In a disgusting act of ‘jihadi’ terrorism, UK national Edwin Dyer was killed in the Mali border after being kidnapped by an al-Qaeda group in North West Africa, the al-Qaeda Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).
Announcing the killing on a militant website, the barbarians said:
“The British captive was killed so that he, and with him the British state, may taste a tiny portion of what innocent Muslims taste every day at the hands of the Crusader and Jewish coalition to the east and to the west.”
Edwin Dyer, along with one German and two Swiss tourists, were kidnapped in Niger, North West Africa, in January. AQIM wanted the British government to release Abu Qatada – described as ‘Osama bin Laden’s right hand man awaiting extradition to Jordan – from prison, and warned that they would kill Dyer if the government refused, giving the government 20 days to comply. The men were kidnapped by tribesmen and sold to the militants in Mali. Later the German and one of the Swiss nationals were released but the other is still being kept hostage.
Supposedly, the German and Swiss governments paid ransoms to secure their citizen’s release. Britain, on the other hand, has a blanket policy against that method and instead opted for using intermediaries to secure Dyer’s release. But Dyer is now dead, and his co-hostages alive. Gordon Brown said the killing of Dyer reinforced Britain’s “commitment to confront terrorism”. It should not just be the killing but the kidnapping.
This is not the first time AQIM, previously the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, have been kidnapping Westerners – European tourists in Algeria 2003 and Austrians in 2008. With the blessing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the group joined Osama bin Laden’s global jihad in 2004, claiming they would carry the ‘torch’ of anti-Western jihadism across the Sahara, bearing “the same goals as al-Qaeda the mother”.
AQIM are not only causing trouble in the NW Africa, but are reportedly nurturing al-Qaeda cells in the UK, France and Spain. However, security analysts doubt whether the group have the capacity to mount large-scale terror attacks. Yet, an Algerian al-Qaeda operative, Kamal Bourgass, was convicted in the UK for his involvement in the ricin plot, and planning a biological attack in London. He also murdered a police officer. Bourgass was a member of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, and was sent to Afghanistan to train with al-Qaeda.
Obviously the British government would never have release Abu Qatada and rightly so. But should the British government have paid AQIM ransom, like Germany and Switzerland, as an alternative and secured Dyer’s release, bearing in mind that the money would have been used to further fund the group’s terrorist activities in the Sahara and possibly abroad? Or was it right for Britain to have stuck to its blanket policy of not capitulating to terrorist demands, while risking the hostage would probably have been killed?
5 Comments
Paying ransom just ends up enabling these groups to kidnap more people in the future, and gives them a sense of legitimacy.
Not that it’s a particularly nice moral choice to have to make, but capitulation is a dangerous road to go down.
Yes I agree with you P.B.L.B. But at the same time its sad knowing that the other two hostages were relased after ransom was paid to secure their release, and Dyer was killed.
@PBLB,
I disagree with you on this one. Governments, companies and news organisations almost always pay ransoms when their people get taken hostage. We don’t hear about it very often, but its done a lot – particularly by the Foreign Office. It’s like the old adage often trotted out by governments that they don’t talk to terrorists while, of course, we all know they’re sat around a table somewhere in the Hindu Kush talking about how to resolve things.
I think what’s really interesting here is that this is the third or fourth time we’ve had foreign terrorist groups take hostages in order to call for the release of Abu Qatada. It underscores just what a big player he really was in the global jihadist movement.
@Shikwa – I’d be interested to see more facts on this, although as you say, they are often fairly hard to come by. On the presumption that you aren’t suggesting we actually give in to their demands to release certain prisoners, are you saying we should just give them the money to let them kidnap somebody else?
I’m no expert, but I don’t think kidnapping involves particularly high overheads. My point being, I don’t think that a group’s decision to continue kidnapping people is necessary reliant on any monies they might receive. Also, these guys were not mercenaries in the way that South American groups sometimes take hostages because they’re cash strapped.
Of course I’m not suggesting that Qatada should have been released. In fact, what I’m saying is that I’m not even sure Houriya is right in her analysis that no ransom was paid in this circumstance. We probably did pay. They killed him anyway. The point underlying that is – I don’t think we equivocate morally in front of terrorists if we sometimes throw a bit of cash their way to get one of our citizens released. And isn’t that the point you were making in your original post?