Should Missionaries Travel to Dangerous Countries?

[Peter1469]

I get it that they're called to do that. The missionaries that have been kidnapped in Haiti are Mennonites. I work closely with a group of them and I know them to be the salt of the earth. They live to help others.

My question is what do we do now?

Do we (America) pay the ransom? If we do, doesn't that just encourage more gang kidnappings? If we don't, the result is unthinkable.

Don't pay the ransom. I imagine Delta Force has a team training right now for a rescue mission.

[FindersKeepers]

Don't pay the ransom. I imagine Delta Force has a team training right now for a rescue mission.

I hope so.

[Mister D]

The State Department has a travel advisory for Haiti, so should missionaries ignore that and travel anyway?

Now we have American hostages in Haiti and the gang boss who kidnapped them says he's prepared to put bullets in their heads if the ransom money isn't paid.

How much are their lives worth? Are they worth the ransom? If so, who should pay it?

It's nice to help those less fortunate, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to put your life--and others' money at risk--to tour an orphanage.

Thoughts?

Missionaries don't tour orphanages. They build them. That's what this group was reportedly doing. They also build homes, provide clean water and better sanitation.

To your point though, I do think many of these people aren't fully aware of the risk they're taking.

[carolina73]

Back in, I believe it was '78, we deployed from Bragg to rescue some missionaries taken hostage in Chad. It was actually a joint operation in conjunction with the French, who had a Foreign Legion presence in the country already.

The mission was scrubbed in mid flight because the French and the State Department were able to negotiate their release.

I don't have a problem with missionaries doing their thing in hostile territory. If it is their calling, it is their calling. I think it just needs to be made clear to them though, that they may very well become martyrs for their cause and they shouldn't expect Uncle Sugar come running if someone decides to eat them.

It is one thing if they are part of an official US mission there, but it is something else if decide to just blow off travel warnings and go into a place they know is unsafe and unstable.

Even without Uncle Sugar, they are still targets as Americans and they figure someone will come up with a million bucks and pay the ransome

[carolina73]

Why no diplomatic pressure?

It eggs on the kidnappers. They are suddenly negotiating with the United States Government.

[Tahuyaman]

I get it that they're called to do that. The missionaries that have been kidnapped in Haiti are Mennonites. I work closely with a group of them and I know them to be the salt of the earth. They live to help others.

My question is what do we do now?

Do we (America) pay the ransom? If we do, doesn't that just encourage more gang kidnappings? If we don't, the result is unthinkable.

Simple. We do nothing. We let private groups handle it.

[Tahuyaman]

There are some places where if you choose to go you should be fully aware that you do so on your own. No ransom, no troops , no diplomatic pressure. These places however should be pre-indentified. For example Sryria or Afghanistan,

I've only known one Christian missionary. She was fully aware of the risks involved. She was willing to accept those risks. She knew that she could expect no government help is something bad happened. She was a missionary somewhere in Africa.

[Peter1469]

It eggs on the kidnappers. They are suddenly negotiating with the United States Government.

I took it to mean diplomatic pressure on the country where the kidnappers are.

[Cletus]

I get it that they're called to do that. The missionaries that have been kidnapped in Haiti are Mennonites. I work closely with a group of them and I know them to be the salt of the earth. They live to help others.

My question is what do we do now?

Do we (America) pay the ransom? If we do, doesn't that just encourage more gang kidnappings? If we don't, the result is unthinkable.

I have always been of the school of thought that when someone pulls a stunt like holding Americans hostage, a message needs to sent that makes it clear such action is not acceptable. When we were recalled on the mission to Chad, I told the Ground Force Commander that even though the hostages had been released, we should have kept going. We should have gone in and found the people who took them and killed every last one of them, killed, their goats, their chickens, burned their villages to the ground and put up a big billboard that said "Don't $#@! with US".

Of course, State would never permit such a thing.

In this case though, since they still have the hostages, send them a clear message. "You will release the hostages unharmed or we will find you and kill you AFTER we kill your parents, your children, your brothers, your sisters, your livestock... everything you value and love will be destroyed while you stand by and watch. Then, we will come after you".

They might kill these hostages, but when anyone thinking about doing the same thing sees the consequences, they'll think long and hard about it before taking the risk.

[Ethereal]

Americans should be free to do what they want. But freedom also means taking responsibility for your choices.