Public Ire Worries Ex-Hostages

Just a few days ago, 19 South Korean Christian missionaries were released by their Taliban kidnappers after six weeks in captivity. During that time, two of their number were killed by the captors. You would think that with their release, they would be ecstatic; but you would be wrong. Instead the headline in the newspaper this morning reads, "Public Ire Worries Ex-Hostages."

Yes, they are worried. They are worried because much of the world seems to be against them. They have been under intense criticism in their home country because people say the government has been saying all along that Afghanistan is a dangerous place and that they shouldn't go there. The fact that they did anyway means that, apparently, they're worthy of no respect.

Secondly, as a direct result of their kidnapping, people say, the South Korean government was "forced to negotiate directly with the Taliban" for their release. This is obviously a bad thing because the Taliban is no longer the recognized government of that country. In fact you could refer to them as an insurgency, a group of Islamic extremists, or terrorist group.

The article goes on to mention that in their first media interviews since their release, the hostages "apologized for causing trouble".

This story interested me, firstly, because it seemed to me right away that ex-hostages of a terrorist group should not need to worry about any reactions by the public upon their safe return. Secondly, this was a group of suburban Christians who had volunteered to go to the country as a group, and were on their way to give aid in Kandahar when they were abducted. This was their crime, helping poor and displaced Muslims in a foreign country.


Backward Thinking
As to the first point, their government said this was a dangerous country, and it is. They recommended the group should not go there, as they should. The U.S. State Department, I'm sure, says the same thing. However, this group's motives were pure and holy. They obviously believed they had an obligation as Christians to help others in need, and believed so strongly in this duty that they had to make the trip. May God bless them for it. Come to think of it, the fact that we aren't reading a story about 21 (instead of 2) Christian martyrs today indicates to me that God already has blessed them for it. If more Christians around the world acted as strongly as this group did, it would change the world. Whether you or I would be willing to do what they did or not, we should not criticize their decision to go because it was love for their fellow human beings that compelled them to do so. Their decision was righteous.

As to the government being "forced" to negotiate with the Taliban, this is a bunch of garbage. What this whole episode shows us so obviously is that the Taliban are, in fact, a bunch of thugs and nothing more. Governments have no business negotiating with thugs. Instead they should seek out and kill the thugs as they free their citizens from illegal captivity. This is why the U.S. military is still in Iraq: there are too many thugs running around over there killing and terrorizing innocent, peace-loving people, and they must be stopped. You don't negotiate with terrorists; you kill them.

One other aspect of this story that I haven't heard reported anywhere is the fact that it is still illegal in some Muslim countries to proselytize Christianity, or even to convert from Islam to Christianity. In fact, I posted a blog entry last year about a Christian convert who was brought into court on just these charges, convicted, and sentenced to death, despite being given the opportunity during his trial to renounce his Christian beliefs and "revert" to Islam. Only a letter-writing campaign by Christians in the U.S., followed by quick diplomacy and a flight out of the country, essentially into exile, saved this man's life. No articles I have read remind readers of this fact, nor question why it was that a group of 21 Christians, as opposed to some other group, were targeted by these Islamists. Forget about outrage for the missionaries; where is the outrage in that?

Why Does Geraldo Rivera Get an Ounce of Respect?

To all those liberals who ignore or otherwise disparage the Fox News Channel for being a right-wing channel unworthy of any respect, I would simply ask them why, if this were true (it isn't), Fox goes out of its way to hire liberal commentators to balance their admittedly right-wing ones? Case in point: Alan Colmes, co-host of the popular nightly "Hannity & Colmes" show. This guy is extreme left-wing, although pretty coherent. I disagree with 90% of what comes out of his mouth, but at least what comes out is worth hearing.

Another case in point: Geraldo Rivera. This guy has been widely considered just a fool for almost as long as I can remember, but now he's really being perceived as a left-wing bomb-thrower, as well. When I was a kid, his reputation was as this great investigative journalist. It was because of this reputation that everyone paid attention when he found Al Capone's personal safe and opened it on live television. This was a big drama at the time (I want to say early 80's), yet the safe contained -- absolutely nothing. Geraldo was disgraced and his detractors still cite this television moment when they insult the guy. The safe became Geraldo's Chappaquidick; something people mention whenever the guy starts getting some good press.

Lately, though, he has been very vocal in his support of amnesty for illegal aliens, and equally vocal in his disdain for those who oppose such things. In the process, he has proven conservatives' point (for the millionth time) that liberals are rarely thoughtful about their positions, and immature in their debates with conservatives. Their "arguments" are post-modern "stories" designed to evoke certain emotions rather than make a logical point. Their methods are rarely to debate an idea, but to demonize its messenger(s). These arguments frequently also involve lying when describing the conservative opposition in order to create a straw man to tear down. Everywhere you turn in the liberal world, you find this to be the case.

With Geraldo in particular, the guy who Fox has put out there the last several years as a serious journalist has really started to get "unhinged", to use a term Michelle Malkin coined a few years ago to describe out-of-control fanatical liberals. Michelle posted on her blog this morning an excerpt from a Boston Globe piece on Geraldo, in which he comments about her specifically. I have read of him doing this several times in the past few weeks. The rhetoric has been getting worse. Keep in mind this is a colleague, as Michelle frequently appears and guest-hosts on Fox for Bill O'Reilly. Here is what he says in the article:

“Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my
life,” he says. “She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out
neighbors, and we should be deporting people."

“It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York,” Rivera sneers. “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”

Now I don't care whether you're conservative or liberal or whatever. This kind of vitriol is totally inappropriate, especially for a colleague. It's unprofessional, to start with. Can you imagine saying this about someone you worked with? Secondly, his description of Michelle's beliefs is over-simplified and, as usual, designed to make people despise her. Thirdly, this ridiculous comment about spitting on her is juvenile at best. That a 64-year-old man would make such a comment about someone other than perhaps a Nazi or serial murderer, on the record in a newspaper, is just despicable. Why we pay attention to this guy is beyond me.

Hard-core liberals are slippery. They argue on emotion, rarely facts, and personally attack the people who disagree with them in order to make them stop commenting. This is what makes them so aggravating, because they are often able to get traction in public debates using such ridiculous tactics. People like Geraldo should not be listened-to. They should be ignored and other, thoughtful people should be found to make better arguments in a more civil discourse.