See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On August 4th, 2007 at 5:34 pm, southdakotaboy said:

   South Korea should close all the mosques in South Korea until its’ citizens are released. It should also put a halt to the construction of all new mosques.

2. #2
   On August 4th, 2007 at 5:52 pm, PBoilermaker said:

   Nice to see that the folks at donga.com don’t suffer from ADS.

3. #3
   On August 4th, 2007 at 6:21 pm, runningonfumes said:

   I am completely underwhelmed by the chairbound, passive response of the Bush Administration to this outrage committed by a group of thugs with whom Bush claims to be AT WAR — even when WE ALREADY HAVE TROOPS ON THE GROUND IN THE AREA! Apparently, Bush (under the morally undermining influence of Condi Rice and James Baker) is oblivious to the message of ABJECT WEAKNESS his failure to act is telegraphing to all the THUGS of the world. There is a VACCUUM of LEADERSHIP at the TOP, Mr. President!
   Why do we have special forces if we will not use them in a situation like this? Moreover, I utterly despise the President of South Korea for his failure to ask Bush to fly his (very capable) special ops forces in to take care of this mess. He (the ROK President) strikes me as spineless. If anyone objects that a rescue mission may result in the death of some (or all) of the hostages, my reply is: What do you think will happen if we continue to sit on our hands? I am disgusted: A copy of the al-Qur’an dropped in a toilet at Pace University draws more outrage than two missionaries shot dead with 21 more awaiting the same fate. The West every day seems more and more craven, weak, and lacking in any morals.

4. #4
   On August 4th, 2007 at 6:41 pm, PBoilermaker said:

   For argument’s sake, what is the US obligation to risk our own personnel and equipment to secure the release of foreign nationals who were taken hostage after -voluntarily- placing themselves in harm’s way in a combat zone?

   I am obviously not a fan of the Taliban, but the demands that the US take this on as priority #1 seem a bit much. I hope this gets wide press coverage to show the world who we are dealing with, but I don’t feel that we, as a nation, owe these hostages a thing. Further, it would be detrimental to deal with the terrorists in any way.

5. #5
   On August 4th, 2007 at 6:59 pm, DesertLover said:

   PBoilermaker

   I’m with you on this … it is tragic and I hope and pray for the safe return of these Korean citizens … but the ONLY way the US should mount any kind of a rescue attempt is if (1) The South Korean government requests it and (2) that we have verifiable information regarding where the Taliban are holding the hostages …

   This needs to be blasted across the front page of every newspaper in every country to get the word out about these THUGS and MURDERERS …

   Then it needs to be the lead story on every radio and tv newscast in every corner of the world as well …

   Pray for their release …

6. #6
   On August 4th, 2007 at 7:20 pm, ajmontana said:

   Good points you guy’s, media coverage at best has been weak and needs to be stepped up worldwide as you said. Hopefully someone over there will grow some and rescue these innocent Missionaries.

7. #7
   On August 4th, 2007 at 8:20 pm, allie said:

   As small as my blog is, I have not forgotten them.

8. #8
   On August 4th, 2007 at 8:46 pm, bear1909 said:

   Christians don’t rate rescue. They want to take over the world as much as the Islamists do. /sarc off

9. #9
   On August 4th, 2007 at 9:04 pm, Chris said:

   All of the liberals are busy protesting Michael Vick’s dog fighting ring while innocent Christians are slaughtered in Afghanistan. While what Michael Vick did is completely wrong where is the outrage for the slaughter of these Christians???

   http://familyactionorganization.wordpress.com/

10. #10
    On August 4th, 2007 at 9:05 pm, zorro said:

    Continue to Pray for these hostages and all those held against their will.

    And runningonfumes, who is to say that a rescue is not in the works? As mentioned above, we’ll need to know the location(s) these poor people are being held along with a thousand other details. Hang in there, some things take time.

11. #11
    On August 4th, 2007 at 9:05 pm, Dersu said:

    PB has it about right on this one.

    I pray for the safe return of the hostages.

12. #12
    On August 4th, 2007 at 9:05 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

    Sarcasam on—Now if the hostages had been abortion providers taken hostage by mean ole Christians, then there would be a repeat of the Branch Davidian compound siege…sarcasam off

    “Dhimitude or Freedom-Your Choice!”

13. #13
    On August 4th, 2007 at 10:20 pm, changjin89 said:

    Saturday Greetings Mrs. Malkin and loyal community. It is very heartening to see that many good people are keeping the captive missionaries in their daily prayers, that they are not forgotten. On a more secular note, it is worthy that this news medium carries the report of the editorial in the Dong-A Ilbo newspaper, evidence of a welcome major current of Korean appreciation of the realities of the situation. As yet, however, that is not the evident thinking of the incumbent Roh Moo-hyun Administration. Their thinking is at best similar to the Joong-Ang Ilbo and often worse. Perhaps a good part of the problem for President Roh and his administration in apprehending the essential reality is that to abandon the reflex of paying ransom, directly or indirectly, is to open the door to question all that they have embraced for years through the “Sunshine Policy” of paying ransom to the Kim family regime in northern Korea.

    If this be a defining moment or not for Korea, even so, may these her finest sons and daughters be set free, and without dire consequence to still more innocents.

    Thank you again for not forgetting.

14. #14
    On August 4th, 2007 at 11:10 pm, runningonfumes said:

    For argument’s sake, what is the US obligation to risk our own personnel and equipment to secure the release of foreign nationals who were taken hostage after -voluntarily- placing themselves in harm’s way in a combat zone?

    First, we (rightly, in my view) entered this war of our own accord and we are at war with the Taliban: Anything we can do to disrupt the enemy’s schemes helps OUR cause.

    Second, the Koreans have troops in Afghanistan assisting in the war effort, so these are not just “foreign nationals,” are they? Korea is our ally in Afghanistan: If we fail to help them out now, I suspect they will pull out soon.

    We are the adult supervision in this sh*thole: I’d say you are trying to find a “fine-print” justification for allowing these wonderful human beings to be snuffed out.

    There is a bigger message here than civilians who went into the war zone voluntarily (to DO GOOD for the Afghan people, by the way — something that HELPS OUR CAUSE!!): That message is that we are wimps.

    And, anyone on this thread who thinks we do not know where these hostages are being held must be smoking something. Ever heard of satellites, predators, and GPS?

    It’s great to be called “the world’s one super-power” — however, sometimes we have to act to uphold that reputation: use it or lose it, I say.

    This is clearly one of those times.

15. #15
    On August 4th, 2007 at 11:59 pm, almeehan said:

    Responsible restraint is called for in this situation. Certainly the US is not sitting on it’s hands. Any move to attempt a rescue is fraught with the danger of the immediate execution of these kids by these evil vermin. It isn’t an isolated incident that a very recent bombing and killing of Taliban leaders and many other Taliban took place. This could be a very strong leverage with the group (perhaps a rouge band) to release the hostages or other leaders, whose location is known by the sats & high tech stuff, will be snuffed. Prayer for wisdom for our leaders and God’s grace & presence for the hostages is the highest order of participation on our part. Thank you Michelle for keeping it before us!

16. #16
    On August 5th, 2007 at 12:09 am, Dersu said:

    runningonfumes,

    I have no trouble with our troops trying to free the hostages, but it must be with SK troops out front. We get these folks killed and then we have more trouble with the anti-usa, anti war crowd in SK.

    You say we know where these hostages are being held, I doubt that. they are likely held in several places and moved often.

    I agree kill every terrorist that we can, anytime we can. That is as long as the kill ratio is inline with what our
    commanders expect.

    This should be the number #1 priority
    of SK and we should back them to the hilt.

    I am afraid that ransom has already been paid, and negoiations for more is ongoing. We should have no part of that.

    I pray for their safe release.

17. #17
    On August 5th, 2007 at 1:30 am, PBoilermaker said:

    Second, the Koreans have troops in Afghanistan assisting in the war effort, so these are not just “foreign nationals,” are they? Korea is our ally in Afghanistan: If we fail to help them out now, I suspect they will pull out soon.

    If these were Korean coalition troops who were kidnapped, I would agree that a significant military/diplomatic effort to back a recovery mission with the Koreans would be required on our part. Korean troops are deployed to Afghanistan in a non-combat role (engineers and medics), you need to understand that. They were already planning on withdrawing their troops regardless of this event. I’m sorry to say, but these are indeed non-military Foreign Nationals who voluntarily entered the country. Regardless of their reasons or their intentions, they placed themselves at great risk and they are now caught up in a horrific situation. I can’t recall the last time -US- combat assets were called on to do -everything- in their power to rescue civilian hostages in a war zone, regardless of nationality or purpose. British sailors and Marines were recently taken hostage by Iran and you didn’t see anyone demanding that the US lead a rescue mission at all costs, did you? Why would we, all of a sudden, be wholly responsible for -foreign- civilian missionaries in a combat zone? Why should we negotiate with terrorists to secure their freedom? What don’t you understand about this situation?

    We are the adult supervision in this sh*thole: I’d say you are trying to find a “fine-print” justification for allowing these wonderful human beings to be snuffed out.

    I’d say you are operating in a fantasy world and you are incredibly naive. We would all like to see innocents spared this kind of treatment, but you need to make an honest assessment of the reality of the situation. Your emotions are overriding logic. You are asking for a PC, Hollywood ending to a real world hostage situation where the captors are, for all intents and purposes, ideological animals.

    There is a bigger message here than civilians who went into the war zone voluntarily (to DO GOOD for the Afghan people, by the way — something that HELPS OUR CAUSE!!): That message is that we are wimps.

    Again, put your heightened emotions aside and think about what you are really saying. In a perfect world, we’d send in some special operators, kill the bad guys and rescue the innocents in a perfectly planned and executed operation. Afghanistan is the farthest thing from a perfect world that I have ever seen.

    What would be the message to the world if we negotiated with terrorists? Is it America’s responsibility to safeguard every civilian who decides they would like to voluntarily “do good” in a combat zone? You know the answer, you just don’t want to face the reality because it is unpleasant.

    I feel for the Koreans and I hope this ordeal gets top billing across all media outlets…terror must be showcased for what it is. I just don’t see how we can justify appeasement of terrorists to rescue these people and assume full responsibility, as Americans, for the outcome.

18. #18
    On August 5th, 2007 at 3:34 am, runningonfumes said:

    If these were Korean coalition troops who were kidnapped, I would agree that a significant military/diplomatic effort to back a recovery mission with the Koreans would be required on our part.

    Huh? Who said anything about “negotiating.” Please try rebutting what I say: Not what you (incorrectly) infer. A military mission to rescue the hostages is hardly “negotiating” — unless, perhaps, you subscribe to the Jimmy Carter school of foreign policy.

    Why should we negotiate with terrorists to secure their freedom? What don’t you understand about this situation?

    What don’t you understand about my position that you keep reciting this nonsensical mantra about “negotiating?”

    What would be the message to the world if we negotiated with terrorists?

    Your repeatedly imputing to me a desire to negotiate with the terrorists is either dishonest or illogical.

    Again, put your heightened emotions aside and think about what you are really saying. In a perfect world, we’d send in some special operators, kill the bad guys and rescue the innocents in a perfectly planned and executed operation. Afghanistan is the farthest thing from a perfect world that I have ever seen.

    Lack of emotion in a situation like this is not necessarily an indication of either intellectual or moral superiority…. And, yeah, you’re right! we should never use our special forces in a less-than-ideal environment…. huh?

    I just don’t see how we can justify appeasement of terrorists to rescue these people and assume full responsibility, as Americans, for the outcome.

    Again: I am calling for a military rescue. Where do you get this stuff about diplomacy and appeasement? Not from me: I am calling for troops with guns kicking in doors.

    You are asking for a PC, Hollywood ending to a real world hostage situation where the captors are, for all intents and purposes, ideological animals.

    I am asking for an honest effort to snuff out the animals holding these hostages — once again, animals against whom WE have gone to war. Why do we spend billions on defense if we find wheedling excuses at every turn not to use these assets?

    This war has an important psychological front to it that is fought over the media and internet: So far, due to our failure to act in this instance, the Korean captives event is being won by the Taliban — hands down.

19. #19
    On August 5th, 2007 at 4:52 am, PBoilermaker said:

    Huh? Who said anything about “negotiating.” Please try rebutting what I say: Not what you (incorrectly) infer. A military mission to rescue the hostages is hardly “negotiating”

    The Koreans wish to negotiate with the captors to get their civilians back. They want political pressure. Unilateral rescue operations, the type you want us to do, aren’t something that we, as Americans, can just dictate to the Koreans. In this case, your ‘guns blazing’ solution has an inherent diplomatic component that cannot be overlooked.

    — unless, perhaps, you subscribe to the Jimmy Carter school of foreign policy.

    I like the idea of killing terrorists as much, if not more, than you apparently do. I just know that we aren’t, as a nation, required to solve everyone’s problems with our assets.

    What don’t you understand about my position that you keep reciting this nonsensical mantra about “negotiating?”

    You’re right, I don’t understand your solution because it is nonsensical as proposed. See above…you can’t ignore the fact that the Korean government has a say in how this situation is handled. They want to negotiate for release and they want us to use our political sway with the Karzai government to effort a deal.

    Your repeatedly imputing to me a desire to negotiate with the terrorists is either dishonest or illogical.

    Got it…you want something close to what one might see in a Chuck Norris movie. I mistakenly gave you more intellectual credit than you deserve. For that, I apologize.

    Lack of emotion in a situation like this is not necessarily an indication of either intellectual or moral superiority…. And, yeah, you’re right! we should never use our special forces in a less-than-ideal environment…. huh?

    Letting one’s emotions dictate tactical actions isn’t a smart way to operate in war. When did I say special operators shouldn’t be used in a less than ideal environment? Your plan for an emotionally based, unilateral US rescue of Korean civilians is what is less than ideal.

    Not from me: I am calling for troops with guns kicking in doors.

    That makes perfect sense when considering the facts and politics of this issue, right? Right.

    Why do we spend billions on defense if we find wheedling excuses at every turn not to use these assets?

    “Wheedling excuses at every turn”? So, we haven’t been using our billions in military assets for anything productive? Please explain. You still haven’t made a good case for why we should, against the wishes of the Korean government, take the matter into our own hands by conducting our own rescue operation.

    This war has an important psychological front to it that is fought over the media and internet: So far, due to our failure to act in this instance, the Korean captives event is being won by the Taliban — hands down.

    Two executed innocents and no release of Taliban prisoners is a Taliban win?

    You and I will have to just agree to disagree on everything about this issue with the exception that we both want to see as many dead terrorists as possible as a general rule.

20. #20
    On August 5th, 2007 at 11:21 am, Dersu said:

    Maybe this is why we are not kicking in dooors and killing the hostage taakers.

    From this website

    Haji Sadiqi, sub-governor of Qarabagh district, who is monitoring the negotiations on behalf of the Afghan government, told The Times this afternoon that he was still talking to the hostage-takers by phone. He said that an attempt by the South Korean government to pay ransom had failed.

    “They tried to pay them a ransom. They arranged a meeting with the Taleban, but the Taleban got scared and didn’t show up,” Mr Sadiqi said.

    I wish we could save them, but first the SK have to quit negoiating.

    I pray for the safe release of the hostages.

21. #21
    On August 6th, 2007 at 9:22 am, Schweggie said:

    This ‘Hostage crisis? What hostage crisis?’ would make a great Vent. Man, I miss those!!

    CCTV has pretty good coverage on their newshours if you get the station. When I caught it they had 3 back to back segments on it.