Cheong Wa Dae has issued a statement essentially begging the international community (read: the United States) to give in to the Taliban’s demands in order to save the remaining 21 Korean hostages being held in Afghanistan.
Given the nature of the statement, Cheong Wa Dae was quick to translate it, freeing me from the burden of doing it.
Another Korean held hostage in Afghanistan was killed last night. The Korean Government is saddened by this tragic news and offers its deepest condolences to the bereaved family.
The kidnappers are demanding the release of prisoners in Afghan jails in exchange for Korean nationals. But this demand is not within the power of the Korean Government because it doesn’t have any effective means to influence decisions of the Afghan Government.
The Korean Government strongly condemns and urges an immediate end to these heinous acts of killing innocent people in order to press for demands that it can’t meet.
The Korean hostages are not prisoners or criminals. They are civilians who went to Afghanistan for humanitarian work. Kidnapping and killing innocent people can’t be justified for any cause.
The Government is well aware of how the international community deals with these kinds of abduction cases. But it also believes that it would be worthwhile to use flexibility in the cause of saving the precious lives of those still in captivity and is appealing the international community to do so.
Two Koreans have been slain. Despite that, the Government will continue to do all it can to secure the safe and speedy release of the remaining Korean hostages. But the Government makes it clear that it will not tolerate any further acts of harming innocent Koreans and intends to hold the perpetrators responsible.
OK, let me be clear on a couple of things. I appreciate that the Korean government’s first responsibility is to protect its own citizens. And while in principle I’m against negotiating with terrorists, I do recognize that deals sometimes get done. I understand this.
But the key point in the Cheong Wa Dae statement is “this demand is not within the power of the Korean Government because it doesn’t have any effective means to influence decisions of the Afghan Government.” And why doesn’t it have any effective means to influence decisions of the Afghan Government? Because it hasn’t paid for it, either in blood or treasure. And as far as I know, it hasn’t offered any blood (i.e., combat troops) or treasure (i.e., serious amounts of green). If it has, clearly, it isn’t enough.
If you want to make deals with the Taliban, fine. I can even see Seoul privately urging the Americans to put pressure on Kabul, preferably with assurances that Seoul would make it worth Washington’s while.
But issuing a public statement begging the international community to make a deal? Whose idea was that?
Later, Cheong Wa Dae spokesman Cheon Ho-seon explained the statment. He noted that as far as the issue of the Taliban prisoner release was concerned, the role of the Afghan government was most important (duh). He said Korea understands the difficulties of the Afghan government, but it was asking for Kabul to handle the situation more flexibly and more actively. He also said Seoul doesn’t believe that the United States has the independent authority to resolve the problem. He said cooperation with the United States was necessary since it was an interested party, but Washington hasn’t been “intentionally” refusing to cooperate or underestimating the situation.
Internet media eDaily (linked above) said Seoul’s refusal to ask Washington for help appears to be because either a) high-level discussions with Washington wouldn’t help resolve the crisis; or b) if such cooperation were to become known to the Taliban, it might hurt Seoul’s efforts.
Yonhap also noted the statement was an indirect yet strongly worded call for a change in Afghan and US government attitudes.
According to Yonhap, President Roh yesterday directed the government to strengthen “multi-sided efforts” to free the hostages. A government officials explained that “multi-sided efforts” meant strengthening cooperation with the United States.
Yonhap’s take on the statement:
The government statement could be seen as comprehensively containing a message that condemns the Taliban’s murder of civilians, but at the same time says that in order to prevent further fatalities, the Afghan government should turn course and accept the Taliban’s demand that their prisoners be swapped for the Korean hostages, and for this, the role of the United States, which exercises influence on the Afghan government, is most important.
Does anybody want to argue that Seoul isn’t setting Washington up to be the bad guy now?
UPDATE: Granted, it’s a “usual suspect,” but the Kyunghyang Shinmun reports that the resolution of the crisis rests with… the United States.
UPDATE 2: Frankly, Michael, I don’t expect anything less from the DLP.
UPDATE 3: Now the families of the hostages have issued a statement asking for help from the international community. In particular, they asked the United States to “rise above political interests and, at a humanitarian level, cooperate more actively.”
The families said they intend to meet with the US ambassador to convey their hopes. An elderly relative even brought up the Korea-US alliance during the Korean War in asking for help. He apparently didn’t get the memos on “independent defense” and “the Northeast Asian balancer.” It also appears he didn’t get the memo explaining how the most our “ally” could scrounge up when we needed them most — namely, after the Taliban’s friends al-Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 Americans in the United States — was 200 non-combat troops, and this was even after Kim Dae-jung pledged support for the United States “in the spirit” of the Korea-US Mutual Defense Pact.
The families also expressed concern about the possible use of force in Afghanistan.
UPDATE 4: The IHT has a piece on this now (HT to Janus), including both the government statement and the families’.
How do you like this?
Paik Jin Hyun, an associate dean at the Graduate School of International Studies of Seoul National University, said that if the hostage crisis did not conclude satisfactorily, anti-U.S. groups in South Korea might use it to promote anti-American sentiments in South Korea.
Oh no! Not anti-American sentiments!
On Tuesday, the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, a major civic group based in Seoul, issued a statement accusing Washington of watching the hostage crisis “as if it were a fire across the river.”
“A fire across the river”… a Korean expression you should have learned when you read it in the Hankyoreh last week.
“As everyone knows, the Taliban’s demand is something the U.S. government can help resolve, not the Afghan or South Korean government,” it said. “The South Korean government, citing its alliance with the United States, dispatched troops for the U.S. war against terrorism.”
“Now why can’t it use the spirit of the alliance to help persuade the U.S. administration and save its own people?” it added.
Ooo, there’s that “spirit of the alliance” talk again. Well, how ’bouts this — Washington try to bribe Karzai into releasing the prisoners with… a goat.
Heck, two goats!
That way we can show the same kind of respect for the “spirit of the alliance” as DJ did in 2001.
UPDATE 5: During a regular press briefing, the US State Department made its position clear.
MR. CASEY: Take me all the way back to the gaggle, which you missed.
QUESTION: Which I missed, yes. I — just on the South Koreans in Afghanistan, is it — it remains U.S. policy not to negotiate with –
MR. CASEY: It remains U.S. policy not to make concessions to terrorists, yeah.
QUESTION: Not to make concessions.
MR. CASEY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, what about to negotiate?
MR. CASEY: Again, the policy as written over the past 20 years or so is to not make concessions to terrorists and that remains our view.
QUESTION: Are you aware of this — of growing — apparently growing sentiment in South Korea for the United States to actually — to change that on this — in that instance or to make an exception?
MR. CASEY: I’m not aware that there’s been any discussion of that, Matt. But again, you know, our views on this are well-known. We certainly have great sympathy for South Korea and for the people that are involved in this incident. This is a terrible incident. They should be let go. We want to see them let go as soon as possible. We’re certainly keeping in close touch with the Government of South Korea, as well as with the Afghan Government and, you know, coordinating to the extent that we can. But in this instance, the burden, just like in other hostage taking instances, is on those who’ve done this and the Taliban to release them and to let them go. But again, I think U.S. policy, again is longstanding. It’s been there for many, many years and I don’t see any indication that we’re going to be changing that any time soon.
In its report on this, Korean online media Newsis mistranslated the statement to read that the US thinks acting would be a burden. Or as the headline (at least at Naver.com) reads, “US State Department: We Sympathize with the Hostage Tragedy, But It’s Very Burdensome.” The headline was changed to “US: We Sympathize with the Hostage Tragedy, But We Can’t Concede” at the official Newsis site, but the mistranslation still stands. If you’re reading this at the US Embassy, I’d make a phone call to Newsis at 02-721-7400.
One commenter at Naver.com did say a funny, though. “The difference between the reporter (who asked the questions during the briefing) and the State Department spokesman is that the reporter reads Korean newspapers only, while the State Department has looked at the responses on the Korean Internet.”
UPDATE 6: ‘Usual Suspect’ Seoul Shinmun runs this editorial cartoon:
(rolls eyes)
UPDATE 7: Noh Hoe-chan being… Noh Hoe-chan.
Sphere: Related Content
96 Comments
Well, we all predicted there’d be a convenient flare-up of anti-Americanism in this election year. What stock do I buy to profit from sky-rocketing sales of “Fucking USA” badges?
The Roh Moo Hyun government is (as usual) shamefully useless, but I hope — perhaps unreasonably — that the successor clique might re-evaluate how Korea’s own policy choices may enhance or diminish the influence Seoul has with foreign governments including not only Crapistan but also the United States, China, and Japan. It’s not good to have no influence.
Protection of Korean citizens is not the responsibility of the United States nor of the “international community”. It’s Roh Moo Hyun’s. It’s Korea’s responsibility.
Failure to have made investments in things which would enhance Korea’s influence — whether foreign aid programs, friendship festivals, diplomats who can actually speak foreign languages, friendly relations with the United States (I bet Uncle Sucker would send Marines to hose down the Taliban kidnappers and rescue British hostages if asked — why is that?) or battalions of deployable troops to rescue Korean hostages — these things are Korea’s fault alone.
And in my opinion, Roh’s response to this Taliban kidnapping makes things much worse for Koreans abroad. There is now a huge target on the forehead of these people: Grab a Korean, and they will do anything to reward you for it — and you don’t have to fear retribution because their government is powerless and they have no friends either. Fantastic job, Roh!
“I bet Uncle Sucker would intervene to rescue British hostages…”
Not sure about this, but, in any event, the US did NOT intervene on behalf of the German hostages…
Nor should it have IMHO.
What makes these hostages so special? Why release prisoners in exchange for 20 some civilians when the prisoners will kill many times more death? Unless they’re asking for innocent Afghan civilians, I don’t see why there’s even a debate.
It’s really simple, Korea needs to stop paying ransom money every time her citizens get held hostage, and it will drastically cut the instances of her citizens getting held hostage in the first place.
One needs only to look at multiple cases in Somalia and Nigeria.
kill -> death
So clear a principle, so hard to put into practice…
lmao… this is why I should sleep from time to time.
kill -> cause
Every time I turn around I read about Koreans blasting the United States, whether it be throwing shit on American beef or surveys claiming that North Korea is less dangerous than the United States and idiots trying to take down McArthur’s statue or the nation working itself into an absolute frenzy over the regrettable accidental death of girls from Army vehicles; for Christ sake, the Koreans were calling for American blood over a f*cking ice-skating medal. One jackass even went so far as to write a hit song about it.
But, now that they need help, they naturally turn to the United States. The US government should tell them to do you-know-what to themselves. They are reaping what they have sown.
Maybe the Korean government needs to play hardball. Tell the Taliban if those hostages die, then a lot of Taliban are going to die with them. Say 100 Taliban for every hostage. Use a little stick.
For the electronic record, an observation of the obvious (necessary, as this blog has shall we say a weakness for certain jingos. Michelle Malkin?! Ffs!).
http://tinyurl.com/3yhlaz
Hamid Karzai is a PUPPET, a willing, craven, opportunistic PUPPET. He knows very well who is keeping him safe in Kabul, who controls the money. Why do you think he is silent while NATO air strikes terrorise Afghanis?
OF COURSE the Korean government is begging the US to allow a deal to be made. Whom should they address? Putin? Hu Jintao? The Hidden Imam??
“Does anybody want to argue that Seoul isn’t setting Washington up to be the bad guy now?”
I don’t see it quite that way. What I read into the Korean media campaign and the above press release is a desperate attempt by the feckless Roh government to cajole the US into saving the lives of the 21 remaining hostages. I don’t fault the Korean government for trying to help its captive citizens, but I question whether the Korean government has made the cause/effect connection between meaningful contributions to international peacekeeping and mutual aid in time of need. Some Korean netizens have made the connection. I have read messages on Korean news boards calling on the Korean government to ally itself more closely with the US and put more resources into the war against terror. These messages get far more recs than the occasional anti-Bush screed.
#1.
Instead, I’d copyright the phrase and sue anyone that uses it if I were you.
“http://tinyurl.com/3yhlaz”
Who knew that a picture of Bush with a world leader was definitive proof that the individual was a PUPPET (evidently the caps indicate he is a super-duper puppet) of the US. With that standard for evidence, virtually everyone from the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Russians, etc. (sorry I couldn’t list 95% of the world’s countries here)is a puppet of the United States.
In May 1978, the French Legion dropped their 2nd REP [around] to free this city of Zaire, which had been taken by 3 to 4,000 rebels, assisted by Cuban and East-German forces. Quite a few European hostages died in the aftermath — 170 I think — and a few paratroopers. But the rebels were wiped out. And thousands of hostages were saved.
South Korea, here’s your roadmap…
Sonagi is correct. Roh is in a desperate situation. If all the hostages are killed then the progressives will be blamed. If America rescues the hostages then progressives will lose credibility. If the news drag on then the picture shifts from Norks to domestic issues. Believe me, the Blue House is trying to bribe these guys off big time.
“Who knew that a picture of Bush with a world leader was definitive proof that the individual was a PUPPET (evidently the caps indicate he is a super-duper puppet) of the US. With that standard for evidence, virtually everyone from the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Russians, etc. (sorry I couldn’t list 95% of the world’s countries here)is a puppet of the United States.”
I agree but please explain this -
http://tinyurl.com/yvm3mn
Ouch, unbelievably pathetic. We can’t do anything, but if you harm a single Korean person, you better watch out! You’ll be in trouble. We will hold you accountable!
And to think that Roh’s government has spent the last 5 years throwing away the most valuable relationship it has with the US. Now, when the crunch comes, all they can do is quiver and wimper and imply that it is the fault of ‘others’ that they can’t do anything. Pure irony. You kick your only friend numerous times, but when you really need him, you beg for his help, while blaming him in a veiled way for your predicament.
I really hope that Roh is trying to do something besides cower. What, the ransom offer wasn’t high enough (I don’t think Korea should pay a ransom, but it seems that Roh is desperate enough to do so)? Why not get the ROK marines ready for action? Threaten to drop thousands of troops into the country? Do a Mossad and hunt down the perpetrators? I still like the idea of killing two Taliban prisoners for every hostage killed, but Shakuhachi’s suggestion of killing 100 Taliban for every dead hostage might be easier to work out, rather than trying to kill prisoners held by Afghan authorities. Roh is a leftist, he should have some understanding of how to get nasty…perhaps he could beg KJI for help.
I am not in favour of a deal, but for the record, I do pray that this crisis can be resolved in a way that results in no further bloodshed on either side.
The chuzpah award of the day goes to…
The People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy! (the what? maybe it sounds better in Korean)
They say “Now why can’t [Korea] use the spirit of the alliance to help persuade the U.S. administration and save its own people?”
Oh, gee, I don’t know, because you’ve gleefully shat on it for the last 5 years or so?
oh, here’s the article http://www.iht.com/articles/20.....php?page=2
Oh, oh. More begging the US to do something. If the whole incident goes very badly, things could still spiral out of control and we just may see another orgy of anti-American hate before the next election. I for one, will continue to hope and pray for the safe release and return of the hostages to Korea. If the worst happens, things could get ugly here in Korea, and there will likely be some who will try to put the blame on the US to cover their own sorry asses. So far, it doesn’t look like too many are buying this way of thinking, but you never know, especially if the worst happens and with an election on the way.
“And to think that Roh’s government has spent the last 5 years throwing away the most valuable relationship it has with the US. Now, when the crunch comes, all they can do is quiver and wimper and imply that it is the fault of ‘others’ that they can’t do anything. Pure irony.”
No, the irony is that some anti-Americans will see this as proof that Americans are behind the kidnapping. Mark my words, in a few months you’ll be hearing kids saying that the US orchestrated the whole thing, for one reason or another (which will depending on how the hostage crisis ends).
…Luckily, the vast majority of people in Korea aren’t that stupid.
The real problem is that Karzai freed 5 terrorists for one italian. If Karzai doesn’t free more terrorists, the assumption will be this: A harsh stance against terrorism can be bent for white man, but not for non-whites.
This has plus and minus aspect for future suicidal korean missionaries.
1. They will die by terrorists if they keep doing stupid things.
2. They might actually get left alone by terrorists who realize their lives has no worth.
Chances are number one will happen.
Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how American christians deal with this issue.
I believe if Korea goes strongly anti american again like it did in 2002 over this hostage situation, then another leftists will be elected, and it will spell the end of any “alliance” between the two countries. I strongly believe USA should reconsider offering visa free to South Korea.
The hard fact for everyone is that the prospects for future abductions are reduced to the extent that current abductees are valued as nothing, or even less than zero.
Someguyinkorea suggests that one way people deal with this is to invent conspiracy theories, and I think that is one way people deal with their helplessness. Praying for miracles is another.
But…is there ever any substitute for objectivity? The sad fact is that the prospects for those in the hands of the Taliban would be enhanced if everyone studiously ignored making any reaction whatsoever. Sad fact because it is impossible in the current intellectual environment, and the Taliban know it.
So there will be endless public posturing by all parties, virtually nothing in the way of rational action, and it will all confirm what the Taliban already fervently believe anyway: that their enemies are hopelessly feckless and corrupt.
The best outcome at this point? That the USA does exactly the opposite of what so many of those in Korea want, and does and says absolutely nothing. The Taliban will get the message, and the true friends of the USA will get it, too. As for the rest…well, I think many, but not all, are secretly hoping for exactly that…
+1 on the comments on the Roh government’s chutzpah, though after trying to slide in North Korean products into the FTA, I’m not really surprised.
Let me see if I get this straight: after 5+ years of crapping all over the alliance, Roh now expects the US gov’t to compromise its policy on behalf of citizens of an “ally” that the US gov’t has no responsibility for, the result of such compromise being to aid persons who abetted the deaths of 3000+ persons on American soil?
Riiiight.
And this kind of stuff doesn’t help (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/08/205_7493.html):
“As the negotiations to secure the lives of 21 South Korean hostages in Afghanistan in return for Taliban prisoners head nowhere, the Seoul government is now struggling to persuade the militant group to accept a hostage-for-money swap, an informed government source said Tuesday.”
I was checking out the latest news at the Chosun when I came across this photo essay of Shim’s mother’s reaction upon hearing of her son’s death. The photo captions identify her as being in a crisis center for the hostages’ families.
http://photo.chosun.com/site/d.....00681.html
Obviously, the media are allowed inside and that bothers me. In the US, such centers are private spaces for families to cry, console each other, and grieve. The media normally do not have access. I’m wondering if Koreans find this sort of coverage and media presence acceptable or objectionable. Crying parents make for moving visual images, but it really bothers me that these poor people learn of a loved one’s brutal murder via television and in full view of cameras snapping and whirring away.
In America, though, people would be waving the media away. Koreans feel a need to display their emotions.
wow! 30 posts and all about getting back at the koreans. no concern for 22 people about to be murdered, just concern on how the us can use this to get it’s revenge. sick.
it’s just like i said, some on this board actually WANT to see those hostages die. not because they were foolish young people, but because they’re korean. those people need to pay, right? they got to pay for candlelight vigil, right? the us could have these hostages free right now with just one phone call to karzai. oh no, though, we can’t have the us get rid of such a wonderul piece of revenge politics, now can we?
and to the person who implied a different outcome had the hostages had blond hair and blue eyes, you’re spot on the money. they would have been freed already. and with just one phone call.
“and to the person who implied a different outcome had the hostages had blond hair and blue eyes, you’re spot on the money. they would have been freed already. and with just one phone call.”
I don’t know whether either the dead German or the one still alive in captivity has blond hair and blue eyes. Germany has 3,000 troops compared to Korea’s contingent of 210. A Westerner held captive by the Taliban! Why hasn’t Bush made the call yet?
There’s no need to wonder. They obviously find it acceptable because you never see anyone objecting to the intrusiveness. Grief sells in Korea like sex sells in the rest of the world, and the Korean media knows this. They squeeze every last tear, scream, and roll on the floor for maximum exposure. Every tragedy, accident, natural disaster, murder…you name it and the cameras are inside the homes, set up at the funerals, and following the grieving around every step of the way, without any resistance from the objects of coverage. Not once have I ever seen a Korean with a swift hand to a camera, or a plea for privacy, or any other action that would suggest they objected to the grief-whoring.
When the cameras are actually inside of grieving people’s homes (as I’ve seen on many, many occasions), you know they didn’t break in in the middle of the night. Those people consent to it, and often welcome it, I assume because they think by now it’s natural (having seen the flood of Cry Coverage their entire lives), and in some cases they think it may help their cause in obtaining more “condolence money” or in this case, possibly help free their loved ones. And of course, there’s always the han to remember. It sells, plain and simple.
On a side note, the full media access extends to numerous other events that those in the west would consider private. How many celebrity weddings in Korea do you know of that did NOT have full television coverage? Versus how many Hollywood stars go to great lenghts and spend loads of money keeping theirs private and secret? The standard in the US is completely opposite, and it’s because families won’t allow cameras in their homes and generally want to grieve in private, and the media respects that for the most part.
The only time you’ll see grieving parents agreeing to be on camera is if they’re pleading with a kidnapper and think there’s hope, or their relative is already dead and they’re doing some kind of awareness/advocacy a la John Walsh or Marc Klass. And that advocacy stuff is generally months/years later when the grieving is done.
pawi, still failing to use your critical thinking abilities, I see.
You wrote:
“it’s just like i said, some on this board actually WANT to see those hostages die.”
I’ve just gone back through the comments, and I don’t see a single comment expressing the desire that any of the hostages die. The comments are directed to the wisdom (or lack thereof, to be more precise) of the Korean government asking the US to violate its own policies after its failure to protect (or, in some cases, undermining of) the alliance.
Blueballs: well put. Koreans seem to believe that their grief is deeper and more profound because they bawl it out to everyone. But in this case perhaps they are hoping that the wailing could touch the hearts of the Taliban, just as Americans go on TV and weep when appealing to abductors or hostage-takers.
As for “han”, btw, I think this is something the average Korean does not make a fuss about or consider to be a uniquely Korean thing. It was a fave theme of the minjung nincompoops of the 1980s, and lives on in the jargon-filled humbug of Korean-American academics (who take it upon themselves to explain Korea to the US, even when their Korean is non-existent). But the average Korean won’t say “We Koreans have a lot of han”. Cheong, yes. But not han.
It should be expected that the families would beg and plead for a prisoner exchange to save their loved ones. They can’t be faulted for that, because they are in fact desperate and would literally trade anything in the world to get their relatives home safely.
In such a wrecked emotional state, they can’t be expected to do anything but think about their immediate, short-term, selfish needs. Which is why everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. Plenty of western parents of hostages have done the same, calling for withdrawal of troops and other foolishness because they believe it will give them what they need.
But for the Korean government (and media) to mimic the same emotional, short-sighted, selfish line of thought without any kind of regard for a larger principle, or for the position of its allies, or for the Afghani government and the damage it will do to them, or Korea’s own resulting reputation as an easy mark for terrorists looking for a payoff and the long-term ramifications on its citizens abroad and its government’s standing…is simply mind-boggling.
The “flexibility” they’re demanding is just diplomat-speak for “give us what we want now, and we don’t give a fuck what the consequences are down the road, for you, us, or anyone else.”
Koreans don’t care if those released prisoners come back and kill thousands of Afghanis, or hundreds of US troops, because Korean troops will be gone, Korean missionaries will avoid Afghanistan, and others will bear the brunt of the long-term costs.
As long as they get what they want right now, fuck everyone else and what they have to deal with down the road. Which is exactly the way children think before their brains develop and they’re able to understand the concept of short-term benefits vs long-term costs. And go ahead, call me heartless for putting people’s lives in those terms, but the reality is that those calculations are being made regardless.
At least come up with something original pawi. Your chickenshit argument has already been tried out by those who were so desperate and bereft of ideas that their only recourse was to paint those opposing them as heartless, traitorous, bastards. For the last few years it was:
“If you don’t support the Iraq war, you must not support the troops, and that makes you a traitor/unpatriotic/evil American.”
So now you’ve ripped that off and added your own twist to: “If you don’t support trading Taliban terrorists for Korean hostages, you must want the Koreans to die, and that makes you evil.”
Ironic that you’d use the same chickenshit line that many of the right-wingers you so venomously hate used to their own embarrassment, isn’t it?
210 troops committed is such a wrong number to commit. It’s not nearly enough to impress Americans who are insulted, but plenty enough to buy scorn around the world as ass licking lackys of the US. They say this is what happens when you blindly follow the US.
By being half heartedly committed, you are pleasing no-one but pissing off everyone. If 210 non combat troops were all that Korea could afford, it would have been better if they had just stayed home.
For Korea, there aren’t many options available at their disposal.
The hostages are divided into three groups and they are constantly being moved around. Even if Korean special forces somehow make it into Afghanistan in time and somehow able to pin point where the hostages are held in an unfamiliar enemy terrain, they’ll need to quickly coordinate a simultaneous three way attacks on three different places. This is no raid on Entebee. The terrorists aren’t stupid, they’ve studied history so they’ve taken maximum counter measures to ensure that the things like the Israli commando raid on Entebee airport in 1976 never happens again. Military option will only get those hostages and more soldiers killed. It’s plain suicidal.
Next option is waiting on the US to free those hostages and pleading for their cooperation. But as you can see here in this blog, it’s only going to bring more American scorn. Don’t expect anything good to happen here.
The only workable option that I can think of is directly bargaining with Afghanistan. Since the US and Afghanistan sees Seoul as a useless, Korea should increase its bargaining power. Maybe Korea can promise an economic or even a military aid package in return for release of the Talibans. Failing that, Koreans may offer longer troop commitments or even commitments of combat troops, or all the combinations above.
Another option would be to just watch, pray, and wait that the Talibans be merciful and release those hostages (which is like waiting on pigs to fly while the hostages die one by one).
#17,
I don’t get your point. It is a picture of Bush with another world leader. What is there to explain?
It’s a shame that it takes the tragic abduction of its citizens in Afghanistan to wake up some South Koreans to the reality that their country is part of the big leagues now. International recognition and influence carries with it certain burdens that can’t be obfuscated.
Influence with other governments is earned in the diplomatic trenches. If the South Korean government doesn’t have influence with the struggling democracy of Afghanistan, then that is its own fault. To admit it publicly to your people as an excuse for non-action is foolish and downright demoralizing for everyone.
Anyone care to venture how long it will be before the Korean media starts featuring the bedside shots of the unshaven faces of Korean leaders hospitalized for “stress?”
I agree with CM. Korea should not have sent troops to Afghanistan at all, rather than send a number too low to be militarily significant and yet too high for the Islamists.
On the topic of weeping, hysteria - when you compare the Christians to the Muslims, who go off to suicide bombings with smiles on their faces, it’s hard not to conclude that the Muslims have more faith in an afterlife. Which is precisely what makes them so frightening.
“210 troops committed is such a wrong number to commit. It’s not nearly enough to impress Americans who are insulted, but plenty enough to buy scorn around the world as ass licking lackys of the US. They say this is what happens when you blindly follow the US.
By being half heartedly committed, you are pleasing no-one but pissing off everyone. If 210 non combat troops were all that Korea could afford, it would have been better if they had just stayed home. “
You’ve contradicted yourself. A half-hearted commitment is not blindly following the US.
Sonagi, read my post again. It’s half hearted commitment insulting to the US, while to the rest of the world (mostly) it’s blindly following the US and sucking up them, so serves them right.
For the idea that if it was westerners the usa would swap hostages, not sure if that is true. USA would barely lift a finger to help american hostages. Look what happened when korean college students kidnapped and beat US soldiers infront of thousands including police officer in 2002. I believe several american contractors were beheaded in Iraq. Actually, refusing to intervene may actually help the Korean women.
Many countries not just korea have sent a small number for troops to iraq or afghanistan to gain favor with washington. It may be why korea could be getting its visa free travel rights to the USA next year. I disagree, some help is better than no help. Korea tried to get all of the benefits of foreign troop commitment without the burden. Given the huge amounts of money USA probably bribed these countries with it seemed like a good trade at the time. USA could brag it was not a unilateral operation, many countries involved, and Korea thought we can get in on the contracts and any money US paying out for countries sending troops. However, the koreans taken here were not taken because of the korean troops there, but because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The taliban would have taken almost any non muslim foreigners hostage.
“So there will be endless public posturing by all parties, virtually nothing in the way of rational action, and it will all confirm what the Taliban already fervently believe anyway: that their enemies are hopelessly feckless and corrupt.”
It seems that is the point the Taliban is trying to make, if it’s trying to make a point at all.
“The best outcome at this point? That the USA does exactly the opposite of what so many of those in Korea want, and does and says absolutely nothing. The Taliban will get the message, and the true friends of the USA will get it, too. As for the rest…well, I think many, but not all, are secretly hoping for exactly that…”
The US as already said a lot, actually. Doing something? How do you know they aren’t? Do you think they would compromise their plans by advertising their intentions?
Remember the Japanese hostages in Chili? The Chilean commandos took care of the terrorists…but nobody heard to Canada was involved until months later when it was revealed that JTF-2 soldiers were hidden on the plane that the hostage takers had requested, ready to take them out at the right moment.
The Korean “left” has always had this schizo view of the U.S. It’s supposed to magically intervene on behalf of Koreans at all times and simultaneously not Hurt Korean Pride™ by, you know, getting all imperialist and not letting Korea indulge in its “balancer” and independence fantasies.
Someguy’s right too, we don’t know what the U.S. is doing behind the scenes and most likely the DLP doesn’t know either.
“On the topic of weeping, hysteria - when you compare the Christians to the Muslims, who go off to suicide bombings with smiles on their faces, it’s hard not to conclude that the Muslims have more faith in an afterlife. Which is precisely what makes them so frightening.”
Well, the People Temple (Jonestown), the Branch Davidians, Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, the Order of the Solar Temple…they were Christian, you know. Those were real wackos.
Terrorist groups, on the other hands, are just pretending to be motivated by religious fervor.
Ever heard of the NFLT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....of_Tripura
Oddly enough, it has links to the Pakistan’s (a Muslim country) secret service.
And then there the LRA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....tance_Army
Muslims pretending to be Christian Militants.
It’s quite simple. People like the Taliban use religion as a front for their illegal activities and as a means to get some horny loser to strap on that vest.
Corrections: Peoples Temple, links to Pakistan’s
Here’s the solution: Go to Uncle Putin with $20 million. Buy some polonium-210. Drop in into a tea kettle and serve it to 21 Taliban prisoners. Do the prisoner exchange that afternoon.
Here in CONUS the McNeil News Hour (Public Broadcasting System) led its broadcast this evening (Tues 31 July US) with about 45 sec to 1 minute of airtime on today’s developments concerning the Korean hostages. About 10 seconds or so of video showing the relatives of the hostage just killed was included (presumably this is a portion of the same video mentioned earlier in the comments).
When I say “led”, I mean that it led the news summary segment at the beginning, rather than as one of the “featured” stories (these latter are segments that go into more detail following the news summary; normally there are about three of these, though tonite there were about six or seven).
Nevertheless I consider the “upfront” coverage in the “news summary” segment as prominent coverage.
“#17,
I don’t get your point. It is a picture of Bush with another world leader. What is there to explain?”
It is a picture of President Bush being gay with his BF, a Saudi Prince.
“Sonagi, read my post again”
I did read your post again. My comprehension skills are fine. Your comments were somewhat unclear and ambiguous due to pronouns like “they” as in “They say this is what happens…”
Who is “the rest of the world” anyway? I don’t think “the rest of the world” speaks with one voice about Korea. As Kwon wisely reminded us in comment #46, the lure of rebuilding contracts may have been a factor in sending token troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. The only nationalities I’ve ever heard deriding the Korean government as lackeys of the US are the Chinese, North Koreans, and South Koreans themselves. I think this “blindly following the US” idea is something you’ve picked up from Koreans, who are projecting their feelings onto “the rest of the world.”
This sort of aforementioned press releases from an administration that turn a blind eye to Korean Chaebol illegally delivering a large portion of arms technology to a repressive state that has been condemned by the UN!?
This administration in Seoul seems willing to significantly contribute to the deaths and repression of other people yet can not save its own citizens and, as usual, America is a very convenient scapegoat for their helplessness (incompetence?).
To Bob, et al, relax, dude. Don’t get all defensive.
For all we know, the ROK, US and Afghanistan are working closely together, offering various swap packages or whatever in exchange for hostages. I am pretty sure, all negotiations (the real ones) are totally secret. It is presumptious to jump the gun, and say “The ROK gov’t is blaming America.”
Take a chill pill, dude, my matha’ fuckin’ brother, ally.^^
To cm:
I think you have it right, more or less. I would add this. The policy of “never negotiate with kidnappers/terrorists” is a bold faced lie.
The US — and every nation faced with a similar crisis, for that matter — has at times traded/negotiated with terrorists and has also refused to negotiated with them at other times. Each situation is different.
For example, the US gov’t traded prisoners for hostages in the case of FOX news reporters held captive in the occupied terrorities. The US, it has been revealed in the media, quietly approved the Italian hostages-prisoner swap in Afghanistan recently. And let’s not forget the mother of all “dealing with terrorists breach of the famous “never negotiate principle,” the arms (advanced missiles) for hostage scandal in the 1980s between America’s CIA and crazy terrorism-sponsoring Iran. The US does, on occasions, negotiate and trade with terrorists.
To bloggers with some neurotic “korea/koreans hating” fixation:
You guys seem to be saying this: The ROK has not “earned” the previledge of such an effort (swaping, trading, wahtever) by the US, because the ROK is not a loyal enough an ally. To me, that seems overly emotional, even a little childish. As though to say: “Boo hooo… If I don’t get my way, if you dont give me more (troop commitments, cover for my wacked foreign policies) then I won’t be your friend.”
How much does the US want from Korea??? Korea is the third largest contributor in Iraq and the only Asian country contributing large numbers of troops there. Korea is one of the few countries in Asia with a defense pact with the US. Considering the domestic political cost of supporting America’s stupid foreign policies , e.g. Iraq War, The ROK has gone way beyond the call of duty. America has used up all its credibility internationally with its lame ass Iraq War and hypocrtical War “of” Terror (my smal referrence to Borat).
I like Americans (usually) and American culture, values, etc., I am not “anti-American,” whatever that means, but their gov’t is ridiculous. (FYI, we Koreans get the difference b/’w country and gov’t. It is ignorant blogs like this one that list a slew of quotes from profs and NGOs and news outlets, and then conclude “The ROK gov’t believes blah blah blah…”
The ROK is doing all it can to save those silly Christians because even though they are silly and even though they are Christian, they are still human beings and they are still Korean. And that is what is important. The ROK gov’t isn’t blaming the US, isn’t blaming the Christans or Afghan gov’t. It is just asking (nor begging) for Afghanistan and the US to take this situation as one of those where they can negotiate with terrorists to free the hostages.
Please do not understand me too quickly. I might seem angrier here than I really am. Good morning. Have a nice green tea and day.
Bye bye
Okay, I’ve got it. Elite in North Korea who are hankering for a change, moved to action by news of this event, stage a secret palace coup. Before telling the world they’ve taken over, they persuade the Taliban kidnappers to let the remaining hostages go—for the sake of the Axis of Evil. They’re whisked out of the country, everyone breathes a sigh of relief because no one else died, no money changed hands, and no prisoners were released. Then the coup de grace, the new folks up North announce they’re in power. The only wrinkle is that, given their experiences, the new guard announce they’re pursuing an independent, pro-western path, unless the GNP wins in South Korea. The GNP wins on a tide of euphoria, and out of collective gratitude, openly welcomes immediate reunification with no strings attached.
Hey, it could happen!
Where’s God in all this? Doesn’t he deserve some of the blame for what happened? Doesn’t he have some responsibility to get those hostages out? What happened to accountability?
What will happen: The Taliban will kill three more hostages and then let the rest free as an act of ‘Allah’s mercy.’
If the Taliban were to kill all twenty three one-by-one, then Korea might actually get Vietnam era fighting anger. By leaving it at five or so killed, the voices of the ‘bring the troops home’ crowd will prevail–and a win for the Taliban.
I’ll allow the irony of that statement to stand for itself.
NOTE: I never said Seoul hasn’t earned the right to make a deal. It’s a sovereign nation and can do whatever it likes. I simply said it hasn’t earned the right to demand the US make a deal for them unless Seoul antes up. This is a form of diplomacy Seoul knows quite well, as I’m sure you’re aware.
Except now it’s backed up by a Cheong Wa Dae statement.
“Who is “the rest of the world” anyway?”
You would be quite surprised Sonagi, there aren’t that many who totally support the ‘war on terror’, outside of the US, or who don’t think it’s “Bush’s war”. But I’ll give you that one anyway. How is “many in the rest of the world” sound to you, is that better?
“the lure of rebuilding contracts may have been a factor in sending token troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I’m not sure what your point on this one is. Are we arguing about what was the motive of Korean troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
“The only nationalities I’ve ever heard deriding the Korean government as lackeys of the US are the Chinese, North Koreans, and South Koreans themselves. ”
Well then you should get out more and see what the Middle Easterners, Europeans are chattering about. Venture out of the American comfort zone, and the scene doesn’t get pretty.
“I think this “blindly following the US” idea is something you’ve picked up from Koreans, who are projecting their feelings onto “the rest of the world.” ”
Not really. I actually got that general impression from Canadian Globe and Mail reader comment section. But like I said, I’m not sure why you’re sensitive to jump all over me for something that is not really my opinion nor do I agree. There’s actually a difference between advocating an opinion and simply offering an observation. I’m simply making an observation that a lot of people seem to think Korea is an Uncle Sam’s Tom.
“It is ignorant blogs like this one that list a slew of quotes from profs and NGOs and news outlets, and then conclude “The ROK gov’t believes blah blah blah…””
An ironic statement considering that the OP includes an official government press release calling on the international community and the US to intervene on behalf of the hostages. Blah, blah, blah.
“You guys seem to be saying this: The ROK has not “earned” the previledge of such an effort (swaping, trading, wahtever) by the US, because the ROK is not a loyal enough an ally. To me, that seems overly emotional, even a little childish. As though to say: “Boo hooo… If I don’t get my way, if you dont give me more (troop commitments, cover for my wacked foreign policies) then I won’t be your friend.” “
There is nothing childish about balking at releasing a couple dozen insurgents who will then target your own soldiers and civilians.
“The ROK is doing all it can to save those silly Christians because even though they are silly and even though they are Christian, they are still human beings and they are still Korean.And that is what is important. “
You said it:
“and they are still Korean.And that is what is important. “
As IHBB made so eloquently clear in post #37:
“Koreans don’t care if those released prisoners come back and kill thousands of Afghanis, or hundreds of US troops, because Korean troops will be gone, Korean missionaries will avoid Afghanistan, and others will bear the brunt of the long-term costs. “
The Korean government is rightfully putting the lives of its 21 citizens over the interests of Afghanistan and the US, and likewise, Afghanistan and the US are rightfully putting the security of a war-torn country first. This same Korean government that is working so hard to secure the release of the hostages has turned its back on a number of North Korean refugees who were in real danger, thus valuing political objectives over the lives of real Koreans.
‘How much does the US want from Korea??? Korea is the third largest contributor in Iraq and the only Asian country contributing large numbers of troops there. Korea is one of the few countries in Asia with a defense pact with the US. Considering the domestic political cost of supporting America’s stupid foreign policies , e.g. Iraq War, The ROK has gone way beyond the call of duty. America has used up all its credibility…’ yourbutt
oh, and don’t forget the ten thousand koreans who died on behalf of the us war against vietnam. btw, can japan say that?
nope.
#51.
I was more thinking along the lines putting them under anesthesia and inserting a transmitter in their stomachs so that they could be easily found and recaptured…or ‘neutralized’ with smart bombs.
“You would be quite surprised Sonagi, there aren’t that many who totally support the ‘war on terror’, outside of the US, or who don’t think it’s “Bush’s war”. “
You’re switching horses. I was overseas when the US invaded Iraq and know perfectly well that the war was very unpopular. What I challenged was your assertion that “the rest of the world” viewed Korea as a “lackey” that “follows the US blindly.”
“Well then you should get out more and see what the Middle Easterners, Europeans are chattering about. Venture out of the American comfort zone, and the scene doesn’t get pretty.”
You know the saying about making assumptions. I lived overseas for thirteen years, most of them in Korea, and did a fair bit of traveling around Southeast Asia, where I met up with other foreign travelers. I have had many conversations about Korea with other foreign nationals in Korea, China, and Southeast Asia. Since I’m not ethnic Korean, people were quite candid about their opinions and perceptions.
“I actually got that general impression from Canadian Globe and Mail reader comment section. But like I said, I’m not sure why you’re sensitive to jump all over me for something that is not really my opinion nor do I agree. There’s actually a difference between advocating an opinion and simply offering an observation. I’m simply making an observation that a lot of people seem to think Korea is an Uncle Sam’s Tom.”
I’m not jumping all over you. I’m challenging a sweeping generalization you made about how “the rest of the world” views Korea as a “lackey of the US.” Although Canada is a multiethnic country, the comment section of the Globe and Mail hardly qualifies as a forum for netizens of the world. Your comments are not observations, but perceptions, which differ from my perceptions about how people of other countries view Korea. Again, I’m not jumping all over you. I’m disagreeing with ideas you’ve expressed. That’s what comment sections are for.
#64: That would work, too. Or how about putting the ebola virus in a capsule that would take about six hours to disintegrate in the stomach? That way they’d also infect their brothers in arms. Anyone else have like-minded ideas?
“I have had many conversations about Korea with other foreign nationals in Korea, China, and Southeast Asia. Since I’m not ethnic Korean, people were quite candid about their opinions and perceptions.”
Well, that’s not any better then my perception picked up from the internet, is it? Then I guess we’ll have to just disagree and end on that note. But you are an American, of course nobody will say Korea is a lackey of the US in front of your face.
“Abdulla Mohammed Al-Ma’ainah, the UAE ambassador to South Korea, said that the kidnap is an act that violates Islamic principles, stressing further killings would constitute a greater crime to mankind.”
“Mohamed Salah Eldin, Sudan’s ambassador to South Korea, said the Koran prohibits Muslims from killing humans and that his country is ready to lend support if Seoul asks.”
i love how they try to defend islam by saying the violence is limited to extremists or is not a part of islamic faith
are they reading the Koran light version? the versions i have read up on all advocate conversion by the sword and death to all non-believers. Is this not preaching violence?
Just as it it naive to believe that ALL Christians take the Bible literally (in which case one could argue that the Bible advocates slavery and male dominance over women), it is equally naive to believe ALL Muslims take the Koran literally.
While there are both Christians and Muslims who do take the Bible and Koran word-for-word (which is frightening), there are a lot who do not and it’s only fair to acknowledge this. (You would be surprised how many Muslims out there drink alcohol and how many homosexuals call themselves Christian.)
Anyway, not once have I heard the Taliban mention religion on this particular hostage case so why should any of us? They are not threatening to behead the hostages because they won’t convert to Islam. They have a very specific political demand which as far as I can tell, has not included religion thus far.
Anyway, as for several commenting here in the hole, I will give you all credit for being equal opportunity haters. A lot of you bashed Christianity when this whole thing started so it shouldn’t surprise me to see so much Muslim-hating as well.
Such commenters disgust me.
“Just as it it naive to believe that ALL Christians take the Bible literally (in which case one could argue that the Bible advocates slavery and male dominance over women)..”
Au contraire, mon jodi: One can argue that the Bible advocates slavery and male dominance regardless of whether today’s Christians, a lukewarm bunc, choose to face that fact or not. And may I remind you that the Bible - its Omniscient Author having evidently foreseen the distortions that humanist-infected theologians would attempt in the 21st century - explicitly demands to be taken literally, and in its entirety at that. I’m afraid it isn’t a buffet where you can take whatever fits on your humanist plate and leave the rest. Just let it go. You’ll find you love your fellow man even more when you are no longer praising a God who tortures most people in hell.
An analogy, to make it clearer for you:
“Just as it is naive to believe that all neo-Nazis take Mein Kampf literally (in which case one could argue that Mein Kampf advocates the extirpation of Jews)…”
See how silly that sounds?
Jodi, the taliban spokesman said specifically that the hostages were there to convert moslems, which is taboo in the koran, and if they were all males they would have been killed on the spot. Sounds religious to me.
The Koran has a wide range of instructions on finances, diet, marriage, relations with non-believers, laws and government, and they are meant to be taken “literally,” and in islamic countries they are taken quite literally, which is why there is sharia, islamic banking, dhimmi status for non-moslems, etc.
Maybe you should read the koran before making false equivalencies.
Yes, that is correct, Pawikirogi ( # 63), not to mention the support the ROK lends on the numerous fronts in War ‘of’ Terror, for which the ROK gets considerable flack from citizens who are against participating in the phoney effort.
Bob (# 60):
You missed the point. The point is that the principle “never negotiate with terrorists” is a bullshit. The US has done it many times, so it can do it for Korea, too, because (A) Korea is an ally (better ally than you and others in this blog seem to think) and (B) out of humanitarian considerations, which are equally large, larger if you consider there are 23 (now 21) civilians, mostly woman. This is the biggest kidnapping of foreigners since the 2003 invasion, FYI.
By the way, the ROK never said that a government should always immediately start negotiating with terrorists. It said that negotiation should be be tried in THIS case, because this is a unique and dramatic situation.
There is nothing ironic at all about the characterization of your position. It is rather cluelss of you to think USA bends over backwards for Korea in most cases. At the very least, who does more for whom is a matter of perspective. Either way, it is a moot point. Not at all relevant in this situation. The ROK and the US are allies, and allies do shit for each other.
I think I should emphasize here the unique humanitarian reason for more cooperation by the US (not more intervention). This hostage situation involves the kiddnapping of some 18 women, (not the least of which are these wide-eyed if not amittedly a little kooky Christians). It is not minor matter in the global perspective, not to mention in Korea.
This kidnapping is pretty unique in the history of kidnappings in both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The US did it for Italy , it can do it in this situation, which in some ways has a bigger impact. The humanitarian consideration and the dramatic aspects of this case make it unique. This kidnapping is not like a regular kidnapping, to the extent that any kidnapping can be “regular.”
To sum up: the humanitarian reason is a compelling reason for the US to cooperate more in facilitating (not intervening) a sawp. BTW, the ones released for the Italian swap have already been re-captured. So, the threat of released prisoners doing harm to other people is not as great a threat as it might appear.
That you did not respond to the characterization at all seems to mean that you agree with its underlying premise: US has the ability to make the swap happen, but ’should’ refuse (your position), because you think the ROK is not a worthy enough ally. That to mean seems like a biased “anti-Korean” sentiment.
NOTE: I will reiterate. As far as we know, the US and ROK and Afghan gov’t are cooperating in negotiations behind the scenes.
Sonagi:
Your first quote ffrom my comment is taken out of context, I think. Otherwise, I am not sure what your point is. For sake of clarification:
My point is that the ROK gov’t hasn’t, is not now, nor will not likely blame the US for what is happening to the Christians there. Many Koreans are, though. NGOs and normal people are. But they AREN’T the government. ROK is just asking (not begging) for the US to cooperate in the Korean/Afghan negotiations with the terrorists. My assertion is this: As it (the US) has in at least 3 other cases I mention above “negotiating with terrorists”, which neither Sonagi nor Bob have tried to refute, they can ehre too. That is all I am saying.
Any comments about whose fault it is, anti-American sentiment, and all that, are not from the Korean government, as I said. They are from NGOs, news outlets spinning impact scenarios, and from some professor. All this is not government anything.
You need to go back and re-read the gov’t press release. It includes a request: Please cooperate with us in our negotiations, be flexible. That sort of thing. There is not “America is to blame if anything happens!” You are being defensive.
I would like to add one more item. All gov’ts in reality have an open-ended policy on negotiating with “evil doers”. Every case is different. As the old adage goes: Never say never. There is no such thing as “never.”
Thanks. I hope this adds to the discussion.
In an earlier era of more self-confident Christianity, it was customary to honor self-confident missionaries who went forth into the world to try to convert souls. I remember enough of my pre-Vatican II catechism to recall this (though I suppose these particular Korean missionaries are of an evangelical Protestant denomination? Will have to go back and look at earlier posts, as I’ve been away from the net for a while).
The idea was to not necessarily to seek matyrdom but to not fear it either (though again, this may be more in the Catholic tradition).
However, historical examples of missionary martyred saints that come to my mind don’t seem to include any that occurred in the traditional lands of Islam. I’ll have to go back and look for any historical examples.
I guess I just don’t understand what these missionaries thought they were doing, and why the ROK government isn’t actively seeking to stop such missionaries from going to these countries — that is, if all the ROK is going to have a frenzy of grief about these inevitable kidnappinga and/or murders of such missionaries (don’t know how this story gets played in DPRK media, if it does at all — it would certainly be interesting to know).
We (the coalition forces) have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for going on five years now. Wasn’t there one or more Korean missionaries grabbed in Iraq in the first year or two after the US invasion there? My point: I would have thought that by now, the word would be on the street: “Hey Korean Christian! Go to Iraq or Afghanistan to seek to convert Muslims only if you are prepared to face martyrdom.”
If not — stay away. But if you are prepared — a bullet in the head may be the easy way out. Somewhere I remember reading about two western humanitarian aid workers, a man and a woman, who were caught somewhere in the far reaches of Afghanistan; the woman was raped while the man was skinned alive.
You’ll have to treat this last assertion as rumor control since I can’t cite a source. Still, it does seem certain that if you want to look the demon in the eye before you leave this vale of tears, Iraq or Afghanistan is a good place to do so.
I think maybe these poor young missionaries have been “corrupted” by the prevailing secular humanism of our times (so aptly expressed by some of the immediate prior commenters). There’s no such thing as “evil” and “demons” out there in the wilderness — only friends whom you have yet to meet.
Yes, it’s offically