D-War
Opened. 1 August 2007 (South Korea)
How I saw it. CGV Theater.
Plot. heavy spoilers.
Will be released in USA on 14 September 2007.
As a fan of the movies, there has always been one type of film that I have always loved. Sad to say, it is the "Monster" film. One of my first childhood movie memories was the 1956 Godzilla. I knew that it was a man in a rubber suit and, to be honest, I did not care. I have amassed a nice collection of the so called "Monster" films. On quiet, rainy days, I still warm up some popcorn and enjoy films from my childhood.
I had heard of "D-War" for many years now, and each time the film had a release date and then the date kept getting pushed back. I kept wondering will this film ever be released. As of today, this is the most expensive Korean Film ever made. With cost rumored to be between 30-100 million dollars, this could even be the biggest risk or failure in Korean film history.
To be honest, the film had every reason I should like it, a big monster, great special effects, a somewhat corny story and a huge battle in L.A. I should have loved it but sad to say, I really hated the film. Based on Korea Pop Wars It looks like I will be in the minority here in Korea. The Korean Producer of the film, Showbox, is prediction an opening weekend of 2-2.5 million tickets sold.
The main reason that I hated the film was very easy. The acting was just that bad. I do not even mean as bad as "Plan 9 from Outer Space", I actually liked that film.
For all of the special effect, the wooden acting just left a bad taste in my mouth. One other reason was the film seemed very rushed at 90 minutes, it had very little plot development and the story, as a whole, just seemed very flat.
If you like monsters, then this will be the summer film for you. The film is in English and Korean so please be ready for that.
Grade. C-
Saturday, August 04, 2007
IS HE TAKING A PAGE OUT OF JIMMY Carters' book?
I expected the Roh Administration to be consistently incompetent in handling the hostage crisis and so far I have not been disappointed. The latest incompetency is that the Korean government paid ransom to the wrong people:
For now, though, the chances of a breakthrough seem slim. Indeed, the negotiations seem to be marked by confusion. The senior Taliban commander tells NEWSWEEK that a newly arrived South Korean envoy, a Ghazni member of parliament and some government negotiators, may have been talking to a bogus Taliban group that was posing as the kidnappers and has demanded and received some money. There is no way to verify the claim of the commander, who has provided reliable information to NEWSWEEK in the past. But he insists that he has never asked for any money, and is only interested in an exchange of the hostages for Taliban prisoners. (HT: Nomad)
This news broke in a Newsweek interview with the Taliban. Of course the Korean government has denied this, but I see no reason why the Taliban would lie about this plus this is the incompetency I expect from the Korean government. Make sure you read the whole article because as I suspected the big white bus they were driving in on the highway with no security is what drew their attention to kidnap the missionaries.
I still cannot get over how naive and stupid these people are. They might as well have hung a banner on the side of the bus saying "Kidnap Me!"
If anyone is wondering why the Afghan government does not want to release Taliban prisoners here is your reason why:
The impasse has placed Afghan President Hamid Karzai in an almost impossible predicament. Last March, facing a similar dilemma and under heavy pressure from Italy, Karzai ordered the release of five senior Taliban officials in exchange for an Italian journalist, Daniele Mastrogiacomo, who had been abducted along with his Afghan driver and interpreter. The Taliban executed the two Afghans, and Karzai’s European and U.S. allies widely criticized his humanitarian gesture. One of the freed Taliban commanders, Mansor Dadullah, is now directing suicide bombings and other attacks against Afghan and American forces from his redoubt on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Who knows how many people have died because of the freeing of one Italian journalist, not that Seoul cares because they just discovered the Taliban are not "conscientious Muslims" and have been attempting to shift responsibility for the whole crisis on to the US.
To further show Korean governmental incompetence the government is sending members from the national assembly to Washington to lobby President Bush who is meeting with Afghan President Karzai at Camp David the next two days, to release the Taliban prisoners. All these governmental officials are just going to make Karzai dig in his feet even more because he is not going to give in to public governmental pressure from Korea. The Korean government continues to do more harm than good for these hostages.
At least the hostages’ families are seeing through the charade being organized by the Korean government, anti-US groups, and their media allies:
The families of the Korean hostages spoke out against a movement to hold the U.S. responsible for the unresolved crisis, saying anti-American demonstrations could put the hostages’ lives at greater risk. The families turned down an offer by some anti-American organizations to stage a candlelight rally.
Lee Jeong-hoon, a representative of the families, said on Thursday, “Since an anti-American demonstration could have a negative influence on the negotiations for the release of the hostages, we have made efforts to avoid being involved in any such demonstrations.” “An anti-American movement could be what the Taliban want,” Lee said. “We rejected suggestions by some anti-American groups to hold a candlelight vigil and march to the U.S. Embassy in Korea.” (HT: OFK)
What a mess this hostage crisis is and the people of Korea have their most incompetent administration in decades to try and solve it. Just ask yourself, if you were Korean would you want President Roh trying to save you?
You can read more over at Hot Air
I expected the Roh Administration to be consistently incompetent in handling the hostage crisis and so far I have not been disappointed. The latest incompetency is that the Korean government paid ransom to the wrong people:
For now, though, the chances of a breakthrough seem slim. Indeed, the negotiations seem to be marked by confusion. The senior Taliban commander tells NEWSWEEK that a newly arrived South Korean envoy, a Ghazni member of parliament and some government negotiators, may have been talking to a bogus Taliban group that was posing as the kidnappers and has demanded and received some money. There is no way to verify the claim of the commander, who has provided reliable information to NEWSWEEK in the past. But he insists that he has never asked for any money, and is only interested in an exchange of the hostages for Taliban prisoners. (HT: Nomad)
This news broke in a Newsweek interview with the Taliban. Of course the Korean government has denied this, but I see no reason why the Taliban would lie about this plus this is the incompetency I expect from the Korean government. Make sure you read the whole article because as I suspected the big white bus they were driving in on the highway with no security is what drew their attention to kidnap the missionaries.
I still cannot get over how naive and stupid these people are. They might as well have hung a banner on the side of the bus saying "Kidnap Me!"
If anyone is wondering why the Afghan government does not want to release Taliban prisoners here is your reason why:
The impasse has placed Afghan President Hamid Karzai in an almost impossible predicament. Last March, facing a similar dilemma and under heavy pressure from Italy, Karzai ordered the release of five senior Taliban officials in exchange for an Italian journalist, Daniele Mastrogiacomo, who had been abducted along with his Afghan driver and interpreter. The Taliban executed the two Afghans, and Karzai’s European and U.S. allies widely criticized his humanitarian gesture. One of the freed Taliban commanders, Mansor Dadullah, is now directing suicide bombings and other attacks against Afghan and American forces from his redoubt on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Who knows how many people have died because of the freeing of one Italian journalist, not that Seoul cares because they just discovered the Taliban are not "conscientious Muslims" and have been attempting to shift responsibility for the whole crisis on to the US.
To further show Korean governmental incompetence the government is sending members from the national assembly to Washington to lobby President Bush who is meeting with Afghan President Karzai at Camp David the next two days, to release the Taliban prisoners. All these governmental officials are just going to make Karzai dig in his feet even more because he is not going to give in to public governmental pressure from Korea. The Korean government continues to do more harm than good for these hostages.
At least the hostages’ families are seeing through the charade being organized by the Korean government, anti-US groups, and their media allies:
The families of the Korean hostages spoke out against a movement to hold the U.S. responsible for the unresolved crisis, saying anti-American demonstrations could put the hostages’ lives at greater risk. The families turned down an offer by some anti-American organizations to stage a candlelight rally.
Lee Jeong-hoon, a representative of the families, said on Thursday, “Since an anti-American demonstration could have a negative influence on the negotiations for the release of the hostages, we have made efforts to avoid being involved in any such demonstrations.” “An anti-American movement could be what the Taliban want,” Lee said. “We rejected suggestions by some anti-American groups to hold a candlelight vigil and march to the U.S. Embassy in Korea.” (HT: OFK)
What a mess this hostage crisis is and the people of Korea have their most incompetent administration in decades to try and solve it. Just ask yourself, if you were Korean would you want President Roh trying to save you?
You can read more over at Hot Air
With Friends Like This...
This is just one reason why the US should not sign a free trade agreement with Korea:
In a move that could hinder the passage of a bilateral free trade pact, South Korea effectively blocked all U.S. beef imports from reaching store shelves Thursday after banned parts were found in a recent shipment.
The discovery of unauthorized animal parts in a July shipment, including spinal material, comes as the United States pushes for a full reopening of what once had been the third-largest overseas market for its beef.
Seoul ended a ban of three and a half years last month on U.S. beef that was prompted by a 2003 outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States, allowing in boneless U.S. beef from cattle under 30 months old.
But South Korea announced Thursday that it was stopping inspections of U.S. beef under quarantine, meaning that beef already in warehouses would be prevented from reaching store shelves. It will now decide whether to ban U.S. beef altogether.
Any agreement signed with the Koreans will not be upheld by their side and the continuous banning of US beef is just a perfect example of this. The Korean government has now banned all US beef to Korea because of one box of T-bone steaks that was labeled for consumption in the US.
You may remember back in June US beef shipments were banned when four boxes of beef that were meant for the US market some how ended up in the Korean beef shipment. It was later found that the four boxes were samples of US beef provided to a South Korean company in California. This company was some how able to get the four boxes of beef into the US shipment to Korea, which ended up banning US beef all together until the US Congress got involved and threatened trade sanctions.
I find it hard to believe that the US beef exporter, Cargil would have been sloppy enough to send another box of meat that was meant for US consumption. I agree with Brendon that there may be a "Patriotic Korean" somewhere along the export chain making sure that a box of beef meant for the US market ends up in the shipment of beef meant for export to Korea. There is already evidence of this from the investigation after the June ban and I would not be surprised if another South Korean connection is found again this time.
Everyone ask yourself, would Korea pull this crap with China? We already know the answer to that question when the Korean government backed down on their Chinese kimchi ban during the Great Kimchi Crisis of 2005 when China threatened a trade war with Korea. There has never been a problem with Chinese kimchi since. If the US government is serious about exporting beef to Korea than it needs to start learning to play by rules the Koreans understand. Just ask China.
You can read more at Lost Nomad.
This is just one reason why the US should not sign a free trade agreement with Korea:
In a move that could hinder the passage of a bilateral free trade pact, South Korea effectively blocked all U.S. beef imports from reaching store shelves Thursday after banned parts were found in a recent shipment.
The discovery of unauthorized animal parts in a July shipment, including spinal material, comes as the United States pushes for a full reopening of what once had been the third-largest overseas market for its beef.
Seoul ended a ban of three and a half years last month on U.S. beef that was prompted by a 2003 outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States, allowing in boneless U.S. beef from cattle under 30 months old.
But South Korea announced Thursday that it was stopping inspections of U.S. beef under quarantine, meaning that beef already in warehouses would be prevented from reaching store shelves. It will now decide whether to ban U.S. beef altogether.
Any agreement signed with the Koreans will not be upheld by their side and the continuous banning of US beef is just a perfect example of this. The Korean government has now banned all US beef to Korea because of one box of T-bone steaks that was labeled for consumption in the US.
You may remember back in June US beef shipments were banned when four boxes of beef that were meant for the US market some how ended up in the Korean beef shipment. It was later found that the four boxes were samples of US beef provided to a South Korean company in California. This company was some how able to get the four boxes of beef into the US shipment to Korea, which ended up banning US beef all together until the US Congress got involved and threatened trade sanctions.
I find it hard to believe that the US beef exporter, Cargil would have been sloppy enough to send another box of meat that was meant for US consumption. I agree with Brendon that there may be a "Patriotic Korean" somewhere along the export chain making sure that a box of beef meant for the US market ends up in the shipment of beef meant for export to Korea. There is already evidence of this from the investigation after the June ban and I would not be surprised if another South Korean connection is found again this time.
Everyone ask yourself, would Korea pull this crap with China? We already know the answer to that question when the Korean government backed down on their Chinese kimchi ban during the Great Kimchi Crisis of 2005 when China threatened a trade war with Korea. There has never been a problem with Chinese kimchi since. If the US government is serious about exporting beef to Korea than it needs to start learning to play by rules the Koreans understand. Just ask China.
You can read more at Lost Nomad.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Anti-usa y27 version?
UPDATE #2: The anti-US blame game being played in Korea is now making headlines in the US: (HT: Nomad)
South Korea’s frustration over the plight of Christian volunteers seized by the Taliban is starting to focus on the United States, a frequent target of resentment here. Politicians and citizens of all persuasions are increasingly calling on Washington to help resolve the 15-day-old standoff, believing the United States to be the only country capable of pushing Afghanistan to meet the captors’ demands that Taliban prisoners be freed. […]
An anti-American backlash could boost liberals who have increasingly pushed for Seoul to assert its independence from Washington at the expense of the conservative pro-U.S. opposition that now holds a commanding lead.
What is ironic about this whole thing is that the leftist anti-US politicians are the very reason that Korea has little influence with the US and with what is going on in Afghanistan. If anyone thinks electing another leftist liberal politician is going to change this fact, they will be sadly mistaken and instead will become even more irrelevant.
_______________________________
UPDATE #1: The Taliban has agreed to meet Korean diplomats:
“A South Korean diplomatic delegation is to meet the Taliban for face-to-face talks to look for ways and solutions to free the South Korean nationals,” Ghazni governor Mirajuddin Pattan said.
____________________________
Early today rumors of a hostage rescue mission were swirling around, but were quickly put down by the Afghan government. These rumors caused the Taliban to threaten to kill four more prisoners as the hostage crisis continues on for yet another day.
Also today the blame America campaign being waged by the Korean media and government went into overdrive. I almost don’t even know where to begin. Let’s start with Choe Sang-hun’s article in the New York Times:
On Tuesday, the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, a civic group based in Seoul, issued a statement accusing Washington of watching the hostage crisis “as if it were a fire across the river.”
“As everyone knows, the Taliban’s demand is something the U.S. government can help resolve, not the Afghan or South Korean government,” the statement 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?”
So who is the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) to be waving the “spirit of the alliance” card you may ask? Well they are just another anti-US group that was a member of the Korean Alliance Against the Korea-U.S. FTA that even had one of their own set himself on fire outside one of the FTA meetings in Seoul.
You want some more “spirit of the alliance” from the PSPD? How about this quote from them after the defeat in local elections of the ruling Uri Party:
Mr. Kim of the PSPD said, “The Roh Moo-hyun government should look back to its identity. In the past, the government said it would resolve economic polarization, but it pushed talks for a free trade agreement with the U.S. In addition, the government said it would say what it has to say in diplomacy, but it allowed the U.S. forces to move their base to Daechu-ri.”
The PSPD has been one of the leading groups trying to stop the USFK transformation and relocation to Camp Humphreys and now all of the sudden they are one of the biggest defenders of the “spirit of the alliance”.
The “spirit of the alliance” doesn’t end there. The PSPD has in the past joined forces with North Korean apologists the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) which last year was linked to a North Korean spy ring, to attack the very alliance the PSPD are now advocating:
In the declaration, they demanded that the U.S. government apologize for crimes involving GIs, thoroughly investigate the massacres of Koreans during the Korean War and offer compensation. They also called for an immediate closure of the Koon-ni bombing range in Maehyang-ri, Kyonggi Province and revision of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and south Korea.
The 200 figures who signed the declaration included former Deputy Prime Minister Han Wan Sang; Kang Man Gil, professor emeritus at Korea University; Kim Jong Bae, co-leader of the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) and Dang Byong Ho, chief of the south Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU).
There is more, but I think everyone gets the picture of who the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy group really is. There is plenty more absurdity to come and one of my noted useful idiots Chung Dong-young never fails to deliver. Courtesy of the Marmot’s Hole is this letter to President Bush from the former Korean Unification Minister:
If the 23 (now 21) hostages were American and not Korean, we ask what would the US have done in this situation. Koreans believe that since this crisis is a part of the War on Terror, the US is the main party and not a third party. We appeal to the US to think of the hostages as Americans and take specific measures to solve this crisis.
We respect that there is a “seen principle” among nations that they should not negotiate with terrorists, but there is also an “unseen principle”. We remember the case where an American female journalist was released in exchange for five Iraqi female prisoners, which means there is a recognition that there is an exemption to the non negotiating principle.
Saving a life is more important than one’s obligations and profit. If Pres. Bush was to step forward and save the hostages, then people around the world will continue praising you for your determination, leadership, management, and love.
So who is Chung? Well he is just another one of these “spirit of the alliance” guys that has also just happened to blame the US for the Japanese colonization of the peninsula prior to World War II, blamed the US for the Korean War, and blamed the US for the Gwangju Incident. So it isn’t really surprising he is blaming the US now if the hostages die and of course he is not alone. Via Sonagi comes this quote from Roe Hoe-chan who I just featured in my latest Korea Finder:
Assemblyman Roe Hoe-chan said, “If the US doesn’t show sincerity with regard to the hostage crisis, it’ll practically be a declaration that the US doesn’t care about the safety of Koreans because of its own interests. It’ll be difficult for our citizens to tolerate that. He continued, “If hostages continue to be killed because of America’s rigid stance, anti-American sentiments will be even stronger than in the aftermath of the deaths of Hyo-sun and Mi-seon.”
It was only a matter of time before some demagogue tried to link this current crisis to the 2002 Armored Vehicle Accident for their own political advantage. The fact the Roe is the first to do it is not surprising in the least.
You can always count on Oh My News to keep the absurdity coming:
The South Korean government indirectly asked for the United States, which exercises undue influence over the Afghan government, to be more flexible with its principled policy not to negotiate with terrorists.
“Undue influence”? I think the fact that the US military liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban and has continued to pour blood and treasure into making Afghanistan a sustainable state for the past six years is DUE INFLUENCE, which Korea does not have because they have never been committed to fighting terrorism in the first place. The Roh administration could care less if the government of Afghanistan collapsed tomorrow if it wasn’t for the hostages. There is plenty more laughers in the Oh My News article, but I’ll leave everyone with this quote:
On top of this, the Taliban are also plunging the leadership of South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun into an even worse crisis, trouncing the whole South Korean diplomacy that, before the tragic incident occurred, has smoothly — and successfully to date — handled the North Korean nuclear issues. Namely, inter-Korean affairs have all of sudden dropped to sideshows in terms of foreign policy priorities.
You mean to tell me that North Korea firing missiles all over the Pacific Ocean, testing a nuclear bomb, reneging and then renegotiating a signed agreement that to this day they have failed to fully implement is a sign of Korea’s smooth and successful foreign diplomacy? If this is the case these hostages are most certainly doomed.
There is a whole lot more examples I can provide of the blame game being perpetuated against the United States, but I think it is pretty clear the blame America campaign is currently in overdrive. The fact is that the Korean left and their media allies could care less about these hostages because according to Representative Roe’s own admission, they are trying to turn the hostage crisis into an anti-US issue equivalent to what happened in 2002. Remember it took months for the media and the activist groups to distort what happened during the accident that year in order to set the conditions necessary for the anti-US orgy of hate that took place, that ultimately led to the leftist Roh Moo-hyun being elected president.
The Korean left has no chance of winning the presidential election this year in Korea unless they can find another anti-US issue to rally behind. Chung Dong-young is one of the leftist candidates running for president thus expect him to lead the charge to blame the US for any future deaths of the hostages and use his North Korean linked activist groups to push it on the public. This is the real “spirit of the alliance” in Korea.
FROM NOMAD....................................
or the record: I firmly believe that the majority of Koreans are pragmatic, sensible, intelligent and reasonable people who know exactly where to lay the blame. Unfortunately, it’s the vocal minority who make the noise and get the attention of the media. The blame game is nothing more than a weak ploy by the Korean left to get sympathy and votes - it worked for them in 2002 but this time around, I don’t think it’ll be as effective.
__________________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE #2: The anti-US blame game being played in Korea is now making headlines in the US: (HT: Nomad)
South Korea’s frustration over the plight of Christian volunteers seized by the Taliban is starting to focus on the United States, a frequent target of resentment here. Politicians and citizens of all persuasions are increasingly calling on Washington to help resolve the 15-day-old standoff, believing the United States to be the only country capable of pushing Afghanistan to meet the captors’ demands that Taliban prisoners be freed. […]
An anti-American backlash could boost liberals who have increasingly pushed for Seoul to assert its independence from Washington at the expense of the conservative pro-U.S. opposition that now holds a commanding lead.
What is ironic about this whole thing is that the leftist anti-US politicians are the very reason that Korea has little influence with the US and with what is going on in Afghanistan. If anyone thinks electing another leftist liberal politician is going to change this fact, they will be sadly mistaken and instead will become even more irrelevant.
_______________________________
UPDATE #1: The Taliban has agreed to meet Korean diplomats:
“A South Korean diplomatic delegation is to meet the Taliban for face-to-face talks to look for ways and solutions to free the South Korean nationals,” Ghazni governor Mirajuddin Pattan said.
____________________________
Early today rumors of a hostage rescue mission were swirling around, but were quickly put down by the Afghan government. These rumors caused the Taliban to threaten to kill four more prisoners as the hostage crisis continues on for yet another day.
Also today the blame America campaign being waged by the Korean media and government went into overdrive. I almost don’t even know where to begin. Let’s start with Choe Sang-hun’s article in the New York Times:
On Tuesday, the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, a civic group based in Seoul, issued a statement accusing Washington of watching the hostage crisis “as if it were a fire across the river.”
“As everyone knows, the Taliban’s demand is something the U.S. government can help resolve, not the Afghan or South Korean government,” the statement 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?”
So who is the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) to be waving the “spirit of the alliance” card you may ask? Well they are just another anti-US group that was a member of the Korean Alliance Against the Korea-U.S. FTA that even had one of their own set himself on fire outside one of the FTA meetings in Seoul.
You want some more “spirit of the alliance” from the PSPD? How about this quote from them after the defeat in local elections of the ruling Uri Party:
Mr. Kim of the PSPD said, “The Roh Moo-hyun government should look back to its identity. In the past, the government said it would resolve economic polarization, but it pushed talks for a free trade agreement with the U.S. In addition, the government said it would say what it has to say in diplomacy, but it allowed the U.S. forces to move their base to Daechu-ri.”
The PSPD has been one of the leading groups trying to stop the USFK transformation and relocation to Camp Humphreys and now all of the sudden they are one of the biggest defenders of the “spirit of the alliance”.
The “spirit of the alliance” doesn’t end there. The PSPD has in the past joined forces with North Korean apologists the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) which last year was linked to a North Korean spy ring, to attack the very alliance the PSPD are now advocating:
In the declaration, they demanded that the U.S. government apologize for crimes involving GIs, thoroughly investigate the massacres of Koreans during the Korean War and offer compensation. They also called for an immediate closure of the Koon-ni bombing range in Maehyang-ri, Kyonggi Province and revision of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and south Korea.
The 200 figures who signed the declaration included former Deputy Prime Minister Han Wan Sang; Kang Man Gil, professor emeritus at Korea University; Kim Jong Bae, co-leader of the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) and Dang Byong Ho, chief of the south Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU).
There is more, but I think everyone gets the picture of who the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy group really is. There is plenty more absurdity to come and one of my noted useful idiots Chung Dong-young never fails to deliver. Courtesy of the Marmot’s Hole is this letter to President Bush from the former Korean Unification Minister:
If the 23 (now 21) hostages were American and not Korean, we ask what would the US have done in this situation. Koreans believe that since this crisis is a part of the War on Terror, the US is the main party and not a third party. We appeal to the US to think of the hostages as Americans and take specific measures to solve this crisis.
We respect that there is a “seen principle” among nations that they should not negotiate with terrorists, but there is also an “unseen principle”. We remember the case where an American female journalist was released in exchange for five Iraqi female prisoners, which means there is a recognition that there is an exemption to the non negotiating principle.
Saving a life is more important than one’s obligations and profit. If Pres. Bush was to step forward and save the hostages, then people around the world will continue praising you for your determination, leadership, management, and love.
So who is Chung? Well he is just another one of these “spirit of the alliance” guys that has also just happened to blame the US for the Japanese colonization of the peninsula prior to World War II, blamed the US for the Korean War, and blamed the US for the Gwangju Incident. So it isn’t really surprising he is blaming the US now if the hostages die and of course he is not alone. Via Sonagi comes this quote from Roe Hoe-chan who I just featured in my latest Korea Finder:
Assemblyman Roe Hoe-chan said, “If the US doesn’t show sincerity with regard to the hostage crisis, it’ll practically be a declaration that the US doesn’t care about the safety of Koreans because of its own interests. It’ll be difficult for our citizens to tolerate that. He continued, “If hostages continue to be killed because of America’s rigid stance, anti-American sentiments will be even stronger than in the aftermath of the deaths of Hyo-sun and Mi-seon.”
It was only a matter of time before some demagogue tried to link this current crisis to the 2002 Armored Vehicle Accident for their own political advantage. The fact the Roe is the first to do it is not surprising in the least.
You can always count on Oh My News to keep the absurdity coming:
The South Korean government indirectly asked for the United States, which exercises undue influence over the Afghan government, to be more flexible with its principled policy not to negotiate with terrorists.
“Undue influence”? I think the fact that the US military liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban and has continued to pour blood and treasure into making Afghanistan a sustainable state for the past six years is DUE INFLUENCE, which Korea does not have because they have never been committed to fighting terrorism in the first place. The Roh administration could care less if the government of Afghanistan collapsed tomorrow if it wasn’t for the hostages. There is plenty more laughers in the Oh My News article, but I’ll leave everyone with this quote:
On top of this, the Taliban are also plunging the leadership of South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun into an even worse crisis, trouncing the whole South Korean diplomacy that, before the tragic incident occurred, has smoothly — and successfully to date — handled the North Korean nuclear issues. Namely, inter-Korean affairs have all of sudden dropped to sideshows in terms of foreign policy priorities.
You mean to tell me that North Korea firing missiles all over the Pacific Ocean, testing a nuclear bomb, reneging and then renegotiating a signed agreement that to this day they have failed to fully implement is a sign of Korea’s smooth and successful foreign diplomacy? If this is the case these hostages are most certainly doomed.
There is a whole lot more examples I can provide of the blame game being perpetuated against the United States, but I think it is pretty clear the blame America campaign is currently in overdrive. The fact is that the Korean left and their media allies could care less about these hostages because according to Representative Roe’s own admission, they are trying to turn the hostage crisis into an anti-US issue equivalent to what happened in 2002. Remember it took months for the media and the activist groups to distort what happened during the accident that year in order to set the conditions necessary for the anti-US orgy of hate that took place, that ultimately led to the leftist Roh Moo-hyun being elected president.
The Korean left has no chance of winning the presidential election this year in Korea unless they can find another anti-US issue to rally behind. Chung Dong-young is one of the leftist candidates running for president thus expect him to lead the charge to blame the US for any future deaths of the hostages and use his North Korean linked activist groups to push it on the public. This is the real “spirit of the alliance” in Korea.
FROM NOMAD....................................
or the record: I firmly believe that the majority of Koreans are pragmatic, sensible, intelligent and reasonable people who know exactly where to lay the blame. Unfortunately, it’s the vocal minority who make the noise and get the attention of the media. The blame game is nothing more than a weak ploy by the Korean left to get sympathy and votes - it worked for them in 2002 but this time around, I don’t think it’ll be as effective.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Update on the Korean Hostages.
The South Korean Stockholm Syndrome
The South Korean Stockholm Syndrome
Korean folks keep asking me again and again what I think about this, so I'll make it clear in simple terms: if you negotiate with terrorists, you give them what they want and you legitimize their actions.
You encourage more terrorist acts.
I understand the emotions that go with seeing 21 hostages threatened, but you can't give in to their demands. That is exactly the one thing you can't do.
..............I think the US had the right to enter Afghanistan to protect its national interests and security, since Al Queda had been holed up there, and as a bonus, got to depose the hated and itself illegitimate Taliban. The Taliban were and are assholes, and I didn't mind seeing them taken out of power. I don't promote mass civilian bombing, and I think the US showed considerable restraint in the Afghanistan.....................
That being said, I also don't think there's a "war on terror" – I think we have a war on criminals who are just better organized and have political goals. That's it. Terrorists don't have national borders, a religion, nor a single face. They can be anyone with a gun, a bomb, and a purpose.
And whether it's a bank robbery, embassy invasion, or taking foreign nationals hostages, you don't give them a helicopter and $10 million dollars, or a free ride out of the country, or release their prisoners from jails.
If they were unjustly imprisoned, that's another issue; but you don't release them because criminals tell you to at gunpoint.
It was a mistake to release those 5 Italians, in my opinion, although I'm happy to see them alive. Yet, perhaps that "success" on the part of other terrorists has led to 2 South Koreans dead and perhaps to the deaths of 21 more.
And the next time? Do we keep bending over to the wills of the next group of terrorists who kidnap a bus load of Swedes? A Lufthansa passenger jet? Or threaten to nerve gas a shopping mall?
Whatever – you cannot play the terrorists' game, because there is only one way to win: by taking them out, or biting the bullet. And as horrible as the latter choice seems, giving the terrorists what they want is as good as pulling the trigger for the next group with guns, who, emboldened by the previous "success" (because, from the terrorists' point of view, that's what this would be), kill more people in the future.
Seriously – the South Korean government should stop acting like a group of frightened schoolchildren and act like a responsible government, and not bend over when a group of wackos engages in terrorist threats.
And the behavior of the Korean government is and will make South Koreans even MORE of targets of opportunity for terrorists, who will now learn that taking a few South Korean hostages prisoner can exert political force over that nation. If you were a terrorist, whom would you choose – an American, Italian, or a South Korean? I'd go with the country that would be more likely to give me what I wanted.
Which is exactly the point and modus operandi of terrorism.
And which is exactly what the South Korean government is doing by even entertaining the idea of negotiating, and embarrassing itself by saying it has no power to do anything about this.
I am extremely disappointed with the reactions of the Blue House, the Korean media, as well as the majority of the Korean population, from what I've seen and heard. Of all the countries in the world that should understand the importance of taking a hard line against terrorism, it should be South Korea.
But perhaps Korea is suffering from a sort of "Stockholm syndrome" in having been held nuclear hostage by North Korea for the last couple decades, and having been coerced to give food, aid, and money without conditional attachments such as allowing aid groups such as the Red Cross to confirm that it was eveb going to the populace instead of the North Korean military and civilian elite.
South Korea has seemingly lost its will to make the tough choices anymore, and it did so a long time before these hostages were taken.
If the US won't send in Navy Seals or some other rescue operation to save these hostages (which, frankly, I don't think it's the American responsibility to do), then South Korea should.
South Korea has a military, does it not? South Korea has troops on the ground in Afghanistan, technically already placing them in this war, does it not? South Korea is a sovereign nation, able to conduct it's own foreign policy and make decisions, is it not?
Then why does the US hold ultimate responsibility for the fate of South Korean hostages?
The US's policy is clear on this issue, and always has been – and it should not stray from it's stated policy of not negotiating with terrorists. If that does not satisfy South Koreans, then South Korea should get off its ass and do something about it.
The only legitimate "influence" over the Taliban is that of lethal force, which is the only point of leverage it presently understands. If some hostages can be rescued in a military operation, I am all for that.
But the US had better not participate in the process of releasing even a single hostage under Taliban demands, because in the end, only more people will die in the future.
This should be easy to understand – and for once, South Korea, this is not a mess the US is obligated at all to clean up for you.
Instead of begging for cooperation with terrorist demands, South Korea would be better off preparing other options.
And negotiation is not an option.
The real problem here, methinks, is that South Korea has been already cooperating with terrorists for far too long, since North Korea has been holding its own people hostage for far too long, while lobbing missiles over Japan and rattling its nuclear saber, waiting for food shipments and money to arrive.
The South Korean government has become far too used to taking it, and needs to rediscover its gonads with a swiftness, because this isn't the first time hostages have been taken in this manner, and what with the pliant behavior of the South Korean government, certainly won't be the last.
Because the message South Korea is sending is: "We will bend over to terrorists, so take our foreign nationals prisoner or even engage in acts of terror in South Korea itself; because we will negotiate with you."
No matter how you cut it, that's the message being sent here.
For all my social criticism of South Korean society, this is the first time I've been utterly disappointed to the point of despair. Because this isn't how responsible governments behave. Every country has social problems, and I like studying and analyzing ones in South Korea; yet, for me, this is different.
I'm embarrassed for South Korea, in the way that I imagine a loyal South Korean citizen might. Because this doesn't bode well for the nation, for faith in the government's ability to responsibly govern, or the nation's "face" in the presence of other nations.
In the end, this is utterly embarrassing for any nation – and if the US negotiates, then I will be angry and embarrassed at the US as well.
comments....
Comments
Well said.
It's time for South Korea to take responsibility for its own people, and for its place in the world. The South Korean government has some decisions to make, and it needs to make them now.
The first decision is no decision at all. South Korea cannot negotiate with these thugs. For the sake of all of its citizens everywhere, South Korea cannot give in to these demands.
All that is left are three options:
1) Try to talk these thugs into releasing the remaining hostages without giving in to any of their demands. But it's not going to happen. They have already killed two hostages; they are too heavily invested in this thing and there is no turning back for them. Under this scenario all of the hostages will die.
2) Sit by and do nothing. Watch as your people are killed one by one, wreaking untold horrific anguish on the families of the hostages, and on the psyche of an entire nation. Under this scenario all of the hostages will die.
3) Use well-calculated, pinpoint, violent, viscious force to rescue as many hostages as possible. South Korea must have trained for something like this - it must have the special forces ready, willing and able to undertake such a mission. Under this scenario, maybe some of the hostages will live. All of the thugs will die.
It's not like South Korea would be attacking another nation-state - these are a bunch of thugs, for Christ's sake. And I am sure the US would be willing to assist - after all, these are the same motherfuckers who harbored the assholes who killed 3000 of our citizens.
For the sake of its 50 million plus citizens, South Korea cannot put up with this bullshit. The message needs to be loud and clear - if you fuck with our citizens, you will die.
JJG
you guys are the kind of liberals i could grow to like
:) Mark.
NEXT ARTICLE.......................................................................
Wait – so, it's the US out of Korea, US out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Korea should be left on its own as an independent, sovereign state, right?
OK, I can buy that for a dollar, and I even agree with most of it.
Then it's America is evil this, America is evil that – general anti-American sentiment all-around. Hey – if that's your cup of tea, then go for it.
But at least be consistent to your own principles!
Saying that the US is responsible for the terrorist situation and then actually demanding that the US break from its policy of not dealing with terrorists (one of the few pieces of American foreign policy I agree with) to take care of Korean nationals, and what is essentially the responsibility of the Korean government – that just convinced me that much of the Korean left is indeed off its rocker. (HT to Lost Nomad)
Protesting in front of the American Embassy? For what? The logic is, apparently, that since the US has more "influence" over the Afghan government, which I guess, the logic goes, is supposed to have influence over...the Taliban?
Not.
If you're going to see America as the evil that begot all evil (as a good Korean extreme leftist usually does) stick to your anti-American guns, at least. Don't call America the boogeyman and not the world police (which I agree it isn't) and then expect, nay, demand to clean up YOUR mess.
What a colonized mentality it must take to even think stuff like this up.
If Korea wants to be taken seriously as a sovereign nation, in possession of a strong military and the option to use it, then act like it. Don't come making demands on another sovereign nation to change its policy on not negotiating with the bad guys just because you got some of your people in a bind this time.
If those 23 were American, I'd say the same thing. Terrorists are not to be rewarded, not to be reasoned with, lest more terrorism be encouraged. And if the Korean government wants to do something about it, then send in your own commando team and mount some sort of operation, get all Jerry Bruckheimer on 'em, whatever needs to be done.
Koreans ask me this these days: "What if it were Americans there?"
My answer would be no different: terrorists are not to be negotiated with, but taken out. Period.
Because the next time it'll be another busload of whomever, and it will just encourage anyone with a gun and an agenda to do the same to more people.
So, Korea has its F-16's and aircraft carriers and crack commando units and likes to rattle the saber and cup its nuts when Japanese fishing ships come sniffing around Tokdo, but now the country's got two dead hostages and nearly a couple more left to go, and Korea comes crying – nay, chiding the US about not changing its foreign policy to accommodate Korea's unwillingness to do anything other than talk and complain?
Incredibly disappointing, on a lot of levels.
To indulge a bit of gendered nationalistic discourse, I'd suggest that South Korea stop embarrassing itself and either takes its licks or frickin' grow a pair and do what it can as a government to save its citizens.
I want to see those people come out alive, too, but this isn't America's responsibility, nor should the US alter its policy of not negotiating with evil people who want us to do exactly this. This gives power and validity to the terrorists' actions. Negotiate now, and how many more will die?
Sheesh.
Seriously – it's time to act like a responsible, sovereign nation and not a simpering, dependent colony. This is just plain, frickin' embarrassing. 사대주의 is a bitch, innit?
Chung Dong Yong sends letter to Pres. Bush
It seems like every political figure is jumping on the “Let’s pressure the US” bandwagon. The latest figure to weigh in is former Unification Minister Chung Dong Young.
According to Financial News, Mr. Chung has sent an open letter to Pres. George W. Bush via the US Embassy in Seoul.
Here is the English translation;
If the 23 (now 21) hostages were American and not Korean, we ask what would the US have done in this situation. Koreans believe that since this crisis is a part of the War on Terror, the US is the main party and not a third party. We appeal to the US to think of the hostages as Americans and take specific measures to solve this crisis.
We respect that there is a “seen principle” among nations that they should not negotiate with terrorists, but there is also an “unseen principle”. We remember the case where an American female journalist was released in exchange for five Iraqi female prisoners, which means there is a recognition that there is an exemption to the non negotiating principle.
Saving a life is more important than one’s obligations and profit. If Pres. Bush was to step forward and save the hostages, then people around the world will continue praising you for your determination, leadership, management, and love.
Well let’s just say the contents of the above letter is not that surprising, if you take into account the author. I wonder how Pres. Bush will react when he reads the above letter.
Gov’t Begs International Community to Use ‘Flexibility’ to Save Hostages
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?
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.
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.
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.”
Comments............................................
Brendon Carr
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!
#
masanf your flag
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.
We May Prolong the Crisis
Aug. 1, 2007 - Taliban Subcommander Abdullah was on the lookout for hostages. Ever since his superior, Commander Daro Khan, was arrested by U.S. forces in Ghazni province's Qarabagh district in June, Abdullah has had his men patrolling the main Kabul-to-Kandahar highway that runs through the province, watching for foreigners to kidnap. The goal: to exchange the prisoners for Khan and other Taliban operatives in Afghan and U.S. custody.
On July 19, Abdullah’s men got lucky. A pair on motorcycle patrol spotted a large, white passenger bus, traveling with no armed security escort. The fighters immediately pulled their motorcycles alongside the bus and pointed an AK-47 and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher directly at the bus driver's head. Rather than speeding up and trying to outrun the gunmen, the driver stopped and the 23 South Korean Christian aid workers riding on the bus were trapped.
The gunmen, who were communicating with Abdullah by walkie-talkie and cell phones, quickly ordered the bus driver to drive off the highway and into a nearby village that is located in the region's flat, desert-like and rocky plain. The gunmen ordered their hostages out of the bus and quickly began dividing them into small groups. Knowing that the Taliban and the prisoners would be vulnerable if they stayed together, Abdullah's and other Taliban units that quickly rushed to the scene divided the 23 South Koreans into five groups and transported them on the back of motorcycles and in pickup trucks to widely dispersed locations. Some were kept in Qarabagh; others were taken to neighboring Andar district, which is the Taliban's stronghold in Ghazni, while others were transported to Dahyak district that is only a few kilometers outside Ghazni city. Then the hostage takers started issuing their demands.
NEWSWEEK was able to piece together this exclusive look at how the South Koreans were captured and where they have been taken through satellite telephone conversations with several Taliban commanders involved in the hostage-taking operation. According to a senior provincial commander who does not want to be named, the Taliban almost immediately issued their demands to the Afghan government that the 23 South Korean hostages would be released in a swap for 115 Taliban prisoners in a five-to-one exchange. As the negotiations with the Afghan government dragged on, the commander says he reduced his demands to an even exchange of 23 Taliban prisoners for the South Koreans. Now he says he will exchange the hostages for eight prisoners whose names he has delivered to Kabul government officials. According to the commander, Afghan officials have been delaying the negotiations by telling him that the Afghan government is not holding all the men, that some are being held at the U.S. base at Bagram, near Kabul, and that Washington won't agree to release its prisoners.
Apparently frustrated by the delay, the missed deadlines and the extended negotiations—or perhaps just out of sheer cruelty—the Taliban has already shot two South Korean men execution-style and dumped their bloodied bodies by the roadside. However, a Wednesday deadline for the lives of the remaining 21 hostages seems to have passed without any further deaths. The senior commander who spoke to NEWSWEEK accuses Kabul of stalling the negotiations in the hope that the deaths of all the prisoners will end the stalemate. "The Afghan government is intentionally pushing us to kill all hostages one at a time so they can wind up the crisis," says the commander.
The Afghan government rejects such claims, saying that it is negotiating in good faith. It also seems to be trying to step up the pressure even as it denied media reports that it was about to launch a rescue attempt. The Taliban official told NEWSWEEK Wednesday that the Afghan Army and police, supported by U.S. forces, had moved into the Andar district—and that the kidnappers had moved three of the hostages to the province of Paktika, on Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan.
The impasse has placed Afghan President Hamid Karzai in an almost impossible predicament. Last March, facing a similar dilemma and under heavy pressure from Italy, Karzai ordered the release of five senior Taliban officials in exchange for an Italian journalist, Daniele Mastrogiacomo, who had been abducted along with his Afghan driver and interpreter. The Taliban executed the two Afghans, and Karzai's European and U.S. allies widely criticized his humanitarian gesture. One of the freed Taliban commanders, Mansor Dadullah, is now directing suicide bombings and other attacks against Afghan and American forces from his redoubt on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Not surprisingly, Karzai is under intense pressure not to give in again. But the South Korean government is pleading with him and the U.S. to "use flexibility" in dealing with the Taliban's demands. Seoul and the Korean public clearly favor a deal. But this time Karzai seems to be siding with his allies in the belief that striking such an agreement would only encourage more Taliban abductions, turning kidnapping into a Taliban growth industry. "I think as a principle we shouldn't encourage kidnapping by accepting their demand," says the president's spokesman, Humayun Hamidzada.
The Taliban, however, clearly sees advantages in the tactic. In an interview with Britain’s Channel 4 news last month, Dadullah called kidnapping "a very successful policy." The insurgents have certainly been actively engaged in it. Besides the Koreans, the Taliban have kidnapped at least 41 Afghan civilians and killed at least 23 of them, while 18 remain missing, according to the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which called the Taliban's kidnapping policy a "war crime." Another Taliban group is still holding a German hostage in Wardak province, just north of Kabul, after having executed his German co-worker last week. When Abdullah's group first heard of the kidnapping of the two Germans, it contacted the hostage takers in Wardak hoping that that insurgent group would try to get commander Daro Khan freed in exchange for the Germans. But the Taliban unit holding the Germans refused to cooperate.
The surviving South Koreans, 16 women and five men, are said to be in failing health, largely suffering from dehydration and intestinal disorders. A short video clip broadcast on the Arab TV network Al Jazeera this week showed seven forlorn female hostages, their hair covered by Islamic veils, looking both ill and frightened. One Taliban source told NEWSWEEK that at least one woman is extremely ill.
For now, though, the chances of a breakthrough seem slim. Indeed, the negotiations seem to be marked by confusion. The senior Taliban commander tells NEWSWEEK that a newly arrived South Korean envoy, a Ghazni member of parliament and some government negotiators, may have been talking to a bogus Taliban group that was posing as the kidnappers and has demanded and received some money. There is no way to verify the claim of the commander, who has provided reliable information to NEWSWEEK in the past. But he insists that he has never asked for any money, and is only interested in an exchange of the hostages for Taliban prisoners.
The commander adds that despite the hostages' health problems he is in no hurry to strike a deal unless his demands for the release of at least eight Taliban prisoners are met. "We may sustain, even prolong, the crisis for a while as it's embarrassing for Karzai's regime and keeps it under pressure," he told NEWSWEEK. He admitted that he is under some pressure from local elders who may have objected to him taking hostages, especially women. Karzai has denounced the kidnapping of women as "un-Islamic." "We are also under pressure because of local customs and traditions," the commander admits. But local sentiment is unlikely to lead to a resolution of the crisis.
The commander says that at least the women could be out of harm's way for the time being. "I think we will not decide [the] fate of the women in a hurry," he says. He even hints the negotiations could be out of his hands. "My opinion is not the final word," he adds. He says the Taliban Supreme Council, headed by the Taliban's one-eyed leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, is now involved in the negotiations. One of Mullah Omar's representatives, Hajji Hassan, is advising the Taliban's provincial leaders in Ghazni in their talks with the government.
The commander also warns against any Afghan and U.S. military operation to free the hostages. He says that his forces are in control of most of the province's countryside and that any military assault "will end in failure." One sub-commander named Haji Nur says that an Afghan Army force backed by helicopters attacked a village on the border between Qarabagh and Shelghari districts at 1 a.m. earlier this week. The troops, he says, didn't find any hostages and then proceeded to hand out leaflets urging the villagers not to cooperate with the Taliban.
These kidnappings that are occurring not far from Kabul are just another sign of how insecure Afghanistan has become over the past two years, despite a dramatically increased NATO and U.S. military presence of some 50,000 troops. Not only are abductions a constant danger, so are the roadside bombs known as IEDs and suicide bombers, who have even struck inside Kabul. This insecurity, especially the kidnappings, is further hindering the delivery of aid and reconstruction assistance to the eastern and southern provinces. Among the recent kidnapping victims is a four-man Afghan medical team that was abducted on Monday.
Most foreign-aid workers and U.N. officials have already adopted precautionary travel measures. They travel less frequently into the countryside and, if they do, are usually accompanied by an armed escort. The Afghan Ministry of Interior has advised all foreigners traveling outside Kabul to inform it of their travel plans so it can either advise of the dangers or arrange a security escort. Certainly, Afghan roads have seldom been more hazardous.
No Use Staring at the U.S. in Hostage Crisis
With the hostage crisis in Afghanistan dragging on while the number of casualties rises, certain groups in Korea have begun to shift the blame on the United States. One group opposed to the dispatch of Korean troops overseas has held a candle-lit vigil saying the U.S. caused this tragedy, while the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy issued a statement saying the negligence of the U.S. government was the reason behind the lack of progress in negotiations. Certain news media are starting to take that perspective, and the Uri Party hopped on the bandwagon.
It is difficult to believe Washington will be completely open to the idea of freeing Taliban prisoners. The U.S. government has refused to deal with terrorists even when its own citizens were taken hostage. There may be exceptions, but in Iraq alone, six American hostages were killed after the U.S. government refused to negotiate with terrorists. At present, the fate of 10 American hostages remains unclear. U.S. government officials say if this principle is compromised, then terrorism may spread like wildfire around the world.
Even though that may be Washington’s position, this crisis cannot end simply with a decision by Washington. The government of Afghanistan may rely on the U.S., but the people of Afghanistan are fighting against the Taliban since their own livelihoods depend on winning that fight. The government of Afghanistan freed Taliban prisoners in exchange for an Italian journalist and the Taliban have reportedly learned the value of such tactics. If such incidents are repeated, the government of Afghanistan is afraid its stability may collapse and their very lives come under threat.
The Cheong Wa Dae spokesman, who is briefed on relevant information, said Seoul does not think Washington has independent authority. He said it was wrong to think the U.S. held all of the cards. He added the U.S. was cooperating very closely with Korea in the areas of diplomacy, military and other information.
The goal of the Taliban is to dump all of the responsibility on the U.S. government. The fueling of anti-American sentiment by certain groups in Korea will only play into the taliban’s hands and justify their atrocities. As Mehra Juddin Patan, the governor of Ghazni Province said, the U.S. is in a dilemma too, because the Koreans had come to a country where they shouldn’t be.
The more anti-American groups demand the participation of the U.S. in the hostage negotiations, the more they are trapping Korea within Washington's policy of not making concessions to terrorists. The floor leaders of Korea’s five main political parties are seeking to visit Washington D.C. to call for U.S. participation in the hostage negotiation process. But there is a strong possibility that this trip may end up being a political show to get more votes during the presidential election in December.
As the situation grows more serious, efforts by certain groups to use it to fan anti-American hatred will only intensify. Already, those groups may be planning a second version of the mass rallies that happened after the deaths of Shim Mi-sun and Shin Hyo-soon, two schoolgirls who were killed by a U.S. armored vehicle here. The public must be able to distinguish between those who truly want to save the lives of the young Koreans and who are simply trying to capitalize on the suffering.
WTF
Can anyone tell me WTF this is all about? These people need to be in front of the Blue House protesting because it’s their own prez who’s doing an imitation of a spineless jellyfish. Whatever happened to that self reliance and having more independence from U.S. influence? And as for this statement from Cheong Wa Dae:
“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 hold the perpetrators responsible.” However, Cheon stressed that the Seoul government remains unchanged in its opposition to any military operation meant to rescue the hostages, saying that dialogue should not be given up until the last moment.
I hate to break it to you but “the last moment” has already come and passed for two of your people. Please tell us what your definition of “the last moment” is because I sure would love to know and I bet so would the families of the hostages. Sometimes, money isn’t the answer to the problem. It may be time to kick some ass and talk about it afterwards.
The South Korean Stockholm Syndrome
The South Korean Stockholm Syndrome
Korean folks keep asking me again and again what I think about this, so I'll make it clear in simple terms: if you negotiate with terrorists, you give them what they want and you legitimize their actions.
You encourage more terrorist acts.
I understand the emotions that go with seeing 21 hostages threatened, but you can't give in to their demands. That is exactly the one thing you can't do.
..............I think the US had the right to enter Afghanistan to protect its national interests and security, since Al Queda had been holed up there, and as a bonus, got to depose the hated and itself illegitimate Taliban. The Taliban were and are assholes, and I didn't mind seeing them taken out of power. I don't promote mass civilian bombing, and I think the US showed considerable restraint in the Afghanistan.....................
That being said, I also don't think there's a "war on terror" – I think we have a war on criminals who are just better organized and have political goals. That's it. Terrorists don't have national borders, a religion, nor a single face. They can be anyone with a gun, a bomb, and a purpose.
And whether it's a bank robbery, embassy invasion, or taking foreign nationals hostages, you don't give them a helicopter and $10 million dollars, or a free ride out of the country, or release their prisoners from jails.
If they were unjustly imprisoned, that's another issue; but you don't release them because criminals tell you to at gunpoint.
It was a mistake to release those 5 Italians, in my opinion, although I'm happy to see them alive. Yet, perhaps that "success" on the part of other terrorists has led to 2 South Koreans dead and perhaps to the deaths of 21 more.
And the next time? Do we keep bending over to the wills of the next group of terrorists who kidnap a bus load of Swedes? A Lufthansa passenger jet? Or threaten to nerve gas a shopping mall?
Whatever – you cannot play the terrorists' game, because there is only one way to win: by taking them out, or biting the bullet. And as horrible as the latter choice seems, giving the terrorists what they want is as good as pulling the trigger for the next group with guns, who, emboldened by the previous "success" (because, from the terrorists' point of view, that's what this would be), kill more people in the future.
Seriously – the South Korean government should stop acting like a group of frightened schoolchildren and act like a responsible government, and not bend over when a group of wackos engages in terrorist threats.
And the behavior of the Korean government is and will make South Koreans even MORE of targets of opportunity for terrorists, who will now learn that taking a few South Korean hostages prisoner can exert political force over that nation. If you were a terrorist, whom would you choose – an American, Italian, or a South Korean? I'd go with the country that would be more likely to give me what I wanted.
Which is exactly the point and modus operandi of terrorism.
And which is exactly what the South Korean government is doing by even entertaining the idea of negotiating, and embarrassing itself by saying it has no power to do anything about this.
I am extremely disappointed with the reactions of the Blue House, the Korean media, as well as the majority of the Korean population, from what I've seen and heard. Of all the countries in the world that should understand the importance of taking a hard line against terrorism, it should be South Korea.
But perhaps Korea is suffering from a sort of "Stockholm syndrome" in having been held nuclear hostage by North Korea for the last couple decades, and having been coerced to give food, aid, and money without conditional attachments such as allowing aid groups such as the Red Cross to confirm that it was eveb going to the populace instead of the North Korean military and civilian elite.
South Korea has seemingly lost its will to make the tough choices anymore, and it did so a long time before these hostages were taken.
If the US won't send in Navy Seals or some other rescue operation to save these hostages (which, frankly, I don't think it's the American responsibility to do), then South Korea should.
South Korea has a military, does it not? South Korea has troops on the ground in Afghanistan, technically already placing them in this war, does it not? South Korea is a sovereign nation, able to conduct it's own foreign policy and make decisions, is it not?
Then why does the US hold ultimate responsibility for the fate of South Korean hostages?
The US's policy is clear on this issue, and always has been – and it should not stray from it's stated policy of not negotiating with terrorists. If that does not satisfy South Koreans, then South Korea should get off its ass and do something about it.
The only legitimate "influence" over the Taliban is that of lethal force, which is the only point of leverage it presently understands. If some hostages can be rescued in a military operation, I am all for that.
But the US had better not participate in the process of releasing even a single hostage under Taliban demands, because in the end, only more people will die in the future.
This should be easy to understand – and for once, South Korea, this is not a mess the US is obligated at all to clean up for you.
Instead of begging for cooperation with terrorist demands, South Korea would be better off preparing other options.
And negotiation is not an option.
The real problem here, methinks, is that South Korea has been already cooperating with terrorists for far too long, since North Korea has been holding its own people hostage for far too long, while lobbing missiles over Japan and rattling its nuclear saber, waiting for food shipments and money to arrive.
The South Korean government has become far too used to taking it, and needs to rediscover its gonads with a swiftness, because this isn't the first time hostages have been taken in this manner, and what with the pliant behavior of the South Korean government, certainly won't be the last.
Because the message South Korea is sending is: "We will bend over to terrorists, so take our foreign nationals prisoner or even engage in acts of terror in South Korea itself; because we will negotiate with you."
No matter how you cut it, that's the message being sent here.
For all my social criticism of South Korean society, this is the first time I've been utterly disappointed to the point of despair. Because this isn't how responsible governments behave. Every country has social problems, and I like studying and analyzing ones in South Korea; yet, for me, this is different.
I'm embarrassed for South Korea, in the way that I imagine a loyal South Korean citizen might. Because this doesn't bode well for the nation, for faith in the government's ability to responsibly govern, or the nation's "face" in the presence of other nations.
In the end, this is utterly embarrassing for any nation – and if the US negotiates, then I will be angry and embarrassed at the US as well.
comments....
Comments
Well said.
It's time for South Korea to take responsibility for its own people, and for its place in the world. The South Korean government has some decisions to make, and it needs to make them now.
The first decision is no decision at all. South Korea cannot negotiate with these thugs. For the sake of all of its citizens everywhere, South Korea cannot give in to these demands.
All that is left are three options:
1) Try to talk these thugs into releasing the remaining hostages without giving in to any of their demands. But it's not going to happen. They have already killed two hostages; they are too heavily invested in this thing and there is no turning back for them. Under this scenario all of the hostages will die.
2) Sit by and do nothing. Watch as your people are killed one by one, wreaking untold horrific anguish on the families of the hostages, and on the psyche of an entire nation. Under this scenario all of the hostages will die.
3) Use well-calculated, pinpoint, violent, viscious force to rescue as many hostages as possible. South Korea must have trained for something like this - it must have the special forces ready, willing and able to undertake such a mission. Under this scenario, maybe some of the hostages will live. All of the thugs will die.
It's not like South Korea would be attacking another nation-state - these are a bunch of thugs, for Christ's sake. And I am sure the US would be willing to assist - after all, these are the same motherfuckers who harbored the assholes who killed 3000 of our citizens.
For the sake of its 50 million plus citizens, South Korea cannot put up with this bullshit. The message needs to be loud and clear - if you fuck with our citizens, you will die.
JJG
you guys are the kind of liberals i could grow to like
:) Mark.
NEXT ARTICLE.......................................................................
Wait – so, it's the US out of Korea, US out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Korea should be left on its own as an independent, sovereign state, right?
OK, I can buy that for a dollar, and I even agree with most of it.
Then it's America is evil this, America is evil that – general anti-American sentiment all-around. Hey – if that's your cup of tea, then go for it.
But at least be consistent to your own principles!
Saying that the US is responsible for the terrorist situation and then actually demanding that the US break from its policy of not dealing with terrorists (one of the few pieces of American foreign policy I agree with) to take care of Korean nationals, and what is essentially the responsibility of the Korean government – that just convinced me that much of the Korean left is indeed off its rocker. (HT to Lost Nomad)
Protesting in front of the American Embassy? For what? The logic is, apparently, that since the US has more "influence" over the Afghan government, which I guess, the logic goes, is supposed to have influence over...the Taliban?
Not.
If you're going to see America as the evil that begot all evil (as a good Korean extreme leftist usually does) stick to your anti-American guns, at least. Don't call America the boogeyman and not the world police (which I agree it isn't) and then expect, nay, demand to clean up YOUR mess.
What a colonized mentality it must take to even think stuff like this up.
If Korea wants to be taken seriously as a sovereign nation, in possession of a strong military and the option to use it, then act like it. Don't come making demands on another sovereign nation to change its policy on not negotiating with the bad guys just because you got some of your people in a bind this time.
If those 23 were American, I'd say the same thing. Terrorists are not to be rewarded, not to be reasoned with, lest more terrorism be encouraged. And if the Korean government wants to do something about it, then send in your own commando team and mount some sort of operation, get all Jerry Bruckheimer on 'em, whatever needs to be done.
Koreans ask me this these days: "What if it were Americans there?"
My answer would be no different: terrorists are not to be negotiated with, but taken out. Period.
Because the next time it'll be another busload of whomever, and it will just encourage anyone with a gun and an agenda to do the same to more people.
So, Korea has its F-16's and aircraft carriers and crack commando units and likes to rattle the saber and cup its nuts when Japanese fishing ships come sniffing around Tokdo, but now the country's got two dead hostages and nearly a couple more left to go, and Korea comes crying – nay, chiding the US about not changing its foreign policy to accommodate Korea's unwillingness to do anything other than talk and complain?
Incredibly disappointing, on a lot of levels.
To indulge a bit of gendered nationalistic discourse, I'd suggest that South Korea stop embarrassing itself and either takes its licks or frickin' grow a pair and do what it can as a government to save its citizens.
I want to see those people come out alive, too, but this isn't America's responsibility, nor should the US alter its policy of not negotiating with evil people who want us to do exactly this. This gives power and validity to the terrorists' actions. Negotiate now, and how many more will die?
Sheesh.
Seriously – it's time to act like a responsible, sovereign nation and not a simpering, dependent colony. This is just plain, frickin' embarrassing. 사대주의 is a bitch, innit?
Chung Dong Yong sends letter to Pres. Bush
It seems like every political figure is jumping on the “Let’s pressure the US” bandwagon. The latest figure to weigh in is former Unification Minister Chung Dong Young.
According to Financial News, Mr. Chung has sent an open letter to Pres. George W. Bush via the US Embassy in Seoul.
Here is the English translation;
If the 23 (now 21) hostages were American and not Korean, we ask what would the US have done in this situation. Koreans believe that since this crisis is a part of the War on Terror, the US is the main party and not a third party. We appeal to the US to think of the hostages as Americans and take specific measures to solve this crisis.
We respect that there is a “seen principle” among nations that they should not negotiate with terrorists, but there is also an “unseen principle”. We remember the case where an American female journalist was released in exchange for five Iraqi female prisoners, which means there is a recognition that there is an exemption to the non negotiating principle.
Saving a life is more important than one’s obligations and profit. If Pres. Bush was to step forward and save the hostages, then people around the world will continue praising you for your determination, leadership, management, and love.
Well let’s just say the contents of the above letter is not that surprising, if you take into account the author. I wonder how Pres. Bush will react when he reads the above letter.
Gov’t Begs International Community to Use ‘Flexibility’ to Save Hostages
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?
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.
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.
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.”
Comments............................................
Brendon Carr
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!
#
masanf your flag
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.
We May Prolong the Crisis
Aug. 1, 2007 - Taliban Subcommander Abdullah was on the lookout for hostages. Ever since his superior, Commander Daro Khan, was arrested by U.S. forces in Ghazni province's Qarabagh district in June, Abdullah has had his men patrolling the main Kabul-to-Kandahar highway that runs through the province, watching for foreigners to kidnap. The goal: to exchange the prisoners for Khan and other Taliban operatives in Afghan and U.S. custody.
On July 19, Abdullah’s men got lucky. A pair on motorcycle patrol spotted a large, white passenger bus, traveling with no armed security escort. The fighters immediately pulled their motorcycles alongside the bus and pointed an AK-47 and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher directly at the bus driver's head. Rather than speeding up and trying to outrun the gunmen, the driver stopped and the 23 South Korean Christian aid workers riding on the bus were trapped.
The gunmen, who were communicating with Abdullah by walkie-talkie and cell phones, quickly ordered the bus driver to drive off the highway and into a nearby village that is located in the region's flat, desert-like and rocky plain. The gunmen ordered their hostages out of the bus and quickly began dividing them into small groups. Knowing that the Taliban and the prisoners would be vulnerable if they stayed together, Abdullah's and other Taliban units that quickly rushed to the scene divided the 23 South Koreans into five groups and transported them on the back of motorcycles and in pickup trucks to widely dispersed locations. Some were kept in Qarabagh; others were taken to neighboring Andar district, which is the Taliban's stronghold in Ghazni, while others were transported to Dahyak district that is only a few kilometers outside Ghazni city. Then the hostage takers started issuing their demands.
NEWSWEEK was able to piece together this exclusive look at how the South Koreans were captured and where they have been taken through satellite telephone conversations with several Taliban commanders involved in the hostage-taking operation. According to a senior provincial commander who does not want to be named, the Taliban almost immediately issued their demands to the Afghan government that the 23 South Korean hostages would be released in a swap for 115 Taliban prisoners in a five-to-one exchange. As the negotiations with the Afghan government dragged on, the commander says he reduced his demands to an even exchange of 23 Taliban prisoners for the South Koreans. Now he says he will exchange the hostages for eight prisoners whose names he has delivered to Kabul government officials. According to the commander, Afghan officials have been delaying the negotiations by telling him that the Afghan government is not holding all the men, that some are being held at the U.S. base at Bagram, near Kabul, and that Washington won't agree to release its prisoners.
Apparently frustrated by the delay, the missed deadlines and the extended negotiations—or perhaps just out of sheer cruelty—the Taliban has already shot two South Korean men execution-style and dumped their bloodied bodies by the roadside. However, a Wednesday deadline for the lives of the remaining 21 hostages seems to have passed without any further deaths. The senior commander who spoke to NEWSWEEK accuses Kabul of stalling the negotiations in the hope that the deaths of all the prisoners will end the stalemate. "The Afghan government is intentionally pushing us to kill all hostages one at a time so they can wind up the crisis," says the commander.
The Afghan government rejects such claims, saying that it is negotiating in good faith. It also seems to be trying to step up the pressure even as it denied media reports that it was about to launch a rescue attempt. The Taliban official told NEWSWEEK Wednesday that the Afghan Army and police, supported by U.S. forces, had moved into the Andar district—and that the kidnappers had moved three of the hostages to the province of Paktika, on Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan.
The impasse has placed Afghan President Hamid Karzai in an almost impossible predicament. Last March, facing a similar dilemma and under heavy pressure from Italy, Karzai ordered the release of five senior Taliban officials in exchange for an Italian journalist, Daniele Mastrogiacomo, who had been abducted along with his Afghan driver and interpreter. The Taliban executed the two Afghans, and Karzai's European and U.S. allies widely criticized his humanitarian gesture. One of the freed Taliban commanders, Mansor Dadullah, is now directing suicide bombings and other attacks against Afghan and American forces from his redoubt on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Not surprisingly, Karzai is under intense pressure not to give in again. But the South Korean government is pleading with him and the U.S. to "use flexibility" in dealing with the Taliban's demands. Seoul and the Korean public clearly favor a deal. But this time Karzai seems to be siding with his allies in the belief that striking such an agreement would only encourage more Taliban abductions, turning kidnapping into a Taliban growth industry. "I think as a principle we shouldn't encourage kidnapping by accepting their demand," says the president's spokesman, Humayun Hamidzada.
The Taliban, however, clearly sees advantages in the tactic. In an interview with Britain’s Channel 4 news last month, Dadullah called kidnapping "a very successful policy." The insurgents have certainly been actively engaged in it. Besides the Koreans, the Taliban have kidnapped at least 41 Afghan civilians and killed at least 23 of them, while 18 remain missing, according to the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which called the Taliban's kidnapping policy a "war crime." Another Taliban group is still holding a German hostage in Wardak province, just north of Kabul, after having executed his German co-worker last week. When Abdullah's group first heard of the kidnapping of the two Germans, it contacted the hostage takers in Wardak hoping that that insurgent group would try to get commander Daro Khan freed in exchange for the Germans. But the Taliban unit holding the Germans refused to cooperate.
The surviving South Koreans, 16 women and five men, are said to be in failing health, largely suffering from dehydration and intestinal disorders. A short video clip broadcast on the Arab TV network Al Jazeera this week showed seven forlorn female hostages, their hair covered by Islamic veils, looking both ill and frightened. One Taliban source told NEWSWEEK that at least one woman is extremely ill.
For now, though, the chances of a breakthrough seem slim. Indeed, the negotiations seem to be marked by confusion. The senior Taliban commander tells NEWSWEEK that a newly arrived South Korean envoy, a Ghazni member of parliament and some government negotiators, may have been talking to a bogus Taliban group that was posing as the kidnappers and has demanded and received some money. There is no way to verify the claim of the commander, who has provided reliable information to NEWSWEEK in the past. But he insists that he has never asked for any money, and is only interested in an exchange of the hostages for Taliban prisoners.
The commander adds that despite the hostages' health problems he is in no hurry to strike a deal unless his demands for the release of at least eight Taliban prisoners are met. "We may sustain, even prolong, the crisis for a while as it's embarrassing for Karzai's regime and keeps it under pressure," he told NEWSWEEK. He admitted that he is under some pressure from local elders who may have objected to him taking hostages, especially women. Karzai has denounced the kidnapping of women as "un-Islamic." "We are also under pressure because of local customs and traditions," the commander admits. But local sentiment is unlikely to lead to a resolution of the crisis.
The commander says that at least the women could be out of harm's way for the time being. "I think we will not decide [the] fate of the women in a hurry," he says. He even hints the negotiations could be out of his hands. "My opinion is not the final word," he adds. He says the Taliban Supreme Council, headed by the Taliban's one-eyed leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, is now involved in the negotiations. One of Mullah Omar's representatives, Hajji Hassan, is advising the Taliban's provincial leaders in Ghazni in their talks with the government.
The commander also warns against any Afghan and U.S. military operation to free the hostages. He says that his forces are in control of most of the province's countryside and that any military assault "will end in failure." One sub-commander named Haji Nur says that an Afghan Army force backed by helicopters attacked a village on the border between Qarabagh and Shelghari districts at 1 a.m. earlier this week. The troops, he says, didn't find any hostages and then proceeded to hand out leaflets urging the villagers not to cooperate with the Taliban.
These kidnappings that are occurring not far from Kabul are just another sign of how insecure Afghanistan has become over the past two years, despite a dramatically increased NATO and U.S. military presence of some 50,000 troops. Not only are abductions a constant danger, so are the roadside bombs known as IEDs and suicide bombers, who have even struck inside Kabul. This insecurity, especially the kidnappings, is further hindering the delivery of aid and reconstruction assistance to the eastern and southern provinces. Among the recent kidnapping victims is a four-man Afghan medical team that was abducted on Monday.
Most foreign-aid workers and U.N. officials have already adopted precautionary travel measures. They travel less frequently into the countryside and, if they do, are usually accompanied by an armed escort. The Afghan Ministry of Interior has advised all foreigners traveling outside Kabul to inform it of their travel plans so it can either advise of the dangers or arrange a security escort. Certainly, Afghan roads have seldom been more hazardous.
No Use Staring at the U.S. in Hostage Crisis
With the hostage crisis in Afghanistan dragging on while the number of casualties rises, certain groups in Korea have begun to shift the blame on the United States. One group opposed to the dispatch of Korean troops overseas has held a candle-lit vigil saying the U.S. caused this tragedy, while the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy issued a statement saying the negligence of the U.S. government was the reason behind the lack of progress in negotiations. Certain news media are starting to take that perspective, and the Uri Party hopped on the bandwagon.
It is difficult to believe Washington will be completely open to the idea of freeing Taliban prisoners. The U.S. government has refused to deal with terrorists even when its own citizens were taken hostage. There may be exceptions, but in Iraq alone, six American hostages were killed after the U.S. government refused to negotiate with terrorists. At present, the fate of 10 American hostages remains unclear. U.S. government officials say if this principle is compromised, then terrorism may spread like wildfire around the world.
Even though that may be Washington’s position, this crisis cannot end simply with a decision by Washington. The government of Afghanistan may rely on the U.S., but the people of Afghanistan are fighting against the Taliban since their own livelihoods depend on winning that fight. The government of Afghanistan freed Taliban prisoners in exchange for an Italian journalist and the Taliban have reportedly learned the value of such tactics. If such incidents are repeated, the government of Afghanistan is afraid its stability may collapse and their very lives come under threat.
The Cheong Wa Dae spokesman, who is briefed on relevant information, said Seoul does not think Washington has independent authority. He said it was wrong to think the U.S. held all of the cards. He added the U.S. was cooperating very closely with Korea in the areas of diplomacy, military and other information.
The goal of the Taliban is to dump all of the responsibility on the U.S. government. The fueling of anti-American sentiment by certain groups in Korea will only play into the taliban’s hands and justify their atrocities. As Mehra Juddin Patan, the governor of Ghazni Province said, the U.S. is in a dilemma too, because the Koreans had come to a country where they shouldn’t be.
The more anti-American groups demand the participation of the U.S. in the hostage negotiations, the more they are trapping Korea within Washington's policy of not making concessions to terrorists. The floor leaders of Korea’s five main political parties are seeking to visit Washington D.C. to call for U.S. participation in the hostage negotiation process. But there is a strong possibility that this trip may end up being a political show to get more votes during the presidential election in December.
As the situation grows more serious, efforts by certain groups to use it to fan anti-American hatred will only intensify. Already, those groups may be planning a second version of the mass rallies that happened after the deaths of Shim Mi-sun and Shin Hyo-soon, two schoolgirls who were killed by a U.S. armored vehicle here. The public must be able to distinguish between those who truly want to save the lives of the young Koreans and who are simply trying to capitalize on the suffering.
WTF
Can anyone tell me WTF this is all about? These people need to be in front of the Blue House protesting because it’s their own prez who’s doing an imitation of a spineless jellyfish. Whatever happened to that self reliance and having more independence from U.S. influence? And as for this statement from Cheong Wa Dae:
“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 hold the perpetrators responsible.” However, Cheon stressed that the Seoul government remains unchanged in its opposition to any military operation meant to rescue the hostages, saying that dialogue should not be given up until the last moment.
I hate to break it to you but “the last moment” has already come and passed for two of your people. Please tell us what your definition of “the last moment” is because I sure would love to know and I bet so would the families of the hostages. Sometimes, money isn’t the answer to the problem. It may be time to kick some ass and talk about it afterwards.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
May 18th or HWARYEOHAN HYUGA (or "Splendid Vacation"), it was the code name the military had for their operations in Gwangju in 1980.
Opened in Korea: 25 July 2007.
How I saw it. CGV
Plot. The story of events leading up to the 1980 Gwangju incident in South Korea.
As I write a review, I try never to bring any of the past hang-ups that I have and try and judge each film. For the most, I can do it. In this case. I can not. A while back one comment asked me why I stated in a preview what i think and what I believe and how the past has make me think and react the way I do. I think that, you the reader, deserve my honest opinion and need to see the bag that I brought with me when I saw this film.
It was 1991 and I was stationed in Camp Carroll, (Waegwan South Korea) and the First Gulf War, had just ended. A friend of mine was going to spend the weekend at one of our Katusa's hometown. (Korean Assigned To US Army)He was really looking forward to it. When he came back it was a different story all together.
To me, my friend just looked very different. I went and asked him, WTF happened? He told me about how all of the town just hated him and they were chased back to his parents place and how they were yelling at him. I then asked what city he went to, he said "Kwangju" (The unit knew that I was a history major) so he asked me WTF about Kwangju (Gwangju). I explained to him about what had happened and how a lot of people blame the USA for letting that happen. He understood it. Then his KATUSA friend came over, and I went off on him! I yelled WTF? Are you trying to get him killed, you know damn well he nor any US Army can go their, WTF were you thinking. It had never dawned on him that his friend could have gotten into serious trouble. We talked about what had happened and he told me that he had lost a few of his family and how they always thought that there was a mass grave with over 10,000 people buried there. We never talked about that weekend for the rest of the time that I was stationed in Korea.
It left a very bad taste in my mouth and to be honest, to this day, I refuse to ever visit Kwangju again. I had a short stay at Camp Ames (near Kwangju) but I did not react with anyone who lived in that city.
I knew that I was coming back to Korea in early 2005 to work in Korea as a teacher, so i decided to touch up with my studies of Korean History. When I revisited my studies of this subject. I flat out could not believe WTF I was reading.
(Now readers, please remember something. This is version 1 of this review. I have asked and hope that a few people, who are more aware of all of the story for help n editing, so this review may change a few time for historical accuracy.)
Now lets talk about the background of the film.
A huge red flag came up when No USA INVOLVEMENT article came out.
What I would like to point out are these various comments.
Here’s what Wicham said in his book “Korea on the Brink” (2000):
Neither Bill Gleysteen nor I knew that the Special Forces brigades had been ordered into Kwangju on May 18. We did know, however, that the ROK 20th and 30th Infantry Divisions, both of which had special training for riot control duty, were being withdrawn by Defense Minister Chu from CFC Operational Control. My permission to withdraw these units was neither sought nor required under the terms of the CFC Agreement. Rhu told me that some units from the 20th Division were being dispatched by ROK authorities to the Kwangju area, but that the 20th Division’s troops had not yet been involved in suppressing the riots.
and this......
Gleysteen’s “Massive Entanglement, Marginal Influence”. Here’s what he has to say on the topic at hand in a nutshell:
The basic source of controversy about the U.S. role in Kwangju was the widespread public assumption that General Wickham in his capacity as head of the Combined Forces Command must have known about the deployment of Korean army troops in the Kwangju region and approved their role. In fact, none of the Korean forces involved in the mayhem on May 18-21 were under Wickham’s operational control. Nor did he or I have any knowledge of what those forces would be ordered to do.
kwangju
AND BY USINKOREA.
I think it was Lee Jae-Eui’s accounts of the situation in Kwangju that I found the most difficult to digest.
Most Koreans, except older conservative ones, want you to believe Kwangju was a shining example of resistance to dictatorship by heroic advocates of freedom and democracy —- basically a boomerang interpretation from the “bunch of commie bastards” one the authoritarian government sold after the massacre.
Outsiders, especially foreign reporters, influenced by the global times in which Kwangju 1980 happened, the same people who championed “democratic” uprisings in South and Central American nations and Africa when “socialism” was still deemed a viable alternative to the ills of liberal capitalistic democracy, have also wanted to paint a best or better picture of the protest leaders and members in Kwangju.
But, from bits and pieces I have caught here and there, I can’t swallow this interpretation well.
I can’t bring myself to saying Kwangju was Korea’s Tiananmen.
And what bothers me is that there is a concept worth saving that gets destroyed if we make Kwangju Korea’s Tiananmen:
It is hard enough for mankind to follow the wisdom of Gandhi.
If we dilute it by applying it to situations like Kwangju, it becomes even harder.
Non-violent resistance to oppression — rather than turning to violence and bloodshed - even when right is on your side — even when excessive violence is being used by the authorities against your movement —- is something to be praised and it has been proven to make progress in places like India or the US or the former Soviet Union and so on.
I’m still conflicted about Kwangju 1980 — because I can accept the use of violence by citizens against an oppressive government. I don’t rule out that means altogether.
And I can’t say one way or another if Korea 1980 was a place and setting in which I would have accepted the use of violence or not…..
But I know which I prefer greatly —- the use of non-violence.
And it dawned on me today
didn’t Kim Dae Jung fight hard for democracy in Korea for decades — effectively push the government (though ultimate success to a long time) —- without preaching the need for violent resistance or a violent defense against oppression?
That is praise worthy….
I’m not too sure at all the leaders in Kwangju 1980 deserve such praise or the same level of praise…..
RICHARDSON
No, sticking it to leftist students is not the only reason. ‘Kwangju Satae,’ has been used in the Western academic community for decades, and I seen no need to conform to South Korean revisionism, especially in the case of a mob mentality ‘incident’ now, in my opinion, inappropriately romanticized. If people get upset for having a spade called a spade, oh well.
As I said, I used that terminology in Kwangju with absolutely no problem. The only odd looks I got were a bit of astonishment from locals when I understood what they were talking about.
NoW for those who have no idea what happened that day may I please now direct you to this web site HERE!
Now lets talk about the USA-Korea military alliance. Short Version.
1. If South Korea is attacked by a foreign power, the USA will defend South Korea.
2. If it is an internal problem, then South Korea will deal with it in a manner that they seem fit.
To be honest, I have always felt that if South Korea wants to blame anyone for what happened in Kwangji, all they need to is to look in the mirror for the answer.
Korea pop war review Mark has some great information about the movie and some interesting photos.
Now for the review.
I have to ask a question, if this incident is so important in Korean History, then why was it treated with too many fictional people and the main hero/villain was a person of fiction.
from csm
In the film, the rebels, led by a fictitious former colonel, revel in defiance and mayhem. Troops fire point-blank into a boisterous crowd – minutes of carnage that didn't happen that way. "Too much dramatization", says Chi. The director, Kim Ji-hoon, he says, "may have overdone it".
Mr. Kim says the film shows the rebels "not as terrorists but as people who wanted to defend their country". Yes, they "were fiction", he says, "but I tried to venerate them so the 10 days of revolt were as close to the facts as possible".
The truth was terrible enough to deserve an accurate retelling, says Chi, sounding like critics of Oliver Stone's "Platoon", about Vietnam.
"The people of Kwangju will be embarrassed by so much divergence", he says. Other Koreans "will think it's what happened, and the younger generation may have a wrong understanding of history".
____________________________________________________________________________________
The film took the very simple approach that soldiers were evil killing machines and the people were just in the wrong place in the wrong time. For a film that claims to try and show all sides of this incident, to leave out the voices of the soldiers was a damn disgrace.
I was hopping that the film would at least attempt to be a t least a good piece of propaganda, it was not even that. The film was cut very badly and at times I had no idea why the next shot was even added, it was a mess to watch with no real timing and pace, it all seemed very rushed.
I have no idea why they insisted that it was 1980 but actor Lee Joon-ki looked like he had just left a 2007 Korean dance party. I never believed him in the high school student role.
Another major problem I had was the stupid love story between Min-wu (Kim Sang-kyeong) and female nurse Sin-ae (Lee Yo-won). Why do movies insist on calling it history but give us these stupid and tired love stories that take away from the historical importance OF the actual events as they went down?
The only good thing about the film was that the film did talk about the US, it did not blame the US for the incident happening.
To make a very long story short, the film ends with Min-wu and Sin-ae getting married, but its a wedding in Sin-ae mind. The wedding will never happen because he is dead and so is most of the wedding party. I could not believe that they ended the film like a modern Korean Music Video. What a huge waste of the crew, and the Director.
In trying to tell a story of a major event in Korean history, the director, Kim Ji-hoon, blows in and had the audience treating the actors who died as heroes and forgetting about the real cost of those days.
Please pass on this film at all cost.
Grade. F
You know, once in a while, I actually do something right. It makes for a good teaching moment.
This week at Woosong, we have had a Government sponsored camp for a weeks with students from Onchon (sp?). I have been teaching the middle school 3 kids. Well today was one of the students 16th birthday (Victoria's). We has recently talked about how special the "Sweet 16" birthday was for USA girls and I Was going to try my best to make Victoria's birthday a nice one.....
It worked better than even I could have hoped for.
I went to Costco and was trying to pick the right cake, and I could not believe it when I found A cake that had some red roses on it and it had written "Happy Birthday" on it. I knew that I had found my cake! I also had picked up a copy of Harry Potter 7, and I had made each student a pdf file with all 7 HP's and all 4 LOTR's. I then went back to Woosong and hid the cake and no one saw it!
I then took role and started walking around class, very worried, I said, What am I forgetting today? Finally some one said, ITS Victoria birthday... I said, "Oh right," then I walked out side and picked up the cake and gave it to her....
She started to cry. I really shocked her! then I went to get the plates and silverware to eat the cake... I then said, "You know I forgot SOMETHING" I went back and gave her a black bag and I told her to open it up. Her friend was yelling, "Harry Potter!" Victoria had never seen a US copy of HP and now she has one. The class was cheering when we sang Happy Birthday and her eyes were really tearing up when she got the book.
The students loved the cake and the cd and the birthday party. I know I made her 16th birthday a very happy one.
Like I said, every now and then I actually do something right......
This week at Woosong, we have had a Government sponsored camp for a weeks with students from Onchon (sp?). I have been teaching the middle school 3 kids. Well today was one of the students 16th birthday (Victoria's). We has recently talked about how special the "Sweet 16" birthday was for USA girls and I Was going to try my best to make Victoria's birthday a nice one.....
It worked better than even I could have hoped for.
I went to Costco and was trying to pick the right cake, and I could not believe it when I found A cake that had some red roses on it and it had written "Happy Birthday" on it. I knew that I had found my cake! I also had picked up a copy of Harry Potter 7, and I had made each student a pdf file with all 7 HP's and all 4 LOTR's. I then went back to Woosong and hid the cake and no one saw it!
I then took role and started walking around class, very worried, I said, What am I forgetting today? Finally some one said, ITS Victoria birthday... I said, "Oh right," then I walked out side and picked up the cake and gave it to her....
She started to cry. I really shocked her! then I went to get the plates and silverware to eat the cake... I then said, "You know I forgot SOMETHING" I went back and gave her a black bag and I told her to open it up. Her friend was yelling, "Harry Potter!" Victoria had never seen a US copy of HP and now she has one. The class was cheering when we sang Happy Birthday and her eyes were really tearing up when she got the book.
The students loved the cake and the cd and the birthday party. I know I made her 16th birthday a very happy one.
Like I said, every now and then I actually do something right......
WTF
Yonhap: Kabul Won’t Budge Because of West
Now even Yonhap is setting the United States up to take the blame if the hostages in Afghanistan get killed.
In an analysis report, Yonhap — citing experts — says Kabul is ignoring the Taliban’s demands because it doesn’t want to offend the West, including the United States and Great Britain.
It notes that more than 90% of the Afghan budget is provided by foreign aid, especially from the United States, and that the Karzai government cannot act freely of US influence because it’s protected by NATO.
Yonhap ends by saying most analysts say negotiations to free the hostages depend on how effectively Seoul persuades Kabul to act and how effectively it secures the cooperation of the Western nations.
Of course, what Yonhap doesn’t say is that, perhaps, Kabul is ignoring the Taliban’s demands because a) it doesn’t want to turn kidnapping into a lucrative business, and more to the point b) Korea’s contribution to the fight against the Taliban has been next to nil, and its 200 non-combat troops will be withdrawn by the end of the year anyway. Kabul has absolutely no reason whatsoever to free enemies of the state who, upon their release, will go about attacking schools, hospitals and other infrastructure, killing Afghan civilians and attacking both its troops and the troops of allied states, all to rescue a bunch of highly irresponsible individuals who should have never been in the country in the first place and were probably engaged in activities even the Karzai government deems illegal. When Kabul freed five Taliban terrorists to save an Italian journalist earlier this year, it didn’t do it out of the kindness of either Karzai’s or Bush’s heart — it did it because Italy threatened to pull out its 2,000 troops. Influence is earned, and Seoul — so sorry — hasn’t earned any.
Rather than pinning this all on the West (read: the United States), what really needs to be asked is a) should we (Koreans) even be trying to negotiate with the Taliban, and b) if we do choose to negotiate, what can we do to earn the necessary influence with the Karzai government. Seoul needs to be showing Karzai the green and/or promising to send combat troops, not pestering Washington or NATO to lean on Kabul. And if the media thinks it can get the government to adopt a strategy of threatening Washington with increased anti-Americanism if it doesn’t get Karzai to do what Seoul wants, Yonhap, the JoongAng Ilbo and Hankyoreh (just to mention the ones I’ve read) had better recognize — this is a war against an organization that aided and abetted in the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans in our own damn country, and if you think we (Americans) are going to help said organization because the Korean embassy in Washington threatens us with “Fucking USA,” you’re sorely mistaken, my friends.
UPDATE: More bitching courtesy Yonhap, this time about Korea’s burdensome position “sandwiched” between Kabul and the Taliban. Yonhap quotes an Afghan source as saying that although the Korean government wants to accept the Taliban’s demands, Kabul — which actually has the authority to release the prisoners — is steadfastly refusing. Later, it quotes Al Jazeera, which reported today that the reason Kabul is refusing is “because it was greatly criticized by the United States” when it swapped Taliban prisoners for an Italian hostage in March.
And then there’s this classic from Yonhap — apparently, the Bush administration finds itself in a “dilemma,” namely, that the kidnapping might cause a rift in the Korea-US alliance and heighten anti-war sentiment in the United States. It also claimed that at a “sensitive time” right before presidential elections in both countries, the White House is on guard against the kidnapping becoming a political issue. A Washington source said Bush was caught between US policy of not negotiating with terrorists and assistance requests from its ally, Korea. Yonhap also noted that if the US appears to be helping Korea, it could make the situation worse and heighten anti-war sentiment in the United States. However, one official said that if the United States refuses to help, it could once again ignite anti-American sentiment in South Korea ahead of the Korean presidential election.
NOTE TO YONHAP — It’s not the United States that’s caught in a dilemma. You are. The US will (or at least should) do exactly what it did with the Italians — not a God-damned thing (unless Seoul asks for a rescue operation). You, on the other hand, are now faced with a choice — you can now either stick firm to the principle of not negotiating with terrorists and let your hostages die, or pay an extravagant amount of money — both in ransom to the Taliban and to buy influence with the Afghan government — AND piss off the United States, Great Britain, Germany and just about every other NATO member with troops in Afghanistan (save for, perhaps, the Italians) to rescue your guys. Have fun.
UPDATE 2: Cheong Wa Dae has issued a statement expressing regret about the press — the foreign press, that is! During a regular briefing, Cheong Wa Dae spokesman Chun Ho-sun said that the foreign press was indiscriminately releasing unconfirmed reports that did not take into account that they could play into the kidnapper’s plans, and that the presidential office couldn’t help but express regret over these reports.
A Cheong Wa Dae official said the statement was made because the foreign press reports, quoting local Afghan sources, were amplifying confusion.
Chun also asked local media to be careful about what they report, saying the situation was one which lives hanged in the balance. In particular, Chun said media speculation about a memo written by Foreign Minister Song Min-soon — photos of which made it on the air — mustn’t negatively influence the hostages’ situation.
COMMENTS.....
One may argue about the wisdom of giving money to the Taliban now, but overall, Seoul should be more concerned about their own people in distress, instead of western governments and besides, S.Korea is not in the Talibans’ line of fire so no worries for Korea about terrorists attacking by using the money Seoul gave them.
Harsh as it may sound, that should be Seouls’ position.
Fair enough. I guess it could also be argued — along similar lines — that since Seoul seems intent to pay ransom that very well may be used to kill Americans (seeing how it, unlike Korea, is in the “line of fire”), the United States should launch a rescue attempt to free the hostages before said ransom is paid. Sure, the hostages could get killed and heighten anti-Americanism in Seoul, but Washington should be more concerned with protecting its own citizens — including its soldiers in the field — rather than the Korean government.
Harsh as it may sound, that should be Washington’s position.
Robert...............................................................................
Yonhap: Kabul Won’t Budge Because of West
Now even Yonhap is setting the United States up to take the blame if the hostages in Afghanistan get killed.
In an analysis report, Yonhap — citing experts — says Kabul is ignoring the Taliban’s demands because it doesn’t want to offend the West, including the United States and Great Britain.
It notes that more than 90% of the Afghan budget is provided by foreign aid, especially from the United States, and that the Karzai government cannot act freely of US influence because it’s protected by NATO.
Yonhap ends by saying most analysts say negotiations to free the hostages depend on how effectively Seoul persuades Kabul to act and how effectively it secures the cooperation of the Western nations.
Of course, what Yonhap doesn’t say is that, perhaps, Kabul is ignoring the Taliban’s demands because a) it doesn’t want to turn kidnapping into a lucrative business, and more to the point b) Korea’s contribution to the fight against the Taliban has been next to nil, and its 200 non-combat troops will be withdrawn by the end of the year anyway. Kabul has absolutely no reason whatsoever to free enemies of the state who, upon their release, will go about attacking schools, hospitals and other infrastructure, killing Afghan civilians and attacking both its troops and the troops of allied states, all to rescue a bunch of highly irresponsible individuals who should have never been in the country in the first place and were probably engaged in activities even the Karzai government deems illegal. When Kabul freed five Taliban terrorists to save an Italian journalist earlier this year, it didn’t do it out of the kindness of either Karzai’s or Bush’s heart — it did it because Italy threatened to pull out its 2,000 troops. Influence is earned, and Seoul — so sorry — hasn’t earned any.
Rather than pinning this all on the West (read: the United States), what really needs to be asked is a) should we (Koreans) even be trying to negotiate with the Taliban, and b) if we do choose to negotiate, what can we do to earn the necessary influence with the Karzai government. Seoul needs to be showing Karzai the green and/or promising to send combat troops, not pestering Washington or NATO to lean on Kabul. And if the media thinks it can get the government to adopt a strategy of threatening Washington with increased anti-Americanism if it doesn’t get Karzai to do what Seoul wants, Yonhap, the JoongAng Ilbo and Hankyoreh (just to mention the ones I’ve read) had better recognize — this is a war against an organization that aided and abetted in the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans in our own damn country, and if you think we (Americans) are going to help said organization because the Korean embassy in Washington threatens us with “Fucking USA,” you’re sorely mistaken, my friends.
UPDATE: More bitching courtesy Yonhap, this time about Korea’s burdensome position “sandwiched” between Kabul and the Taliban. Yonhap quotes an Afghan source as saying that although the Korean government wants to accept the Taliban’s demands, Kabul — which actually has the authority to release the prisoners — is steadfastly refusing. Later, it quotes Al Jazeera, which reported today that the reason Kabul is refusing is “because it was greatly criticized by the United States” when it swapped Taliban prisoners for an Italian hostage in March.
And then there’s this classic from Yonhap — apparently, the Bush administration finds itself in a “dilemma,” namely, that the kidnapping might cause a rift in the Korea-US alliance and heighten anti-war sentiment in the United States. It also claimed that at a “sensitive time” right before presidential elections in both countries, the White House is on guard against the kidnapping becoming a political issue. A Washington source said Bush was caught between US policy of not negotiating with terrorists and assistance requests from its ally, Korea. Yonhap also noted that if the US appears to be helping Korea, it could make the situation worse and heighten anti-war sentiment in the United States. However, one official said that if the United States refuses to help, it could once again ignite anti-American sentiment in South Korea ahead of the Korean presidential election.
NOTE TO YONHAP — It’s not the United States that’s caught in a dilemma. You are. The US will (or at least should) do exactly what it did with the Italians — not a God-damned thing (unless Seoul asks for a rescue operation). You, on the other hand, are now faced with a choice — you can now either stick firm to the principle of not negotiating with terrorists and let your hostages die, or pay an extravagant amount of money — both in ransom to the Taliban and to buy influence with the Afghan government — AND piss off the United States, Great Britain, Germany and just about every other NATO member with troops in Afghanistan (save for, perhaps, the Italians) to rescue your guys. Have fun.
UPDATE 2: Cheong Wa Dae has issued a statement expressing regret about the press — the foreign press, that is! During a regular briefing, Cheong Wa Dae spokesman Chun Ho-sun said that the foreign press was indiscriminately releasing unconfirmed reports that did not take into account that they could play into the kidnapper’s plans, and that the presidential office couldn’t help but express regret over these reports.
A Cheong Wa Dae official said the statement was made because the foreign press reports, quoting local Afghan sources, were amplifying confusion.
Chun also asked local media to be careful about what they report, saying the situation was one which lives hanged in the balance. In particular, Chun said media speculation about a memo written by Foreign Minister Song Min-soon — photos of which made it on the air — mustn’t negatively influence the hostages’ situation.
COMMENTS.....
One may argue about the wisdom of giving money to the Taliban now, but overall, Seoul should be more concerned about their own people in distress, instead of western governments and besides, S.Korea is not in the Talibans’ line of fire so no worries for Korea about terrorists attacking by using the money Seoul gave them.
Harsh as it may sound, that should be Seouls’ position.
Fair enough. I guess it could also be argued — along similar lines — that since Seoul seems intent to pay ransom that very well may be used to kill Americans (seeing how it, unlike Korea, is in the “line of fire”), the United States should launch a rescue attempt to free the hostages before said ransom is paid. Sure, the hostages could get killed and heighten anti-Americanism in Seoul, but Washington should be more concerned with protecting its own citizens — including its soldiers in the field — rather than the Korean government.
Harsh as it may sound, that should be Washington’s position.
Robert...............................................................................
a must read
I will post after the kidnapping tale is complete but Michael wrote one hell of a blog. please read the entire blog.
I will post after the kidnapping tale is complete but Michael wrote one hell of a blog. please read the entire blog.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Foreigners Face Restricted Banking
The nation's financial regulator will restrict both nationals and foreigners in withdrawing money from banks' automated teller machines (ATMs) and opening accounts to prevent financial frauds such as ``voice phishing.''
The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) plans to revise laws that block such frauds this month for implementation in September.
Under the amendment, both domestic residents and foreigners will not be able to transfer money via ATMs or online worth more than 30 million won ($32,800) a day, down from 50 million won. The sum of daily withdrawal will be cut to 6 million won from 10 million won.
Foreigners who stayed here less then three months will be banned from opening new accounts, raising concern about possible discrimination against foreigners.
For those foreigners who lived in Korea for more than three months, they can open accounts with the provision of their qualification papers, including work permits and identification certificates.
But they will not be able to access online banking and ATMs in the first three months even after they opened an account. They will need to directly withdraw and transfer money over the counters at banks during business hours.
Following the news, migrant workers here are voicing concerns over limited access to banks.
``Since most of foreigners are here to make money, restricting their relationship with financial firms will make it difficult for them to live and provide support to their families abroad,'' said ABM Moniruzzaman, general secretary of Migrants' Trade Union. ``How can they directly go to banks after work when they are all closed? They need access to ATMs in case of emergencies.''
Since June last year, the FSS has found a total of 3,990 cases of voice phishing that caused damage to victims worth 37.1 billion won.
A person or foreign groups fluent in Korean have been using a method of identity theft _ or ``phishing'' _ posing as legitimate businesses, which they use to phone people to obtain their personal information such as credit card and PIN numbers.
Then, the scammers use the data to access the victims' accounts to either withdraw or transfer money to accounts established here and abroad.
The victims are able to retrieve their losses only after they win a lawsuit against the criminals.
The FSS has requested Korea Post and the Korean Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives to follow the measures against their customers.
``We have put priority on safeguarding banks, postal offices and the cooperatives where a rise of frauds have occurred through teller machines,'' said a FSS official. ``The cap of money transfers and withdraws could be eased on certain account holders should they get approval from their service providers.''
It, however, did not decide whether to have mutual savings banks follow the revised restrictions.
phk@koreatimes.co.kr
The nation's financial regulator will restrict both nationals and foreigners in withdrawing money from banks' automated teller machines (ATMs) and opening accounts to prevent financial frauds such as ``voice phishing.''
The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) plans to revise laws that block such frauds this month for implementation in September.
Under the amendment, both domestic residents and foreigners will not be able to transfer money via ATMs or online worth more than 30 million won ($32,800) a day, down from 50 million won. The sum of daily withdrawal will be cut to 6 million won from 10 million won.
Foreigners who stayed here less then three months will be banned from opening new accounts, raising concern about possible discrimination against foreigners.
For those foreigners who lived in Korea for more than three months, they can open accounts with the provision of their qualification papers, including work permits and identification certificates.
But they will not be able to access online banking and ATMs in the first three months even after they opened an account. They will need to directly withdraw and transfer money over the counters at banks during business hours.
Following the news, migrant workers here are voicing concerns over limited access to banks.
``Since most of foreigners are here to make money, restricting their relationship with financial firms will make it difficult for them to live and provide support to their families abroad,'' said ABM Moniruzzaman, general secretary of Migrants' Trade Union. ``How can they directly go to banks after work when they are all closed? They need access to ATMs in case of emergencies.''
Since June last year, the FSS has found a total of 3,990 cases of voice phishing that caused damage to victims worth 37.1 billion won.
A person or foreign groups fluent in Korean have been using a method of identity theft _ or ``phishing'' _ posing as legitimate businesses, which they use to phone people to obtain their personal information such as credit card and PIN numbers.
Then, the scammers use the data to access the victims' accounts to either withdraw or transfer money to accounts established here and abroad.
The victims are able to retrieve their losses only after they win a lawsuit against the criminals.
The FSS has requested Korea Post and the Korean Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives to follow the measures against their customers.
``We have put priority on safeguarding banks, postal offices and the cooperatives where a rise of frauds have occurred through teller machines,'' said a FSS official. ``The cap of money transfers and withdraws could be eased on certain account holders should they get approval from their service providers.''
It, however, did not decide whether to have mutual savings banks follow the revised restrictions.
phk@koreatimes.co.kr
Friday, July 20, 2007
I AM A SHEEPDOG!
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, US RANGER,
Ph.D., author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett
In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep.
Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die.
That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial
kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.
Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Dave Grossman , LTC(ret)
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, US RANGER,
Ph.D., author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett
In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep.
Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die.
That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial
kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.
Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Dave Grossman , LTC(ret)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)