Korean Hostages
Jul 27, '07 12:16 PMfor everyone
Out of 23 Korean hostages held by Taliban, one was killed. He was a pastor. I understand Taliban are a group of religious teachers. Do teaches kill a pastor? It's hard to understand.
Tags: hostage, taliban, pastor
Prev: Marriage of InconvenienceNext: Heat Wave
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 27The Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects. Violence and death is all they know and they need to be exterminated like the vermin they are.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 27
eglamkowski saidThe Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects Oh, I see. The Taliban took hostages who came to Afghanistan to help people. Majorities are female.

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 27
eglamkowski saidThe Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects. Violence and death is all they know and they need to be exterminated like the vermin they are. I agree, sadly.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27Yes, it's hard to understand. Is it possible that when they threatened to kill one, the pastor volunteered?

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 27If so, he must be a very courageous person. He must be the one who really understood the word of Bible. This is a state of emergency for them and our neighbours. I recall Poseidon adventure.There also a pastor victimised himself.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27
mercedo saidIf so, he must be a very courageous person. He must be the one who really understood the word of Bible. Yes, he must. Such people exist - thank God.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 27
ullangoo saidYes, it's hard to understand. Is it possible that when they threatened to kill one, the pastor volunteered? That is plausible considering that he could have felt a sense of duty. It's almost probable. And that makes him a both a hero and a siant. I think these talibans need to read The Secret and learn to love themselves FIRST so that they would give value to other human lives.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27
bugsey saidlearn to love themselves FIRST so that they would give value to other human lives. Definitely - couldn't agree more.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27I don't think we can end violence by "exterminating" any group.

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 27You can't end ALL violence by doing it, but clearly if all members of a group are dead, that specific source of violence will no longer be around to continue perpetrating its violence.Besides, it's not just this, the Taliban has been at it for a long time. Not to mention their destroying the Bamyan statues. These people represent nothing good or decent or respectable. Nothing good can come to the entire rest of the world from the continued existance. Well, except perhaps the ability to recognize evil and thus have some way to identify good...

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 27Sadly, the greatest atrocities have been committed over the ages in the name of religion - think of the conquests described in the Old Testament, the Holy Crusades, Inquisition, Hitler's war against the Jews - even Vietnam and Korea were - at least partially - inflamed by religion; perhaps of a different kind - Democracy vs Communism - at least that is what we were told. Iraq's religion is oil .. lol

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidIraq's religion is oil Yes, and it's more than that. Iraq's real interest lies in oil.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27If you kill people off like "vermin", you'll beget hatred and create martyrs. You'll also prove to the rest of the population in that poor tortured country that their "liberators" know no alternative to Taliban's methods. Congratulations.Catch them, give them a fair trial, let everyone hear the charges and the proofs. Then see whom people want to support and emulate.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I recall one historical event of hostage taking that ended up complete failure. In 1600, one general tried to take a wife of his enemy as hostages but she replied to it killing herself. She is known to famous Hosakawa Garacia or Madam Butterfly by Puccini's play. His forces were devastated in only one day.

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
ullangoo saidIf you kill people off like "vermin", you'll beget hatred and create martyrs. You'll also prove to the rest of the population in that poor tortured country that their "liberators" know no alternative to Taliban's methods. Congratulations. Yes, and then you'll have given "the enemy" MORE "reason" to continue the violence. I once did a research on Ninoy Aquino who said this 'violence is like a whirpool, when one starts it.. it really never ends". I do NOT like these terrorists, I feel for their victims and i hate their acts because it is evil BUT would it not be likewise evil to do the same? just asking.. also, maybe IF we give them some sense of sincerity and IMPORTANCE, maybe they'd have something to live for. maybe they simply can learn to love themselves.. the fact that they can blow themselves up shows they do have something like desperate "self-esteem problems". We can't get them to LOVE anyone and STOP violence if they do not even have the heart to care for their own individual lives:) WE can all all kill them fine. They can all try and kill us. Fine. But then what sort of people would we be? The "same sort"?

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidIF we give them some sense of sincerity and IMPORTANCE, maybe they'd have something to live for. Perhaps a good beginning might be for some of the western powers to at least take time to learn to understand the various religious teachings BEFORE setting out to destroy them.I fear that the acts of self-destruction are motivated more out of misdirected love for their god - after all, those who die in this way go directly to heavens - very similar to the Japanese Kamikazi. It is a mental attitude that westerners find hard - if not impossible - to understand. So, the answer: Let's not try at all.I am not condoning those acts. Violence, indeed, breeds more violence. And violence against innocent population breeds thirst for revenge. A vicious circle.

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidYes, and then you'll have given "the enemy" MORE "reason" to continue the violence. I think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidI think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.But isn't that saying that ALL such and such are evil and should be eliminated from the face of the earth .. "Enemies" by whose definition? I mean, who makes the call, "These people are evil, they are enemies, country, go exterminate them!"

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidI think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.This leads us to Bush's new world law to replace the UN Charter: If you hate and fear other people, attack and kill them. Now we are already hearing the refrain: We could have crushed those bastards with a little more force.Oh yeah, and the great Roman solution to the cycle of violence? Basically there would be peace in the world when one strongman held a club over all others. But soon the competion resumed over which strong man could reach the top over his rivals' dead bodies.Do you find my defense of other means of living cynical? Or is it those who say "Somebody has to be on top" (who are cynical?)

reply
ahfeiko wrote on Jul 27if you want to judge any group of people,just any particular group ,irregardless of creed or religion - see how this group treats their women.from there,you can deduce how reasonably civilize they are. so,do you all know how the Talibans treat their women ?

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
ahfeiko said,do you all know how the Talibans treat their women ? The same as all Islam fanatics, they do not exist. Except when the men want them to perform services.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Many religions advocates male supremacy over a woman.

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidMany religions advocates male supremacy over a woman. Then we should all give the women a copy of The Secret so that they will learn their true worth and love themselves ENUF to NOT allow their dignity to be trampled upon. Maybe we can give the men the same too? waddya think?

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28Most religions are men-dominated; could be that's why there are so many abuse scandals in them. It is - in Christian circles - based on Paul's writings. If you examine Jesus' words and John's writings, a different picture emerges.Even so, this domination is largely over the power structure (e.g. I desire women to be silent in the congregation, Paul) (Not this Paul - the apostle!! lol) At home, even Paul counseled love and caring. Not abuse such as some religions provide (e.g. Islam)

reply
mercedo wrote today at 11:04 AMI simply stated the fact and I am opposed to that idea.
Some of words left by Apostle Paul concerning women were already out of date from today's egalitarian viewpoint. But considering the fact that he uttered those words in the early first century, those are rather revolutionary democratic. Congregations were where people meet, especially young people who were seeking for their partners too, so he needed to draw the very basic outlines for them.
Male supremacy is an obsolete idea and it's not a good idea too. Many religions were made in very old times and still they drag such traditions.
In Ecclesiasticus or a Book of Jesus, the son of Sirah-this book is different from famous Ecclesiastes, apparently sexist views were written in chapter 25 that says all sins are derived from a woman and because of her all die, the writer hates nothing but the wickedness of woman, etc.
This book was excluded as Apocrypha, so thanks to such sober transactions, Bible has been kept in truly egalitarian viewpoint.

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Who funds the Taliban-- in the past and in the present? It used to be both the Saudi's and the USA, when they were fighting the Russians. They were trained in religion in fundamentalistic madrasa schools funded and staffed partly by Wahhabi fanatics from Saudi Arabia. I wonder what the links are now.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28This is not only true in Taliban but in Hussein's case too. US supported Taliban and Hussein in the past for fear Russia or Iran might take power over the region. Some might think it contradict itself. US doesn't think so. Because they are a realist.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidBecause they are a realist. US foreign policy is anything but realistic. It is mercenary - is there gain for us? Let's do it.They - at one time or another - supported Ho Chi Minh, Khamer Rouge, Baptista, Castro ... Why? At that time there was gain in it - now if that is "realistic" I guess they are.

reply
iamrevmike wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidUS foreign policy is anything but realistic. It is mercenary - is there gain for us? Let's do it.They - at one time or another - supported Ho Chi Minh, Khamer Rouge, Baptista, Castro ... Why? At that time there was gain in it - now if that is "realistic" I guess they are. This is true, to an extent. The interesting thing is that - if you take the time to examine it dispassionately - Bush is acting more like a Wilsonian Idealist than anyone else. The Iraq war would be over and done with, the troops would be home, and we'd be enjoying free flowing Iraqi oil if Bush had simply installed a pro-American dictator.Bush, to his credit, is trying to win this one for the long haul. He understood the lessons of Vietnam, Iran, and the American involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet period. He is working hard to build an inclusive, civil, popular government that will serve all the people of Iraq and be an example to others.It is easy to criticize the mistakes made during implementation, and one might justly criticize going to war in the first place, but a reasonable person cannot complain that Bush did not have lofty and worthwhile goals, and that he has stuck to those goals. He is not supporting the Iraqi equivalent of the Mujahadeen, Pinochet, the Shah, Noriega, or any of the other despots that other administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have seen fit to support.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
iamrevmike saidBush is acting more like a Wilsonian Idealist than anyone else. I recognize that at times leaders of nations felt they needed "something" a key event to get the reluctant nation into a war. Roosevelt had his Pearl Harbor.Bush had his "weapons of mass destruction" - which somehow evaporated and were never found. He lied to the nation, and he knew he was lying. The intelligence reports were falsified.I am not sure but 9/11 - which gave him the powers he so wanted - in his war on terrorism. He seems to be waging it very well at home with some of the new executive orders he had put into effect.I would not call him an idealist in the accepted form of the word. Idealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power".

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidIdealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power". In fairness to Bush I think he's just a little lacking in brains :) LOL! But dang! is he sooo lucky!

reply
iamrevmike wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidI am not sure but 9/11 - which gave him the powers he so wanted - in his war on terrorism. He seems to be waging it very well at home with some of the new executive orders he had put into effect.I would not call him an idealist in the accepted form of the word. Idealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power". What are you not sure about in re 9/11?And what "power" has he achieved? Every domestic power that was a little bit questionable has been blocked. Everyone hates him and is just biding their time till 2008. He couldn't even get his immigration bill through a Democratic congress.Nevertheless, he has done more to try to build democracy abroad than Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton combined.I know it is the trendy thing now to think of him as Hitler reincarnated, but it simply doesn't fit. LBJ would have installed a pro-American despot by now and been done with it.

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
iamrevmike saidNevertheless, he has done more to try to build democracy abroad than Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton combined. Not really, that's overrating the guy too much.I men, c'mon Reagan left a legacy of great foreign policy which Bush is direly lacking. LBJ.. wasn't he the guy who somehow started the vietnam war and had enough guts to end it when it was obvious that there was just too much collateral damage? Dunno about Clinton, but he did ACT when it was needed to protect Kuwait afterwhich he had enough sense not to get drawn into a longer war after the "invasion" of Kuwait. Who was responsible for 9/11? Al Quida but they weren't "buddies" of Saddam Hussein. They were chums of the Saudis. It would have been more plausible IF he ordered an attack on Saudi Arabia. The truth is that no one could CONTROL Iraq better than Saddam. I am not saying he is NOT an EVIL person but he did bring some semblence of governance then. Also, what I fail to understand is why didn't Bush make war with ALL the nasty and evil dictators in the world IF the whole point is democracy?
Reply deleted at the request of the author.

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidWho was responsible for 9/11? Al Quida but they weren't "buddies" of Saddam Hussein. They were chums of the Saudis. It would hav ebeen more plausible IF he ordered an attack on Saudi Arabia. This is more like how to think in cutting off support for the Taliban. And this is the point Michael Moore made in his 9/11 film. The Taliban are exported Wahhabi fanatics, taught by Saudi missionaries and funded by rich Saudis. Yet not only does the USA avoid challenging Saudi Arabia on this, it is preparing to make a massive arms deal with the Saudis in order to get "security" in the region.

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
briangriffith saidet not only does the USA avoid challenging Saudi Arabia on this, it is preparing to make a massive arms deal with the Saudis in order to get "security" in the region. Brian, I think that just today I heard something in the news about some "conflict" or undercurrent between the US and Saudi Arabia, but I doubt too that the USA would take a combative stance against that "nation". It has ARAMCO and other.. business interests!

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidBrian, I think that just today I heard something in the news about some "conflict" or undercurrent between the US and Saudi Arabia, but I doubt too that the USA would take a combative stance against that "nation". It has ARAMCO and other.. business interests! Wonder what's the matter... oil lobby in charge of the USA?

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28Okay, If you think arming the Taliban while thinking you control what they do with the weapons is realistic ....

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Go to it Bugsey!

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
briangriffith saidGo to it Bugsey! Maybe all this people really need is some oprah lectures on self-esteem and self-love .. yah never knows!!!! Have Oprah start a peace process!!!!

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Let them come to Oprah

reply
michigangal wrote on Jul 28Oprah is more respected than George Bush

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28I agree, I love Oprah MORE than George Bush and she exudes more sincerity. She seems to be a woman with the capability of 'giving hope" and what they most need is HOPE. With hope, maybe they will be SEE that their lives are not hopeless or desperate enough for them to go on killing! They should all read an arabic or whatever copy of The Secret! (oops.. sorry to my angry born-again evangelical friends but I read that book and I now love everyone!)

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28Oprah preaches spirituality not religion. Religion causes wars!

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidReligion causes wars! Amen!

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28I agree because no one really has a MONOPOLY on evil or goodness. :)

reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28I think so because I heard it over fox news and fox news means.. yah know.. Fox news is like Bush's mouthpiece!

reply
ahfeiko wrote on Jul 29time have passed & many'd(includes me) have concludes that Saddam was infact, the best candidates for Iraq. less damage would had happened if he's still at the helm.