Click to Subscribe
Your Masters’ Price
This is Not Your Ancestor’s Crusade
© 2014 James LaFond
SEP/15/14
During the various crusades and jihads that rocked the medieval world—a world we consider so barbaric as to be beyond redemption—a combatant or hostage whose family could raise a ransom would be freed upon payment. Sometimes military hostages would even be released on their promise to pay ransom! And, even more barbaric, Muslims and Christians routinely exchanged hostages and honored ransoms. Although some especially cruel sultan or lord may have barred a family from paying ransom I can recall no incidents of this type of top-down traitorous cruelty.
Unfortunately for our current non-military hostages in the global Monopolistic Metrosexual Capitalism versus Regressive Mamluk Islamist War the neutered belligerents in Washington D.C. have taken to threatening the bereaved families of hostages held by Islamist forces.
I find myself wondering if the Capitalist Caliph in the Taj Potomac wants his nation’s hostages beheaded in order to increase war fever among his slaves.
These are indeed interesting times. By-the-by, the editorial staff at jameslafond.com is looking for a Syrian correspondent: serious inquires only please.
‘The Iron’
site reviews
‘In The Unknown’
eBook
winter of a fighting life
eBook
under the god of things
eBook
song of the secret gardener
eBook
fanatic
eBook
all-power-fighting
eBook
dark, distant futures
eBook
the gods of boxing
eBook
logic of steel
Jeremy Bentham     Sep 17, 2014

Good point James. Yes, in the distant past taking captives was an important money-making aspect of warfare. The rich captives were held for ransom and the poor captives were generally either sold into slavery or forced to fight for you. A Catholic order was even founded in the 12th Century for the purpose of ransoming Christian captives taken by Muslims. It was called “The Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of the Captives” or the “Trinitarians” or “Redemptionists” for short. Ransoming hostages is still an important source of funds for the Islamist terrorist groups, which is why the U.S. Government makes it a policy not to pay ransoms to the terrorists. However, as you have observed, this policy causes much suffering for the family members of the captives. Rather than pursuing such a one-sided and unproductive policy I believe the USA should retaliate in kind by taking the family members of the terrorist leadership hostage and holding them for ransom. I bet THAT would get their attention. We could further torment the terrorists by teaching their female family members to read and write and dress like Miley Cyrus. In fact on April 15, 2009, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, advocated the use of letters of marque and reprisal against the Somali pirates. upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/05/10/Call-for-private-forces-to-fight-pirates/UPI-62261273507905. As I recall Baltimore was a major base for American privateers and commerce raiders during the War of 1812. It was the American commerce raiders that forced the British to the peace table since the raiders’ relentless assaults, both at sea and in supposedly “safe” harbors, made it impossible for the British merchant fleet to do business. The privateers in turn grew wealthy from collecting their shares of the sale of captured British ships and cargo. Back to the Future! Perhaps you should consider organizing your own company of Harm City privateers to take Muslim captives and force the emancipation of American hostages. All you’ll need is a congressional letter of marque and a wealthy sponsor to supply the operating capital.

“No one can negotiate without the power to compel negotiation.”

Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals 1971 p. 119.
James     Sep 18, 2014

Dude! Miley Cyrus with a congressional letter of marque as a license to kidnap the matriarchs and would be infibulated daughters of Islamists! Lex Luther move over!

My problem with the current U.S. policy as I understand it is that it involves a ban on private citizens ransoming private citizens. I perfectly understand the position on military people not being ransomed. On the other hand, this is evidence that we are involved in a 'total war' in that American noncombatant civilians are being treated as POWs.

Thanks so much for the Ron Paul note. I like him even more now.
Jeremy Bentham     Sep 20, 2014

Looks like Miley Cyrus might need to be rescued as well. She got into a spot of trouble in Mexico by having someone spank her fake butt with a Mexican flag during a performance. cnn.com/2014/09/18/showbiz/miley-cyrus-mexican-flag Gosh, people in those underdeveloped countries just have no sense of humor about such things, do they?

Speaking of fake butts…I think I have an idea on how to get Adrian Peterson back in the game. The Vikings could cut a deal with the league to have all of Adrian’s children wear similar padded fake butts whenever he visits them. No marks that way. Perhaps you could even expand your pimp slapping seminar to include other forms of corporal punishment for family members and sell samples of such protective gear. But I digress…

Yes, it IS a total war. At least from the viewpoint of the Islamists. It’s a jihad for them, a holy war to vanquish and subjugate the unbelievers and establish the Caliphate. So for the Islamists there are NO non-combatants, just enemies with guns and enemies without guns. The Qur’an allows them to makes slaves of unbelievers. No Hague or Geneva Convention protections apply to either military POWs or civilian internees as far as the Islamists are concerned. So anyone who enters into ISIS controlled territory does so at their peril! Everyone should have figured by now that the U.S. government is largely impotent when it comes to securing the release of any of its citizens held captive in hostile lands. It’s not like the country would go to war to rescue anyone. There’s an interesting article on the matter in Taki’s Magazine asking the question WTF? Why go there when you know what’s awaiting you? takimag.com/article/americas_martyrs_gavin_mcinnes/print

But I must say I too am rather puzzled as to why our current Presidential administration refuses to allow civilian captives to be ransomed by family members. I mean really, it’s not like we really intend to defeat terrorists or continue with the policies of past administrations, so what do we care if ISIS gets to score some extra cash by holding hostage some goof who was foolish enough enter their domain? The only people who would be hurt would be the unfortunate family members who would have to raise the ransom. But I guess the current White House must feel it still has to keep up appearances.

“We live in a time when the strong grows weak because of his scruples, and the weak grows strong because of his audacity.”

Prince Otto Von Bismarck

19th Century German Statesman
James     Sep 20, 2014

We should not live in a world where the knowledgeable commentator feels it is necessary to identify Bismark, but we do.

Thanks JB.
  Add a new comment below:
Name
Email
Message