I am dismayed that there has been essentially no mention of the two hostages who were killed. They were, I believe, the spiritual leaders of this missionary group, and that is why they were killed. They should be remembered for their idealism, even if their own government has clearly dropped any pretense of having ideals.

I might be accused of being anti religious but why in the world would missionaries go to countries like Afghanistan or Iraq where all this fighting is going on? They are putting everyone else at risk by their actions. Witness the emboldment of the Taliban by the negotiations for the release of the South Koreans. Everyone but essential people from other countries should just stay the hell of of the way and let NATO get rid of the Taliban without the obstruction of do gooders getting in the way whether the are for or against the war.

I've never understood why, when losers like the Taliban take hostages, we don't make demands of them. For example, they take 10 hostages, we announce, publicly, that we will start executing Taliban prisoners, one for every day the hostages are held. If any of the hostages are executed, then ALL Taliban prisoners will be executed.

In a bank robbery hostage negotiation, the negotiation is always life for life. You don't kill your hostages, and we won't storm in and kill all the hostage takers. Negotiators never allow the robbers to get away, or actually complete the robbery of the bank.

BarbaraS:

I might be accused of being anti religious but why in the world would missionaries go to countries like Afghanistan or Iraq where all this fighting is going on?

I dunno... maybe because they believe they're, you know, on a mission? <g>

Big D:

I've never understood why, when losers like the Taliban take hostages, we don't make demands of them. For example, they take 10 hostages, we announce, publicly, that we will start executing Taliban prisoners, one for every day the hostages are held. If any of the hostages are executed, then ALL Taliban prisoners will be executed.

For the same reason we don't, in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, round up all Americans of Japanese descent and put them in concentration camps: Because, unlike the Taliban, we're not tribalists who believe individual people are mere group representatives; rather, we believe people are unique individuals who should be treated as such.

Dafydd

Dafydd

My point is that they are on a mission and are willing to sacrifice their lives for their religion but they have no right to sacrifice anyone else's life. They lack common sense in going into these countries where if an muslim converts he is killed by his tribesmen or by local government. They must realize if they are captured the whole world will demand any concessions to free them. And to free them money must be exchanged. Money that will allow the Taliban to purchase more arms and also the arab street sees their success from a weak western society. That is why I am saying only essential people from the west should go into both these countries in a time of war.

Yipes!

Taliban prisoners. I.e. captured terrorists of the Taliban persuasion. You know, the ones the Taliban were demanding be released in exchange for the Koreans? Those guys.

I am in no way advocating rounding up innocent Afghan civilians for execution or anything else for that matter.

The misunderstanding is entirely my fault.

BarbaraS and Big D:

Curiously, these two seemingly separate threads have merged into the same (in my opinion) essential error...

My point is that they are on a mission and are willing to sacrifice their lives for their religion but they have no right to sacrifice anyone else's life.

But Barbara, "they" did not sacrifice anyone. It is not the missionaries who threatened death; they are, in fact, the ones who were threatened, and in the case of two of them, actually slain.

Additionally, any violent attack carried out by the Taliban using equipment bought by the ransom South Korea paid (assuming they forked over) is also the moral responsibility of the attackers... not of the people whose kidnapping produced the money.

To reason as you do leads to madness. For example, suppose a Moslem terrorist is holding you hostage, and he demands that you convert to Islam -- and if you don't, he will blow up a discotheque in Berlin. By your reasoning above, if you don't convert to Islam, you are responsible for all those deaths.

Aside from the Taliban themselves, the other group that shares moral culpability is the South Korean government for negotiating with the terrorists and perhaps even paying them a ransom. If you have evidence that some of the missionaries urged that the RoK do exactly that, then I would agree those particular missionaries are also (to some extent) culpable; but I sure haven't seen any such evidence.

If you say that innocent actors are morally to blame when they do something perfectly normal, and it "provokes" irrational fanatics into an act of violence; then you must also say that anyone who has ever published an anti-Moslem cartoon -- or an anti-Moslem essay or book, such as Salman Rushdie -- is morally responsible because some other nutjob chose to take offense.

Now, I would agree with you that the actions of the missionaries were probably foolish; but that is not the same thing as saying they're morally culpable for doing them: Most of the moral guilt lies with the Taliban kidnappers, and whatever is leftover lies at the feet of the Republic of Korea.

In the West, we hold people responsible only for what they do and the natural consequences (not the free choices made by others in response) to what they do. Thus, if I drive drunk and kill a pedestrian, I am morally responsible; if I leave an infant in the car and something happens to him, I am responsible.

But the moment the free choice of another adult intervenes to cause the problem, then I am not responsible: If I leave a loaded gun in my unlocked nightstand, and if a burglar burgles my house, steals the gun, and uses it to kill someone -- that is not my responsibility: When he decided to break into my house, he assumed all moral responbility for whatever damage he inflicts, then or later.

Or to make a closer historical analogy, when the Nazis came to the Warsaw ghetto, Jews resisted; they held out for an amazingly long time.

But later, in retaliation, the Nazis slaughtered thousands of Jews on the streets, burning many to death.

Would you argue that the Jews should not have resisted, because some other Jews might have survived until the death camps were liberated? Would you argue that the deaths of those who would have surrendered is on the heads of those who fought?

Where does this "sundered guilt" end? Are the Democrats right that the 2 million murdered by Pol Pot are actually the sin of the United States and South Vietnam -- for resisting the invasion by North Vietnam in the first place?

And Big D, you commit the same error: The Taliban prisoners you suggest we start murdering are not the same Taliban who are committing the latest kidnapping outrage. Those who are already prisoners deserve nothing better or worse than to be judged for the crimes they personally, as individuals, committed... not for the crimes committed by those who happen to share their tribal affiliation.

I have no problem executing prisoners found guilty (even in a military tribunal) of acts that have been declared capital crimes. But I will not countenance murdering prisoners -- and it would be murder, not execution -- not for what they did, but rather to force some other person's action.

If we do that, then we are hostage takers, as well.

Even Taliban prisoners (and I knew what you meant the first time) are individuals; even they deserve to be treated as individuals... despite the fact that they do not treat us that way.

Why? Because in the final analysis, we must act according to our principles and morals... not theirs.

They are tribalists, about as low a state as one can be and still be considered human. We are individualists. There is no reason for us to ape the barbarians; we're perfectly capable of defeating or even destroying them while remaining civilized.

There is no need to morph into Col. Kurtz.

Dafydd

You are digging a very deep hole and pulling out all kinds of worms that go far beyond my simple statements. All I said was that the missionaries went into an area where Christianity if an anathema to the local population. The Taliban and indeed the local tribesmen kill any muslims who convert. The missionaries knew from the get go that it was possible they would be killed or kid-napped. Both happened here. The whole world held its breath wondering and worrying about their fate. The South Korean government paid the ransom and never in a million years would I believe the Taliban released these people out of the goodness of their hearts. The ransom money was used to buy guns to kill our soldiers. If the missionaries had not gone into a war zone the Taliban would not have that particular block of money to buy guns. That was my point. And as far as holding the Taliban morally responsible for any of their crimes, I can assure you that they don't care. I am sorry that the South Koreans were kid-napped and I am truly sorry for the two killed but I still feel they were where they should not have been. People like that are used for propaganda and these people were by both sides. You are right, though, that the missionaries have a right to go into a country to convert, just not in a war zone.

BarbaraS:

If the missionaries had not gone into a war zone the Taliban would not have that particular block of money to buy guns. That was my point.

And if the Republic of Korea had not paid the ransom, the Taliban would also not have that particular block of money to buy guns... and that is the most proximate cause and the only cause that is by nature reprehensible.

The missionaries assumed the risk of their own lives; but they are not morally responsible for being kidnapped, nor for the stupidity of the government in paying ransom for them. Again, if you can show evidence that they begged the government to fork over the dough, then you can hold them responsible; but not if it were entirely the RoK's decision.

You seem rather anxious to shift the moral blame away from the culprits (the kidnappers) and the government which subsidized them, and onto people whose only concern was saving the souls, by their beliefs, of the paynim in Afghanistan.

You can rightly accuse the missionaries of not being adequately prepared, of making insufficient security arrangements, and even of wasting their time (let's assume nobody was converted); but none of that nor all of it together adds up to moral guilt for the crimes that the Taliban will commit with the money handed them by the RoK.

And as far as holding the Taliban morally responsible for any of their crimes, I can assure you that they don't care.

And your point here is? Moral guilt does not require assent or even acquiescence by the guilty. You may be confusing it with shame.

You are right, though, that the missionaries have a right to go into a country to convert, just not in a war zone.

Um, what is your source for saying missionaries, in general, have no right to convert people "in a war zone?" I don't recall reading that in any philosophy.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)