The most obvious argument is this - if you were in the shoes of the people captured, no matter what status you are or how you ended up in that situation, wouldn't you want your country to save you? Now I understand in the context of the Japanese people caught and beheaded by ISIS, they got little sympathy from their country because they refused to heed the advice of their fellow countrymen not to go to the danger area. But stretch the argument further - anyone who ISIS captures is innocent and no matter what, does not deserve to have his life taken from him. Just because countries don't pay the ransom, I don't feel that ISIS is going to stop capturing people and threatening to behead them.
For those arguing that if the country pays the ransom, they are indirectly supporting terrorism - even if the countries don't pay up, the fact that ISIS is already so developed today means that they are not as easy to defeat as we think. Such is the danger of terrorism - it's not a single person, or a simple group, it's a toxic idea which can lead to catastrophe and it can't be eradicated by killing 100s, or thousands of ISIS members. It's not like - oh, so we're not gonna pay up, what you gona do? ISIS will continue to survive even if the countries don't pay up - they don't survive on the ransom they get. ISIS wants to send a message, and indirectly fuel division between people by showing them whether their country will be willing to save them when they are in such a dire situation.
ISIS's goal is to become the highest power. They seek to purify Islam and begin a holy war. They gained a caliph last summer, and under Islamic law they must be at war at all times and cannot have permanent peace treaties. These treaties can only last a decade. No matter if countries pay or not, they will capture, kill, and seek ransoms until the end of time
If you were captured and threatened with being beheaded, would you want your kidnappers to be paid for this? It isn't about whether the ransom being paid would make ISIS stronger, it is about whether or not you want to reward kidnapping. On top of that, there would be no guarantee that you wouldn't be killed anyways. ISIS recently just try to use the Jordanian pilot as a bargaining chip even though they already burned him alive. If ISIS was to capture me, I am fairly sure no matter how much my life is worth, they would still kill me.
If that was me captured, I wouldn't want the U.S. to pay for it. And if they did pay, it's just encouraging them to do it again and it gives them more power. Also, if someone is around their main area, they should know the risks and consequences, but don't make your country have to suffer for it
Ideally, I would like to see enemies of ISIS resolved in saying that when ISIS takes captives, the victimized nation will act swiftly and ruthlessly, and punish all active and threatening ISIS members without fail. However, this is not the case, and with international tensions at the current height, it is important not to overstep international boundaries. Unfortunately, sometimes there is no other recourse than to comply, or to leave these captives be.
Personally, if I was taken hostage by ISIS I would most certainly not want to be savagely killed by terrorists but the thought of my country giving money to those sick minded people disgusts me. I would rather die than to have my country funding ISIS's schemes and have more people being taken hostage. Giving money to ISIS would only cause them to keep taking people and demanding ransom.
You cant pay any money to a terrorist / criminal organisation who uses inhumane and barbaric acts in the name of religion. These people need to know that sadly for them the people they have beheaded have brought countries together in grief and disgust. So instead of paying any ransom the government or who ever pays the wages should give the British armed forces and which ever resistance the money they need to defeat these parasites
Paying the ransom would only encourage terrorist and organizations like ISIS to do the same thing over and over until someone puts their foot down. If we reward them for their crimes then they won't fully understand the consequences. Also I would like to mention that paying a ransom still does not guarantee the persons release so in the end it really is pointless.
"Oh, great. If we demand a ransom, we'll get it Now we can capture even more people and not only get away with it, but we can fund the next kidnapping/armed attack!"
Would that really be smart? Giving terrorists what they want? It's already an "American Rule" that we don't negotiate with terrorists for this same reasons, because they could then get comfortable with doing it over-and-over.
If countries pay ransoms then it is seen as a valid fundraising (for want of a better word) option for ISIS. Therefore they would just take more hostages and demand more ransoms, knowing that it works. Yet if we don't pay ransoms then ISIS wouldn't achieve anything by ransoming, and so they'll eventually not bother to do it.
Theses are terrorist people! We don't negotiate with them. Paying them ransom doesn't mean they'll let them go. Paying ISIS also makes them feel feared and thats what they want. For now we should just keep rescuing prisoners back like the U.S Military has been. WE DON'T DEAL WITH TERRORIST