It’s official. The MOFAT has just announced that two Korean female hostages have been freed and that they are in the custody of Korean officials.
BREAKING NEWS : Two Korean Hostages Freed
Previous post: S. Korea postpones Military Exercises
Next post: KNP’s Latest Effort to Crack Down on Motorcycle Gangs
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
Welcome news.
Kevin
Good. Hope the rest are soon to follow.
Great!
How many IEDs has Korea funded in exchange?
Freed with taxpayer money, they will no doubt waste no time praising God for their safety.
Hope to see them on the weekend variety shows.
Okay now the other 18? Two families are very happy tonight.
Now the freakin’ last thing I want to hear is how the taliban was so nice to them and treated them well.
“Great!
How many IEDs has Korea funded in exchange?”
Who knows? Maybe quite a few. I hope these Taliban turds are hunted down and killed before they can make use of any funds they may have gotten. We may only find out the truth a few years down the road. Kind of like when the United States allowed the Iranians to buy 1000 TOW missiles in exchange for some hostages in the 80s.
I’m happy they have been freed, and hope the rest come home soon too. Having said this, I hope these women learned a lesson… do NOT go to a Muslim war zone.
And that remark is significant how exactly. Oh yeah, it originated in Korea, the land where ad hominem tu quoque is not a fallacy but the very essence of QED.
I have actually heard one member of Onnuri, a large evangelical church here in Korea talk about how this hostage experience was a good thing and necessary to happen for the sake of the Gospel.
I wonder if the Korean Government will discover some strength and exert influence to prevent themselves and the taxpayers from being put through this again by these evangelical churches and their suicidal outreach programs.
I will only be glad when all of the hostages are free.
#7 Globalvillage: “…Kind of like when the United States allowed the Iranians to buy 1000 TOW missiles in exchange for some hostages in the 80s…”
Well, don’t leave out all the details with another blatantly obvious use of only those facts which support your “point”.
Like about how that was part of the notorious Iran-Contra scandal (1987), about how this put the Reagan Presidency in serious jeopardy, about how it caused the resignation of the National Security Advisor and his NSC staff subordinate Oliver North.
About how the arms sales to Iran (not the direct holder of the hostages, by the way) outraged many Americans such as myself when we found out about it.
Oliver North subsequently ran for political office a few years later (US Senator’s seat from VA if I remember correctly) and lost; I consider this a direct result of his involvement at the center of this scandal, which will follow him around the rest of his life like a cloud.
Most ominously (that is, if you consider Iran-contra a “precedent” making it OK for the ROK to do something similar) — the arms sales were unsucessful in influencing Iran to cause their Hezbollah proxies to release most of the hostages anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
But maybe the ROK government has learned a “lesson” from IC and will attempt to keep any ransom payment ultra-secret from the Americans (though this would be tough as the Americans would probablay find out fairly soon about any payment from Afghan sources).
What will the reaction of ROK voters be to public disclosure of a possible ransom payment, especially one which doesn’t provide full “value”?
Perhaps paying a ransom is just as fraught with political danger as not doing so? I don’t know, you guys tell me.
Sounds like a closet Darwinist to me.
Good news, but I wonder if kids will be the next hostages?
“Little Korean Martyrs in the Middle East”
By the way, I wonder if the kids in the following video even know what they are doing, much less what they are saying?
Korean missionary work
Sperwer, regarding your comment in #9,
How is that remark significant? It’s because you wrote something as significant in #3. Got it?
No, why don’t you explain it to me smarty-pants.
Can’t believe I actually have to explain to this you, sperwer, but here goes. Now pay attention:
The thread started with these words: “It’s official. The MOFAT has just announced that two Korean female hostages have been freed and that they are in the custody of Korean officials.”
Most people with any decency would just be happy that the women got released. However, your first comment was, “Great!How many IEDs has Korea funded in exchange?” Sarcasm and cynicism when two women were released by the Taliban smacked of bitterness on your end and not a thought about the fact that these women were released. But hey, everyone’s entitled to their opinion….or sarcastic comment. Fine. Let’s get to what bothered you later on.
Globalvillageidiot wrote back in response to you:
“Who knows? Maybe quite a few. I hope these Taliban turds are hunted down and killed before they can make use of any funds they may have gotten. We may only find out the truth a few years down the road. Kind of like when the United States allowed the Iranians to buy 1000 TOW missiles in exchange for some hostages in the 80s.”
Two Korean female hostages were released. You give a sarcastic (and some would say an ad hominem) remark about what the Korean gov’t may have given to get them released.
Then globalvillage idiot replied, who knows when we will know what the Korean government MAY have given in exchange for the hostages….after all, the US exchanged missiles for hostages with Iran in the 1980s and we didn’t know about it until a few years later….and you suspect that Korea did it, too(perhaps correctly, but then again Korea would not be the only country, is my point).
Got it now, Sperwer?
Yours truly,
Mr. Smarty-pants
And the KEY point Globalvillageidiot was making with his weapons-for-hostages-with-Iran-in-the-80s reference, Sperwer, was to say that we won’t know about the details of such a deal with the Taliban and Korea for the two hostages that just got released IF a deal did indeed occur. And the point of reference was the deal the US and Iran made with their weapons-for-hostages deal; we didn’t know about it until years after it first began.
#17 JK: “….the point of reference was the deal the US and Iran made with their weapons-for-hostages deal; we didn’t know about it until years after it first began.”
Not quite “years”. And this current era (2007) is not at all the same as 1987 (pre-internet; pre-competition cable news networks. CNN was around but they didn’t start overtaking the three major networks until the first Gulf War).
If there was a “substantial” payment to the Taliban, originating with Korean authorities or informal representatives (Iran-contra level, akin to millions of dollars or thousands of weapons), I suspect that the story couldn’t be kept secret for more than a few days.
I have no doubt that there was liberal usage of “insubstantial” amounts of money to grease the skids of the transaction involving the two sick women; whether any part of these amounts ends up going for individual Taliban weapons (AK rifles, IED’s etc) is of course impossible to track. The chief concern at the governmental level (US, Aghan) would be to prevent the transfer of “substantial” amounts of weapons/funds to the Taliban in exchange for the hostages, in order to avoid another Iran-Contra type fiasco.
Wouldn’t you agree, JK? Or do you think it’s morally imperative for the US to “bless” such a transaction by the ROK, given that it’s own hands are dirty?
No thanks. If the ROK wants to pay a major ransom in contravention of US/Afghan govt imperatives, let them decide to do this on their own and take all the risk/reward on themselves. That would be the hallmark of a mature country, one that presents itself to the world as a republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair:
1) “….Reagan approved McFarlane’s idea to reach out to Iran on July 18, 1985 while in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery. In July 1985, Israel sent American-made BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missiles to Iran through an arms dealer….”
2) “…In February 1986, 1000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran.[15] From May to November 1986, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts…”
3) “….After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[4] A week later, however, on November 13, Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages…”
Paul H., the POINT, which you apparently missed, of what I was saying was that Sperwer questioned why globalvillageidiot’s remark about the arms-for-hostages deal between the US and Iran had anything to do with the discussion when he himself was the first to bring up what Korea may have given to the Taliban in exchange for the release of the two Korean hostages. If such a deal occurred, I don’t approve…anymore than I approve of what people in the Reagan administration did with Iran. But globalvillageidiot made his point to say that there may be some time before we know for sure based on past deals-for-the-release-of-hostages deals as practiced by the US…..and he got attacked for this. Then when I explained that globalvillageidiot’s remark was as relevant as Sperwer’s, you respond to me with something that in no way negated my point to sperwer. You got completely off topic and said to me: “Or do you think it’s morally imperative for the US to ‘bless’ such a transaction by the ROK, given that it’s own hands are dirty?” which is NOT what I said, implied, or even thought. Got it, Robert H.?
Amazing, the logic of some of the commenters.
Correction from previous post:
“Got it, Robert H.?”
This should say “Got it, Paul H.?” Sorry to any Roberts out there.
Well, it sounds like a diplomatic tit-for-tat. The US made it abundantly clear that the Korean hostages are largely Korea’s own problem, despite pleas for intervention (while enjoying a massive dose of schadefreude in the process). If the Koreans did indirectly sponsor weapons of terrorism, such as IEDs, via the exchange, they’d most likely chalk it up to be mostly America’s problem. This is what happens when a nation like Korea gets embroiled in a superpower’s mess, but without the superpower capabilities.
jk, why do you bother arguing with sperwer? don’t you see you’re his viagra? i myself have decided to excommunicate him since it seems obvious he’s using the koreans on this board as his therapy. the guy is just one pissed off cat. let him find someone else to foam at the mouth with. anyway, good day.
Yes I got it and have all along. I just mainly wanted to call attention to your smudging of the facts (“years” when it was only months).
I guess the constant criticism of ROK here gets on your nerves, but in fact my position in the matter is not that far from Netizen Kim’s. I think both the ROK and the US would be better off if the ultimate vision for the ROK (and for an eventual reunited Korea) was that of an “Asian Switzerland”. Or maybe a better analogy is that of France — strong and independent, can retain an alliance with US if it wants as long as no US forces have to be there (De Gaulle kicked us out in 1966).
We (US) are going to have serious problems elsewhere in the world for a long time to come, and now that the ROK and the DPRK are summiting and chumming again we need to get started moving our assets out of the ROK and put them to work elsewhere.
I’m hoping for a beginning in the next US administration. Won’t happen with a Democratic one though IMO.
“I just mainly wanted to call attention to your smudging of the facts (‘years’ when it was only months). ”
Actually, it did take years to come out as the arms-for-hostages deal like occurred as early as 1983 between the US and Iran and wasn’t revealed until 1986 (not ’87 as you said). So no smudging of any facts, Paul H.
“I guess the constant criticism of ROK here gets on your nerves”
No, wrong again. What I didn’t like was the way when one person brought up a potential gift-for-hostages possibility between Korea and the Taliban…..and another person said a previous gift-for-hostage deal (between the US and Iran) was a good barometer to use as to when it would be known to the public, his comments was attacked with “And that remark is significant how exactly. Oh yeah, it originated in Korea, the land where ad hominem tu quoque is not a fallacy but the very essence of QED.” And people like myself were going, “What the heck??? The comment was PERFECTLY applicable…especially considering how it was Sperwer who first suggested an arms for hostage deal!” Globalvillageidiot basically was saying that we may not know for years what exactly happened, if anything did, based on a previous gift-for-hostages agreement. His comment was very relevant response to Sperwer. I pointed this out. And you….erroneously assumed something about what I said.
But Paul H., I would hope you see that behind the flood of criticism aimed at Koreans by certain commenters (many of which are legitimate) that there are those among them who do have some personal issues that need to be resolved that results in them either writing comments that makes me want to question their motives….or them attacking anyone who draws similarities to problems in Korea with problems in the US. As I said already (and I hope you finally got if you didn’t at first)….I never approved of the US arms-for-hostages deal with Iran, and IF Korea exchanged “gifts” with the Taliban to get the hostages free, I don’t exchange. But as to WHEN the details about it will come out….well, we can use a previous “gifts”-for-hostages deal as our barometer.
Just to ” re-peat” (see #18 by Paul H.):
1) “…In July 1985, Israel sent American-made BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missiles to Iran through an arms dealer….”
2) “…In February 1986, 1000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran.[15] From May to November 1986, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts…”
3) ) “….After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[4] A week later, however, on November 13, Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran….”
July 85 to Nov 86 for the Israeli TOW’s = 20 months approx
Feb 86 to Nov 86 for the US 1000 TOW’s = 11 months
Months not years.
Where is the evidence of the U.S. enjoying a “massive dose of schadefreude [sic]“?
If you are implying that the opinions of some of the commenters at this blog is such evidence, well, that would be really, really funny.
“Months not years.”
More like a couple of years once the Tower Commission and Congress released reports in ’87, which revealed a lot more than Reagan’s denial/admission in late ’86. (I’m going to give the Gipper some benefit of the doubt on this one.) Admittedly, I would not expect a similar investigation over this case to transpire in Korea, nor might there be much of a paper trail to follow here. However, somewhat in the spirit of how these things are sometimes done here, President Bush (Sr.) did pardon several of the major players, including Robert McFarlane. At least he waited a few years. In Korea, this might have occurred as soon as the following Buddha’s B-Day or 815. (Off topic, but I wonder who’ll get sprung tomorrow?)
Anyway, I didn’t open the door on the cash/weapons for hostages angle here. Just pointing out that this business isn’t unique to Korea. In principle, I don’t like it much, but sometimes compromises and exceptions wind up being made in the real world. And, we often don’t learn of the details for quite some time after the fact.
“Oliver North subsequently ran for political office a few years later (US Senator’s seat from VA if I remember correctly) and lost; I consider this a direct result of his involvement at the center of this scandal, which will follow him around the rest of his life like a cloud.”
The cloud followed him all the way to Fox News.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Stories_with_Oliver_North
There is no stateside schadenfraude. There is some amazement that the missionaries could be as naive as they were, beffuddlement at the blame-America reflex of ROK politicians and media, and concern that bumbler Roh could make a bad situation worse.
They may be free from the Taliban, but in a few days they will again be in the clutches of religious maniacs.
Peace Be Unto Herod.
A very provocative statement, Herod. Nice response, PA. What will be interesting is getting a read on these women and seeing if they meekly fall back into the fold or share a measure of Herod’s cynicism after such an ordeal. Will this have a substantial sobering effect on the Christian missionary movement here in Korea?
And people say women are discriminated against in Korea. The men are dead, the women are alive. One of those times it’s beneficial to be a Korean female.
I think it will, Maddlew. Remember that these ostentatious missionary trips (which are not even seriously aimed at converting people) are motivated in large part by competition among the churches for members. Now that the public is frowning on missionary activity, my guess is the churches will find other ways to draw attention to themselves.
Peace be unto you too, peninsular!
Open season on Koreans globally. No tag needed.
Herod, regarding #34,
“Remember that these ostentatious missionary trips (which are not even seriously aimed at converting people) are motivated in large part by competition among the churches for members.”
That’s a pretty presumptuous (if not ignorant) statement on your part. And you know that these missionaries were not seriously aiming to conver people in Afghanistan because….? And you know they were motivated in large part by competition among the churces for members because…..? I mean, on the second point you were trying to make, how would going to Afghanistan make a Korean want to go to that church located in Korea?
I go to a church here in America, and I assure it is NOT because some of the missionaries may go to some dangerous area to spread the Word; shallow as this sounds, I chose the church I go to for various reasons, including logistics (it’s close enough to where I live), people I know there, the pastors’ sermon styles, etc. I never once consider in what countries the church sends its missionaries do their work (though that in and of itself may be something to consider so that I can help missionaries in other countries with fundraising activities and spiritual support).
#30,
…who will spin this into proof that Muslims are barbarians who should all be converted? I sure hope not.
#36,
Dude, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Every Korean Christian I have spoken to about this believe that that getting publicity for their church was one of their prime motivators.
#37, thanks for beating me to it re #36. Korean Christians themselves know what’s going on here.
They also know that you don’t convert people by village-hopping in a bus with no knowledge of the relevant language or customs. Had those ninnies been out to convert people they would have been more knowledgable about Islam – too knowledgabe to treat the whole trip as a lark, as their infantile poses at the airport indicate they did.
But let me turn #36′s facile questioning around. And you know they were seriously out to convert people because…? And you know Korean churches do not try to compete with each other because…?
Re: #36
Churches in America != Churches in Korea
JK,
You’re a smart guy, so I’m sure you understand that just because you are Korean, that does not automatically mean you know more about Korean culture (in Korea) than foreigners living in Korea. We’re here (in Korea) every day and talk with Koreans (living in Korea) every day.
Heck, I’m sure you know a lot more about American culture these days than I do. I haven’t spent significant time in the U.S. in almost 2 years.
To the point, given Korean culture’s recent history of rapidly adapting to change (when it wants to), I predict the “Mission:Impossible” style of marketing campaigns Korean churches use to attract followers and raise money will rapidly decline.
So, I am optimistic Korean culture will learn and adapt sooner rather than later.
As for foreign policy, however, I have zero confidence in Roh, the LDP, and the Korean Left in general. The short-sighted efforts to bring home fellow Koreans will only create more problems down the road for both the safety of other Koreans traveling in dangerous places and also for the U.S.-Korea alliance.
There may be only so much whining and blaming of the U.S. that American policy-makers will continue to put up with.
Re: #23
“I’m hoping for a beginning in the next US administration. Won’t happen with a Democratic one though IMO.”
If Obama gets elected, he’ll likely pull troops from Korea to invade Pakistan. If not then, he’ll need them when he truly starts WW-III with the Muslim world. It seems the accusations of immaturity ring true with Obama. *sigh*
#1 yeah
‘How many IEDs has Korea funded in exchange?’
‘It will be interesting to see how many more weapons and explosives will brought into Afghanistan after the huge ransom was paid. More on the hostage release at….’
mujahedeen, osama bin laden, the united states of america. understand?
#42 –
You might have had a valid point here, if airplanes were falling out of the sky as a result of the mujaheddin’s leftover Stinger missiles.
In any case, the US supported the mujaheddin to stack the deck against a Soviet victory in Afghanistan. It was done in support of American geopolitical aims. Paying ransom to the Taliban is in no way analogous—unless Korea’s geopolitical aims include encouraging terrorists to kidnap Korean citizens.
Per Pawi’s comment, consider the aid that Korea has given to the Taliban by allowing this to happen first and then by negotiating with the Taliban,
If I were the Korean Government, I would put cement block shoes on all of these alleged churches, to keep them from wandering, and publicly warn them that if they go and get captured, they are on their own — completely.
# 16,
JK we are just going to have to accept that Spewer is the tin man here- someone who just doesn’t have a heart, at least for the hostages.
Not sure what the Koreans had to give in return for these two free hostages, if anything. Does anyone know for sure?
JK, I believe alot of the missionary work has become sort of a competition between churches here in Korea. I believe I even read something to that effect by some sociologist in one of the fish-wraps here. They really do see it as a promotional point for their churches. It certainly seems to work on the parishioners. The ones doing the most missionary work are the ones bringing in the most cache.
how many muslim terrorists do we create with our continued alliance with the saudis? you know saudi arabia, the country that provided 911 and continues to provide the world with the best terrorist this side of the koran. and to go just a bit further, how many of us fund terrorism with our love for the car?
don’t tell me about koreans funding ieds when the us freely associates with the source of so much radicalism. saudi arabia is one of the primary sources for those who blow up our soldiers.
lastly, allowing the 21 young people to die is not an option for the koreans. they’ll have to do what they have to gain their release. i fully support their actions.
Oh, alright Pawi. In that case give them anything they want. Money, weapons, hell,let’s see if you can’t get some of their terrorists, errrr…, prisoners set free.
Like I’ve said before, if there is a mistake that’s been made, the US has done it. But that’s no reason to carefully find each of those missteps and goad Korea into repeating them.
Who isn’t in partnership with Saudi oil? Any country that has a car is doing business with Saudi Arabia.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }