|
Ransom paid for S.Korean hostages
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Was it worth it?
Doesn't this just set a president for the Taliban to go ahead and kidnap more?
| quote: |
S Korea criticised for hostage deal
Relatives of the former captives rejoiced after the Taliban released the last of the hostages[AFP]
South Korea is facing growing criticism amid reports it paid a ransom to secure the release of 19 Koreans recently freed by the Taliban.
Several sources have told Al Jazeera that a sum of money was paid by Seoul.
Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper also quoted an Afghan source as saying the move was made after mediators decided the payment of a ransom was the only way to resolve the crisis.
However, a South Korean presidential spokesman said there had been no discussions with the Taliban about a ransom.
Ransom denied
Taliban and Afghan officials have also denied that a ransom was involved.
But Alan Fisher, reporting for Al Jazeera from Kabul in Afghanistan, said that the "Taliban left the table substantially richer" and that the ransom could have been as high as $20m.
"We've gone back to several sources and again they have told us that as far as they are aware there was certainly a ransom paid and a figure that is being bandied around in Kabul is about $20m ... All our sources tell us that money did change hands."
He also reported that kidnappings by the Taliban were likely to continue.
"In a vow to continue with the kidnappings they [the Taliban] said that 'we will do the same thing with other allies in Afghanistan because we found this way to be successful'," he said.
Seoul had earlier restated its decision to withdraw its small military presence in Afghanistan - about 200 people comprised mainly of medical workers and engineers - by the end of the year.
It also agreed with the Taliban that it would ban missionary groups from going to Afghanistan, prompting criticism from the Korea World Missions Association.
"Korean churches cannot help expressing deep concerns over the agreement reached between the government and the Taliban to halt missionary activities in Afghanistan," the organistaion said in a statement.
'Propaganda victory'
The Taliban originally kidnapped 23 South Korean hostages on July 19, later killing two of them.
Shim Jin-Pyo, the father of one of the hostages who was killed by the Taliban, asked: "How could the Taliban kill him and throw his body on the street like a dog?"
"He was only trying to help children who had suffered in the war," he told Al Jazeera.
In mid-August, the Taliban freed two women, as direct talks with Seoul got under way following the failure of negotiations with Afghan mediators.
Kabul refused a demand to free Taliban prisoners in exchange for the group.
They freed two women in mid-August as direct talks with Seoul got under way, following the failure of negotiations with Afghan mediators as Kabul rejected a demand to free Taliban prisoners in exchange for the group.
The Taliban later freed the 19 remaining Christian aid workers over Wednesday and Thursday.
Critics have also hit out at the Afghan government, saying that the deal with the Taliban was a propaganda victory for the religious group.
Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, the Afghan foreign minister, said on Germany's RBB radio that "if the impression is created now that the international community and the Afghan government allow themselves to be blackmailed, then this sends a very dangerous message".
Taliban 'strengthened'
German politicians also criticised South Korea's handling of the crisis, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, saying Berlin would stand firm in its refusal to negotiate over a German engineer captured by the Taliban more than six weeks ago.
Though the Taliban appeared to win only minor concessions from the South Koreans, some analysts have said the group has gained status from the negotiations.
But Homayun Hamidzada a spokesman for the Afghan authorities, said: "There is no victory for the Taliban. It shows the true face of the terrorists, of the Taliban."
He said Kabul had not dealt with the group. "We are glad they [the South Koreans] are out", he said, but insisted: "the Afghan government did not negotiate with the Taliban".
Prior to the kidnapping, South Korea had warned its citizens not to travel to Afghanistan and blocked many of its growing numbers of evangelical Christians from going there due to safety concerns.
|
>>Source<<
It's times like these I wish the U.N. had some sort of kick ass anti-terrorist squad that would just go in and take care of situations like this... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Wow, it gets better.
Apparently the S.Koreans want the hostages to pony up on the medical expenses and airfare incurred!
| quote: |
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:07PM
South Koreans turn anger at hostages
By JAE-SOON CHANG Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press
SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's relief at the release of 19 countrymen held hostage by the Taliban gave way Friday to anger at the victims themselves, members of a Christian church who are being criticized for ignoring warnings against travel to Afghanistan.
Critics said the group's actions forced their government into negotiations with the Islamic militants that damaged the nation's international reputation.
A day after the last hostages were let go, some of the church workers apologized for the trouble caused by their captivity, and a few collapsed when told the militants had slain two male colleagues. One said she secretly kept a diary on the lining of her pants.
With the crisis over, South Koreans turned their focus to what went wrong, who is to blame and what lessons can be drawn from the six-week ordeal. Public anger toward the hostages had been expressed in one form or another from the beginning, and it was rising on Friday.
Scathing comments, written with the cloak of anonymity, flooded Internet message boards. Newspapers published critical editorials.
Most noticeable was the feeling the hostages themselves and the church that sent them to Afghanistan were to blame because they did not heed repeated government warnings to stay away from the volatile Central Asian country. One advisory cited an intelligence report that insurgents were targeting Koreans.
"They were told not to go," said Kim Young-soo, 42, a travel agency employee in Seoul. "They shouldn't have gone there in the first place."
The apparent ignoring of the warning levied a high price on the government, critics argued, forcing it to deal directly with the Taliban in violation of the international principle of not negotiating with terrorists. Seoul is also alleged to have made a secret ransom payment to the insurgent group, although the government denied it.
The U.S., a South Korean ally, welcomed the hostages' release, but it also alluded to the talks with the Taliban.
Asked Thursday if meeting with the militants set a dangerous precedent, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said: "I'd simply reiterate that the long-standing U.S. policy is ... not to make concessions to terrorists."
The hostage crisis has hurt the pride of many South Koreans, who have sought international recognition for their homeland's rise from the rubble of the 1950-53 Korean War to become one of the world's richest nations.
"Of course, the country has a duty to protect its people, but I'm worried that the status of South Korea will slip a lot in the international community," said Kim Kwang-ho, 32, an employee at a consulting firm.
Local media also raised concerns about the ramifications of any ransom being paid. A senior Afghan official close to the negotiations alleged Friday the South Koreans had paid money to win their release.
"Speculation has been rife over a ransom payment. And we are concerned that other kidnapping incidents targeting our nationals might occur," the newspaper Dong-a Ilbo said in an editorial.
Officials have hinted at the possibility of seeking compensation from the former hostages for expenses incurred by the government in winning their release — at least airfare and medical fees — an unprecedented move seen as reflecting public anger over the crisis.
Still, there were some calls for sympathy.
"Two of them have already died in the crisis. They are also victims," said Kim Kwang-il, an activist with an anti-war group that has argued Seoul's dispatch of some 200 soldiers to Afghanistan caused the hostage crisis.
The Taliban freed the hostages after South Korea's government repeated a pledge to withdraw those troops before year's end.
The two male hostages were slain soon after the Taliban seized 23 South Koreans on July 19. The militants freed two female captives last week, and the remaining 19 hostages this week.
Yonhap news agency reported that some of the former captives fell to the ground in shock when they were told that the two members of their group had been slain. Television showed the former hostages tearfully reuniting and hugging at a hotel in the Afghan capital.
It was too early to tell if emerging accounts of the hostages' ordeal and profuse apologies could cause more widespread sympathy.
"I can't sleep due to concerns that we caused so much trouble," Yoo Kyung-sik, 55, one of the hostages, said in an interview shown Friday evening on South Korean television.
He said the captives had been separated into groups of three or four and were repeatedly moved, mostly by motorbike or on foot.
Suh Myung-hwa, another freed hostage, also apologized.
"We caused so much anxiety to the people and our government was hit hard," the 29-year-old said in a televised interview.
Suh showed reporters a pair of white pants on the inside of which she had written detailed records about when the kidnappers moved her, the times they had meals, the kinds of Korean food she longed to eat and other details.
"All I could think about was staying alive," she said. "I didn't feel any pain under captivity, I guess because I was in a panic the whole time. But now that the tension is gone my body aches all over."
As another condition for winning the hostages' release, the government promised that it will stop Christian missionary activity in Afghanistan, and Korean media raised questions about what they called "rash" evangelical activity in a Muslim nation.
The suburban Seoul church that sent the 23 volunteers to Afghanistan and the hostages' relatives have said the group was working on humanitarian projects and not evangelizing.
But their trip has been widely seen by their countrymen as being related to mission work in a country of which many South Koreans have an unclear understanding.
"I really can't understand they tried to do missionary work on the streets of an Arab nation," Kim, the travel agency worker, said, confusing the ethnic makeup of Afghanistan, which is largely Pashtun, with that of many Middle Eastern countries.
Referring to the government's move to seek reimbursement for its expenses, the liberal newspaper Hankyoreh said, "The Protestant churches should thoroughly reflect (on their behavior) with regard to why such demands have been raised."
|
>>Source<<
[EDIT]
Isn't this a double standard for their government?
They'll shell out $20 Million to terrorists but them turn around and ask for money from the very people they just bailed out?? |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
you won't see me booking a flight to north korea.
maybe Afghanistan's not the best place to do missionary work at the moment.
not trying to say that they were asking for it... but they were asking for it. i'm sorry for their loss, but what were they thinking? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
you won't see me booking a flight to north korea.
maybe Afghanistan's not the best place to do missionary work at the moment.
not trying to say that they were asking for it... but they were asking for it. i'm sorry for their loss, but what were they thinking? |
They weren't thinking. The Taliban were. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Isn't this a double standard for their government?
They'll shell out $20 Million to terrorists but them turn around and ask for money from the very people they just bailed out?? |
The government could not have let its citizens die at the hands of the taliban simply because they chose to ignore warnings and traveled to Afghanistan. International and domestic pressure forced them to negotiate. Once safely home, you cannot expect the government to congratulate the hostages on their safe return. The price it had to pay was enormous. The money they ask for is just a form of retribution. It is peanuts compared to the alleged $ 20 million the government had to pay to secure their release. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
The government could not have let its citizens die at the hands of the taliban simply because they chose to ignore warnings and traveled to Afghanistan. International and domestic pressure forced them to negotiate. Once safely home, you cannot expect the government to congratulate the hostages on their safe return. The price it had to pay was enormous. The money they ask for is just a form of retribution. It is peanuts compared to the alleged $ 20 million the government had to pay to secure their release. |
Exactly, so why bother asking for the hostages for money?
Retribution or not, it's not consistent with the message they just gave the Taliban or to future 'hostages'. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Exactly, so why bother asking for the hostages for money?
Retribution or not, it's not consistent with the message they just gave the Taliban or to future 'hostages'. |
It's mainly for domestic consumption I guess. Besides, I don't think they give a about the taliban and doubt if any koreans will dare to go there after this incident. It's difficult to generalize the government responses based on this incident. If it were the Americans, I don't think the government would ever have negotiated. |
|
|
| TweeK |
| This thread makes me want to play CS. :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| stren |
| So essentialy it means that South Korea is sponsoring terrorism. Now both Koreas are evil. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
The worst part about the whole hostage ordeal is that Taliban won. They can now continue more prolific hostage taking operations knowing that they can succeed. South Korea really ed up its image here, though they're denying it, its pretty obvious. But on the good side, saving those missionaries was more important to them than national image and international reputation, I give them a credit for saving their people. Though I dont know if it was worth it, missionaries definitely ignored warnings and it was all their fault. So when they're pissed off about money requests, well, I guess they would prefer being in the Taliban captivity. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
This is one of those issues where my panties start getting a wee bit bunched up. While I can certainly appreciate and respect a person's religious point of view, what I never once appreciated is the ing proselytizing of that given religion onto others. I have numerous cousins and uncles on one side of my family that have performed countless missionary jobs overseas, and while I respect the "good deeds" that they do for a foreign culture, it has always been loaded with a religious overtone as a result. And that overtone "must be heard," of course.
So when these good deeds loaded with proselytizing messages come into an obvious hostile environment, ESPECIALLY against the wishes of their home government telling them it's not a bright ing idea to be in that hostile environment, how should one truly feel about these numbnuts?
And when those proselytizing nitwits get caught behind enemy lines in a hostile environment when they knew damn well what they were walking into and accepted the consequences of their actions, how should one truly feel about these numbnuts?
And when the government cries "FOUL!" at their capture, and creates an international scandal as a result of these ing nitwits who damn well knew the consequences of their proselytizing actions that went against the wishes of their own government, how should one truly feel about the numbnuts and their government?
And when their government turns around and pays the world's #1 enemy, the same enemy who's in leagues with the ******s who attacked our own country on our own soil and killed almost 3,000 people, just so they can get back their numbnut proselytizers who knew the consequences of their actions in being in that hostile environment against the wishes of their own government, how should one feel about that government?
Wonderful people, truly. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | The Canadian Press, OTTAWA - 29 Aug 2007
OTTAWA (CP) � The Canadian government has expressed regret over South Korea's decision to negotiate a hostage release with the Taliban. |
Yet I remember when a canadian hostage (James Loney) was recently 'rescued' in Iraq (by recently I mean 6+months ago) who said, "our captors were there everyday and then they just weren't on the day we were rescued" implying a deal had been made |
|
|
|
|
