
Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom? - rhu86
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44660369?
======
paidleaf
So did they or didn't they? Are they asking the readers? Is this our homework
assignment that we are supposed to answer and turn in to the bbc?

Can the news start reporting on facts?

Read the article only to find out that we don't know who the kidnappers are,
if and how much they got, how much cash qatar sent to iraq, etc.

Whenever I read articles like this, it leaves me angry and wanting to never
read anything from the BBC again. What's even more frustrating is that the BBC
is government funded and not dependent on advertisers and they have no reason
to clickbait.

~~~
cheez
It's an interesting story. The only reason the information is out because a
government hostile to the parties released the information.

~~~
21
How do you even authenticate the info if it's from a hostile government?

~~~
londons_explore
Qatar not denying it is half way to authenticating it.

Audio recordings get you 90% of the way.

Carefully checking transcripts and metadata for errors gets you further still.

Managing to get the same transcripts from the intelligence agencies of another
country (either legitimately by asking, or covertly through "journalistic
contacts") takes you to 99%...

You can never be 100% sure, but presumably the above met the BBC's standards
for reporting.

------
peterlk
This story reminds me of a book that I read a few months ago called "Never
Split the Difference". It's a negotiation book by a former FBI hostage
negotiator. I think the context of that book offers some color to this story,
and I'd highly recommend it.

EDIT: I think the contextual question that arises from that book is: How does
the idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" play out in multi-sided
negotiations with such high stakes?

~~~
Cthulhu_
Could you provide a short summary? I've never heard of it.

~~~
peterlk
It lays out many of the basic principles by which the FBI negotiates with
kidnappers. The author writes that the book is meant to first lay out the
foundations, and then build on them to give the reader a toolbox (arsenal?) of
negotiation strategies. An argument in the book is that these strategies work
in business as well - I find this argument compelling. The title of the book
is in reference to the fact that you can't split humans. The job of a hostage
negotiator isn't to get half a human back by compromising. The negotiator has
to get 100% of what they want, or the mission is failed.

~~~
gricardo99
But I'm vaguely remembering several occasions where hostage negotiators do
take less than 100% of their goal. Examples are where they initially secure
the release of "weaker" hostages, such as those in need of medical attention,
elderly, etc... In those cases, I'm guessing that's an easy win for the
negotiators, since I doubt a hostage-taker necessarily wants a hostage that
can't readily move, or dies on them unexpectedly, without having gained
anything from a release/bargain. (grim topic...)

~~~
dalore
That's more to start the release and get the idea of releasing hostages into
the kidnappers heads. Once they have released one it sets the stage they can
release them.

~~~
gricardo99
yes, good points (along with user zck). My point is that it's a bit misleading
to say these types of negotiations are all or nothing. There are incremental
steps that work towards the ultimate 100% goal, which are valuable on their
own, without reaching 100% goal. Clearly achieving 100% of their goal is
always the objective, but I don't see "splitting the difference" as being
contrary to that.

Example:

FBI: release all the injured hostages, and as a good faith measure we'll turn
the water back on.

HOSTAGE TAKER: I'll only release 3 critically injured if you turn the water on
now.

(some back and forth, where the hostage taker offers the 3 critically injured
+ 1 child, and doesn't seem willing to move their position any further, and
precious time is being lost for the critically injured)

FBI: Ok, the water is back-on, we're waiting to receive the 3 critically
injured + 1 child.

I'm no expert, so possibly that's not how it would go. Would the negotiator
only take their initial offer while risking the lives of injured hostages? But
the "all or nothing" label belies that there surely must be some back-and-
forth with compromises along the way.

Of course you're never splitting humans, but you are splitting groups of
humans, and perhaps plenty of other differences.

------
dev_dull
> _These were obtained by a government hostile to Qatar and passed to the
> BBC._

How long until governments with access to required backdoors just start openly
blackmailing citizens of “hostile” countries?

Without a doubt it’s already happening. Resist all back doors.

~~~
londons_explore
Bet that government was the UK, as part of the Five Eyes program, which has
significant surveillance hardware in the middle east.

Almost certainly the USA used that equipment and grabbed those transcripts to
give to close ally Saudi Arabia, who used them to turn states against Qatar.

The first world war was caused by the killing of a duke, the third world war
will be caused by a clumsily worded text message from a president to his wife,
misinterpreted by another powerful nation state.

~~~
eloff
There must never be a third world war, it would imperil human civilization
itself. There can never even be a total war between two major powers anymore.
Our weapons are just too awful.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that our politicians self-preservation instincts,
strong as they may be, trump their egos (sorry for the pun.)

~~~
londons_explore
I'm of the belief that a world war today, which immediately launched all
existing weapons to cause as much damage as possible, probably wouldn't wipe
out the human race.

As soon as you launch that many weapons, and kill such a high percentage of
people, you eliminate the possibility of manufacturing new weapons, so the war
would be instantly over.

And I believe that despite others simulations to the contrary, there will be
small groups of people who will stay underground for years, surviving on
tinned etc. food. After 5-10 years, radiation levels will still very high, but
most dust will have settled, and the skies clear enough to start to grow crops
and rebuild.

Humans, as well as many other creatures, will become more radiation hardened
over generations, and given the bountiful supplies of tech and resources left
over from our civilization, will be able to quickly repopulate the world.

~~~
eloff
I agree fully, it's absurd to think of wiping out the human race. There is
basically no disaster that would leave the Earth intact but wipe us out. We're
the most adaptable species the world has ever known and we're everywhere.

I said civilization would collapse in a dire nuclear war scenario, which is
not the same thing. Advanced civilization itself may actually be quite fragile
- we see glimmers of that fragility now and again when government / order /
utilities break down for prolonged periods.

------
philip1209
> These were obtained by a government hostile to Qatar and passed to the BBC.

Israel?

~~~
simbas
saudis?

~~~
karimdag
Emiratis ?

------
defen
How did Hezbollah AND fundamentalist Salafi groups end up with the money? In
my limited understanding those two groups don't like each other. Or is that
enough money for them to put aside their differences?

------
homero
If Qatar wanted to support terrorism, it's plausible the terrorists could
pretend to kidnap those people. The hostages would suffer voluntarily due to
religious reasons to make it look legit.

~~~
Cthulhu_
There's a lot of underhanded ways to fund terrorism that don't involve having
your family kidnapped, like the US did with the Taliban by calling them
freedom fighters or something against Russia - see also Rambo. It's easy for
rich people or even a country to 'lose' money.

------
pbarnes_1
I stopped reading at this bit:

"These were obtained by a government hostile to Qatar and passed to the BBC."

Uhuh. So... how did you verify them?

~~~
talltimtom
Uhh RTFA?

“Qatari officials accept that the texts and voicemails are genuine, though
they believe they have been edited "very selectively" to give a misleading
impression.”

------
sandworm101
This is why government by royal families doesn't work. When the state and the
family are the same thing, the inevitable family crisis become a national
crisis. A billion-dollar ransom that then sparks a trade war? This is a group
of families fighting a petty grudge match against a background of slight
religious differences, reminiscent of the worst of the Tudors.

~~~
kurthr
I think it only matters what type of people are in charge. Democracy won't
protect your country, only whether those who have taken an oath to defend the
rule of law, their country, and their vote, actually do. See recent events.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-replaces-
natio...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-replaces-national-
pride-with-personal-
vanity/2018/07/16/d8c8605e-8927-11e8-8aea-86e88ae760d8_story.html)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Good systems are resilient to bad leaders. See the Roman Empire or England for
example, neither has any shortage of bad emperors/kings and both avoided
violent regime changes or subjugation by a foreign power for many hundreds of
years (and counting in England's case)

~~~
makapuf
I'll go further and say that if there is a system, it's precisely to be
resilient to bad leaders. If leaders can effectively lead, why have a system
over them ? e.g. a system that works when everyone acts out of good will is
redundant.

~~~
forapurpose
> If leaders can effectively lead, why have a system over them ?

Do you mean, 'if the leader is perfect, why not give them absolute power?' The
problems with that question seem obvious to me.

~~~
dmix
Which is why the OP proposed that (rhetorical) question... we have systems in
place _because_ we can't expect perfection, nor should the system require all
actors to be acting in good faith to function.

So far I haven't seen any evidence that this has not been the case in the US
(that the system of controls has failed or has been circumvented). Unless of
course you take rhetoric at face value over measuring real-life actions and
realistic outcomes, as is popular in partisan politics these days.

------
flukus
Are they launching another world cup bid?

