “never, ever negotiate”.
The Jews in fact did plenty of negotiating with terrorists when it suited them. And used terrorism themselves regularly to establish the Zionist State. They even helped create Hamas as a counter to Arafat.
The Brits, past masters of setting one faction against another faction and by doing so leaving British rule unchallenged, had a brief period under Thatcherism of “never negotiate” – no support of African teror groups that were basically armed liberators, letting IRA prisoners starve to death. Wisely supplanted by better, less blindly dogmatic policies that returned the UK to old practical divide and conquer strategy – or, wrongly, to moral equivalency and multi-culti on the Left.
America has always been fine negotiating with State terrorism or insurgent terrorists or “appeasing them” as long, as they are on our side – like the Cuban Exile Brigade, the Holy Mujahadeen Freedom Fighters Reagan loved so much, now the Iraqi Sunni “terrorists” that killed a few thousand of “Bush’s heroes” before flipping and coming on our side after negotiations and bribes.
When will we learn that IT doesn’t work? Apeasing thieves only makes them stronger! Mats
I think never. During the American Revolution, John Adams was sent to Paris. On the way, he came into contact with the Barbary pirates, Muslim thieves. Adams was dismayed to learn the French were paying some 20 million livres every year so the cutthroats would leave them alone. The French paid and were attacked anyway.
Europe negotiated with Napolean and lost. They negotiated with the Prussians and lost. Negotiations were tried with Spain and Europe lost. Europe negotiated with the NAZIs and the Stalinists and lost big time.
Each failure to meet intimidation with force led to disastrous force being used as the last resort. The problem with using force up front is one never can know if there was a peaceful solution possible. But, on the other hand, with force up front, the next time the intimidator knows very well the cost.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!”
— Kipling
Tom W:
Of course, you’re right about the contribution of European soldiers who are actually in the fighting, but too many are limited to garrison duty or “social work” in quiet areas of the country, such as the north. There was even a new item, about a year ago, of German pilots complaining to their government about flying recon missions because the data might actually be used to attack the enemy.
But West European society overall is suffering from a severe pacifist reaction after World Wars I & II, hence their frequent failure to stand up to intimidation since the end of the Cold War.
Hmmm…does anyone find it simply precious after reading this that Europe is so enamored with Obama?..and that he hopes to speak at a huge rally at the Brandenburg Gate, a la JFK???
Pathetic. Simply pathetic.
They deserve each other from what I can gather!
Thank God, America still has some backbone and won’t elect this “internationalist”!
I’m European, I’m Italian and, even though Geneve is not technically in the European Union and is a kind of “offshore” country, I have to mostly agree. There is no strategic vision in dealing with terrorist organizations, even once in a lifetime. Simply because if you pay more people will be kidnapped in the future, and while you save two persons now you are putting at risk the lives of more people in the future. On the other side anyway, here are the reason to pay the ransom:
- life is priceless
- even if you don’t pay, people will continue to be kidnapped in certain regions, because it also depends on your politics and your perceived wealth. That’s why americans and britons continue to be kidnapped even though they do not (apparently) pay.
-in some regions they don’t see much tv and word of mouth doesn’t work well, especially with independent groups of terrorists spread on a large territory,so any political choice made before will not necessarily teach anything to others, but I’m sure we have to keep trying.
-if you don’t cure the causes, at least try to cure the symptoms.
The Brits, past masters of setting one faction against another faction and by doing so leaving British rule unchallenged…
If you haven’t yet noticed, British rule has been quite challenged lately. The sun regularly sets on what remains of the former empire. The British don’t even rule their own land anymore. That job belongs to their Gulf state owners and the tulipmania fortunes the British are making with the “Islamic banking” schemes.
The end of the British empire is just a small hint that the tactic of “setting one faction against another faction” is now a complete failure.
That doesn’t stop the Israelis and the Americans from following the bad example set by the British. There is no reason to tolerate different terrorist factions, or to negotiate with/support either side. Terrorism is a form of war. Our negotiations with terrorists ignores the basic principle of war – if your enemy is stronger than you are, negotiate with them. If they’re weaker, destroy them, using whatever means possible (economic, military, diplomatic). The British history of tolerating and making ‘deals’ with those weaker than themselves is responsible for their current decline.
Anthony (Los Angeles):
West European society, savaged by two massive wars in the last 100 years, is shell-shocked. It so firmly rejects any possibility of forceful action that the only avenue left to it is to pay tribute to the barbarians. “Decadent” is an appropriate word here.
QFT.
I have spoken to ordinary people who have honestly expressed the opinion that America ‘loves’ war and are international ‘warmongers’ because (besides the Civil War) they have never had to fight a real war on their own land. Europe, knowing the true cost of war, is more reasonable in their drive to resolve conflicts peacefully.
I look at Europe and all I see is its absolute failure to resolve anything (international or internal, peacefully or otherwise), a self-righteous condemnation of America for trying, and a peculiar desire to torment anyone who evidences Europe’s failings (Serbia springs to mind).
I guess this is the retarded stuf you believe when you are too stupid to breed.
“no support of African teror groups that were basically armed liberators”
Name one such group, cedarford.
Hey , Reagan did it .. OOOOPS!!!
Reagan did negotiate with terrorist kidnappers: that was what the Iran half of Iran-Contra was about. Such actions were not very effective. Not everything Reagan did was wise or successful, just most of it, and especially those policies that the liberals did not approve of.
I think the big issue is not the act of negotiation per se, but the fact that negotiations are based on leverage and power on each side. In a hostage/kidnap situation, the kidnapper has all the leverage while the authorities or family of the victim has relatively little or none. Therefore, just like geopolitical negotiations, if you have less or no leverage than your enemy, you will lose the negotiation and thus should not negotiate at all.
Re: Irish Alex @Jul 13, 2008 – 7:17 am
I look at Europe and all I see is its absolute failure to resolve anything…
IF ONLY the europeans are limited to their own indecisions.
They have been ACTIVELY preventing others from doing the right thing. Which gets me riled up every single time.
You could have gone back to the Barbary Pirates ca 1801 to 1830 when Europe paid bribes and the US did and then stopped paying (Thomas Jefferson)and fought. There is quite a history of European payoffs. The US and European positions seem unchanged over a long time period. Maybe this is another aspect of American exceptionalism.
NATO troops–Europeans among them–are massing on the Afghan-Pakistani border:
http://tinyurl.com/6nxuh6
If they go into Waziristan, they’ll take heavy casualties.
Good hunting, men and women, and Godspeed.
Dave II: Are your ancestors Europeans? If they are, I wonder what they think of you today. Pathetic is a good word.
Colombia should send agents to Europe to track down and kill FARC members and those who aid and abet them.
The U.S. DOES negotiate with terrorists. Why dont we all stop being naive. Remember in Iraq when terrorists captured hostages and demanded women to be released. Well, they WERE released. The U.S. got around the policy of not negotiating by claiming they were already scheduled to be released. This is just one obvious example.