Talk:2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan

message: All articles that I've seen say that they are aid workers. Yet an anonymous user 129.64.151.30 keeps changing it to missionaries. Are there any credible sources that they were proselytizing? Diophantus 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything that I have read said that they were aid workers. The South Korean government stated many times that they were not trying to convert anyone while they were there. SU Linguist 04:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missionaries or Aid workers? 

message: Man this is messed up. Why would they kidnap aid workers? I hate stupid people. --  18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC, 26 July, 2007. 「But the Taleban's military commander Mansour Dadullah told Britain's Channel 4 television that kidnapping would continue. South Korean rallies have called for the release of the hostages "Of course, kidnapping is a very successful policy and I order all my mujahideen to kidnap foreigners of any nationality wherever they find them and then we should do the same kind of deal," he said. 」...  -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: European and Asian nations have routinely given in to ransom demands, making hostage taking highly profitable. Slideshow Bob 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also the USA, let's not forget "arms for hostages" with Iran, recovery of Vietnam POWs, Somalia 1993, etc. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't stupid, however, their sense of morality is non-existent.--Exander 07:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only reason Mansour Dadullah said that was to let the world blame South Korea, like Slideshow Bob did, and cause more disputes in an already pretty messy world. I have to say, though, this is a pretty stupid policy, as it will make future governments less wishing to give in. Aran|heru|nar 09:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why kidnap aid workers? 

message: Is there a need to explicitly say "Taliban-seized"?  When I read that it makes me wonder if there were other South Korean hostage criseses where they were seized by other people. hbdragon88 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it really ought to be at "2007 South Korean hostage crisis" or, if you want to be persnickety and include two country names in the title, "2007 Afghan South Korean hostage crisis". I'll move it to the former if there's no objection.-- The_socialist talk? 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Why no mention of the purpose of this Christian group? Were they there to make converts to the Christian god, aid workers, both? Can someone add some detail? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks the original editor wanna have some verified source for the purpose of the Christian group. As I heard from local TV news, South Korean (media or the relatives of the hostages) has stated the group was definitely not doing conversion / preaching in Afghanistan and its purely aid work. But recently Taliban has announced the opposite viewpoint and the goal seems to ignite the rage of Muslim. -- Sameboat - 同舟 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - you've gotten to the heart of my question. I think the fact is important to resolve for the completeness of the story. I thought it was odd that the group was led by a pastor, which is why i asked. Thanks again, Hu Gadarn 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They were a team sent by a church named Bundang Saemmul Church (분당샘물교회).  So there must have been some intention of making converts.  There have been many incidents where utterly stupid and arrogant (yeah, my POV) Korean churches sent clueless wannabe missionaries to Afghanistan, against S. Korean government's warning.  In some cases the Afghan officials were able to kick them out before more nasty guys had a chance.  Not so lucky this time. Many people in Korea think that this was an accident waiting to happen. :This is somewhat difficult to discuss right now because, obviously, further speaking of "missionary intention(?)" will make the hostages criminals under the local law, making the negotiation much more difficult.  I think the article should be rewritten after the event is over, but now is not a good time for elaboration.  Their lives are at stake. :( Yongjik 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But the current situation states that whether the foreigners have any religious background / intention or not. The terrorist will abduct them no matter what. They want some living hostage to bargain for their requests. Taliban is the terrorist who can even kill their compatriots. -- Sameboat - 同舟 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't see how the terrorists could have clearly known the intention of the South Koreans. They are most likely just kidnapping anyone with a potentially high value and even if the South Koreans were to be found to have no religious affinity, they definitely wouldn't release them without a good ransom and lots of publicity.  Aran|heru|nar 09:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As a Korean working in the ME, I have met with many of these Christian missionaries and know fully well their style of aid work.  You may not know but there was an incident last year where more than 2000 Christian missionary aid workers were forced to leave Afghanistan by the local government.  They were clearly, based on video taped evidence, there to convert, as they were asking little children to sing Christian songs in Korean (???) and trading goodies and snacks in exchange for psalms and etc, again to little kids.  Were this in a tribe in Africa where no form of religion exists, I can understand.  But Afghanistan...they may be poor, but religious fulfillment they have enough, if not possibly more than our Christian Koreans.  This is not only Christian arrogance but Christian business.  And I'll explain further.  This particular Saemmul Church in the Bundang area of satellite Seoul, earns more than a 10 Million dollars a month! I know this for a fact because the real estate development company I worked for facilitated many of their deals.  In addition, their annual tax free 120+Million dollars is used to funnel campaigns that in turn allow them to acquire additional land properties and businesses, all under the guise of establishing the house of worship.
The reason they are in Afghanistan is simple: marketing.  Churches like Saemmul are constantly in competition with other major churches (yes, there are churches that earn far more than Saemmul).  They need to expand their resumes to include "missionary trips to DIFFICULT-NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE-AREAS like Afghanistan" and in turn, believers and funding roll in.  And with such marketing, and subsequent cash flows, major politicians flock to pledge allegiance to their church, in return for votes.  And these churches can get you a lot of votes.  
The victims in this case, are indeed the hostages.  The head of this Church, entitled Chairman (!) of some nonprofit organization, convinced these innocent believers to do God's calling in Afghanistan.  I believe, in seeing the missionary workers that pass through this region, that these workers, as misguided as most of them are with respect to the region, culture, and degree of belief in Allah, are for the most part sincere in their wish to help...whether that is physically or spiritually.  However, as an organization they did indeed violate and impose themselves upon the beliefs of the people of Afghanistan, since the sole intention however good was driven by greed for money and power.  
The arrogance of the church continues, as the head of that Saemmul church came out on tv to claim that they will not stop their Missionary work in the Arab/Central Asian region. TazmanianD 09:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of Christian S Koreans in Afghan.? 

message: Why is that so important? Tons of South Koreans are Protestant. Big whoop. --  21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Somebody should add this to the article. --  04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two female hostages released

message: This is racist anti Muslim propaganda and must be deleted. --  02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't, It pictures a current event and isn't propaganda, it's truth.K14 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you think it's propoganda? Can you share your reasoning? It's difficult to understand your comment without any other info. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem with Islam.  Any criticism is viewed as "racist anti muslim propaganda" even when you're talking about terrorists and murderers.  150.113.7.99 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem with the world in general. A comment by one person who may or may not be a Muslim somehow comes to represent Islam as a whole... The same as a comment or the actions of one Christian somehow come to represent Christianity as a whole. Nil Einne 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 150.113.7.99, your viewpoint is based on fundamental biases. What a single user said about a single article which mentions what some believes of Islam are doing does not represent the situation with Islam as a whole. Aran|heru|nar 12:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Although you're an unregistered user, you can still bring up a consensus. (But sign up is recommended if you want to keep discussing or even contributing something for WP.) Accoriding to the curent WP policy, this article will most likely be kept, granted that was elected to deletion IMHO. And I see nothing in this article to be opposing the ordinary (innocent) Muslims except the Taliban. -- Sameboat - 同舟 13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 

message: The section says "Many Koreans nevertheless held numerous protests and demonstrations outside mosques in Seoul.[16]"
The actual Al-Jazeera article only reports that small protests were held outside some mosques in Seoul.
The apparent exaggeration must be corrected.  Or, the entire sentence must be deleted since it is apparent that the sentence is insignificant without the exaggeration.Storian 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response in South Korea 

message: This article could use a little expanding. Like international responses to it (or is it too early for that?). I am sure that there is some politician out there that has/will criticize how South Korea is the latest govurnment to comply to terrorism, making the world a more dangerous place (the more people comply with death threats, the more death threats are made). Contralya 08:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Not only that, but a section detailing what exactly was agreed to would be nice. (As far as I can see, it is a small section in the timeline ATM). What did they negotiate? And does this, as you say, set a precedent for dealing with terrorists? Iorek85 10:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the responses section is too short. Hostages' relatives begged US to help negotiate with Taliban is worth a mention. -- Sameboat - 同舟 10:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Canadian minister recently criticised the S. Koreans for "cooperating with terrorists" I believe was the wording.  Was in the Ottawa Citizen just yesterday or the day before; perhaps it's on their site as well.  I believe it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs.  PheonixSong 11:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: A previous commenter asked about the objective of Christian aid workers; I think equally important is the question of exactly what the Taliban took offense with, or whether they captured the Koreans as random representatives of foreign involvement in Afghanistan. Was there a prior incident involving the Koreans? The "timeline" begins at the kidnapping, which I find a bit strange - usually the events leading up to a kidnapping would also be mentioned - why were they travelling from Kandahar to Kabul? 82.71.48.158 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What caused the upset? 

message: The withdrawing of S. Koreas 200 non-combat troops was not part of the agreement with the kidnappers. It was decided a while ago and has no conectin to the hostage crisis what so ever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.87.188 (talk) 18:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
::Can you provide a citation? :) SGGH speak! 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "repeated a pledge." That would count as part of the agreement -  whether or not it would actually be carried out, this time or the last time, is of no relevance. Aran|heru|nar 12:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error detected 

message: I've just read in The Economist that these 200 troops were scheduled to leave by the end of the year; the "agreement" between the kidnappers and the S.Korean government is merely that this schedule will be honoured (and that missionary activities must cease).  Toby Douglass 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawal

message: Are there any sources about how the S Korean people felt about the government's yielding to the demands of the terrorists (and also possibly paying them $20M)? This kind of thing generally results in more future hostage-taking, since the terrorists consider it a win. The article mentions Koreans being critical of the Taliban, but it doesn't say anything about their being critical of, or supporting, the Korean government's actions. — Loadmaster 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response in South Korea (2) 

message: Can we change the status of the dead hostages to murdered? Currently they're listed as killed but killed doesn't necessarily translate to murder. - Throw 22:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of dead hostages

message: As this edit was made by an anonymous user, I'm posting here as a way of making sure that this message is read, or at least aware to fellow wikipedians. From the edit and IP address(from Malaysia), I have a feeling that this edit was made by a Chinese speaker (a rather obvious from the use of non-Japanese standard Chinese characters).
Please note that Japanese Wikipedia does not welcome the posting of names of non-public figures in articles. This policy is a result of debate on likely application of privacy laws in Japan. Repeated violations could lead to the broad banning of IP address from Malaysia, which no one wishes. Thank you for reading and sorry for intrusion here. --Revth 09:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel sorry of your feeling. (I'm not responsible to that list in Ja Wikipedia.) I'm not going to investigate what nationality the anonym is. But your guess is highly reputable. Since Korean Hanja is completely borrowed from Chinese without major modification such as Japanese Kanji. No surprise it is typed in Chinese character as seen in Ja history. It is a mystery why the anonym didn't copy the complete list from neither En nor Zh WP. And no nationality should be concluded. -- Sameboat - 同舟 11:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To the person who added the name list to the Japanese article

message: Were the workers aid workers who were Christian, or Christian Aid workers? Rich Farmbrough, 15:09 11 September 2007 (GMT).
:Aid workers. Thoes Koreans seemingly do not relate to the Christian Aid. -- Sameboat - 同舟 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian aid 

message: Sameboat, I noticed that you saw the note written by another wikipedia contributor who agrees that the wording should be murder and not kill or execute.  This debate is not over and if you choose to ignore it, than I will assume you agree and will change it back to murder.
68.47.102.75 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I would vote for "Kill" or "Execute" in a poll. My reason is the same and agree with Aran and Extrema. I consider the use of "Murder" is too sentimental for such article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder Follow-up 

message: * Murder is a jural term and should not be applied before the killer and the group is judged by official court. -- Sameboat - 同舟 10:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kill 

message: Please remove the following section from the Response section:
It should be noted, however, that the Taliban, in kidnapping and killing hostages, is acting within the boundaries of local and sharia law, both of which advocate death for worshippers of 'false gods.'
as this inaccurate. Sharia does not say to kill non-believers, that is something spread by islamophobic people. It does not allow for killing of civilians whatever their religion. The part about killing pagans in the Quran is to be taken in historical context, in that the pagans where actually Meccans who killed and persecuted muslims of old hence God revealed that muslims can fight back against them. 
People who go around saying muslims are allowed to kill all non-believers are usually anti-muslim people trying to spread hate by misinforming people using misquotes or misinterpretations - this is very dangerous for muslims and non-muslims. For more detail please read a translation of the Quran WITH commentary/annotations. This will explain various verses which you need historical references for hence only Islamic scholars usually explain to people - but there are Quran translations which commentary which deal with this quite well.
-xad
: ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|editprotected}}  

message: I need to add an interwiki, :es:Crisis de los rehenes surcoreanos en Afganistán de 2007. Excuse me, but I can't speak Engish very well.--Kevin17talk me 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need to add an interwiki 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/29/taliban_to_free_19_s_korean_hostages/
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:02, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:13, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:57:51, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-07-31T070339Z_01_ISL42047_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AFGHAN-HOSTAGES-COL.XML
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:01, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:12, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:58:01, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHANISTAN?SITE=LYCOS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-08-10-11-55-17
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:06, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:17, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:58:14, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708030011.html
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:18, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:58:27, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708240010.html
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:08, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:18, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:58:34, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070909072337/http://www.boston.com:80/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/29/taliban_to_free_19_s_korean_hostages/ to http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/29/taliban_to_free_19_s_korean_hostages/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090603154223/http://english.chosun.com:80/w21data/html/news/200708/200708030011.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708030011.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The photo appears to show 19 people, not 23. Polygnotus (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 or 23?