In article <cd5kan$1b3$2@bgsv5648.tk.mesh.ad.jp>,
 "cc" <cpasuneadresse@spam.com> wrote:

> "Rodney Webster" <rgw_news001@knot.mine.nu> wrote in message
> 
> > What on earth do you base this idea that the Japanese were willing spies
> > on?
> 
> Willing ? I've said that where ? I don't think anyone is "willing" in a
> totalitarist system like North-Korea's. If you had been such an hostage,
> you'd have chosen to die or to collaborate ?

You did not say that they were willing, but suggested that they had 
travelled to Japan.  Please explain how they could be forced to travel 
to Japan and then return to Korea if they were not willing participants.

This point is slightly irrelevant because, as I stated before, I 
consider the idea of them being allowed to travel to Japan ridiculous.

> > The Japanese are said to have worked for the North Korean secret
> > service,
> 
> That's being a spy.

In that case all the cleaners who work for the CIA are spies.  I'm sure 
they enjoy their exciting life of espionage, sweeping floors and 
emptying rubbish bins.

BTW, for your education, look through the following:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=spy&ls=a
----
Quick definitions (Spy)
noun:ハハ (military) a secret agent hired by a state to obtain information 
about its enemies or by a business to obtain industrial secrets from 
competitors
 noun:ハハ a secret watcher; someone who secretly watches other people
 verb:ハハ secretly collect sensitive or classified information; engage in 
espionage (Example: "Spy for the Russians")
 verb:ハハ watch, observe, or inquire secretly
 verb:ハハ catch sight of
----

> There was a time when Western countries kept a list in order to check any
> person that visited a communist country, even as a tourist for a few days.
> So in comparison, ex-employees of a commie secret service...

...Is totally irrelevant to this discussion.  "Employee" is not an 
appropriate description of the Japanese abductees.  I think you need a 
new dictionary.

> How and how much the ex-hostages were forced or not is not the question. The
> details about what they did exactly have certainly been discussed with
> Japanese officials, and it's unlikely the media will be given the
> infornation and be allowed to tell it before many years.

If it is irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

> The ex-hostages have arranged with Japanese government, they have the right
> to keep their secrets. I think that's already great they admitted publicly
> having been employed by spying services.

"having been used by" - "employ" implies a contractual arrangement of 
which all parties are willing participants.

> >and certainly nobody has even hinted at anything as ludicrous
> > as your suggestion that they travelled to Japan during the period that
> > they were missing.
> 
> The activities and apparent organisation of North-Korean spies is largely
> discussed. You're free to make the link or not.

Certainly.  And if you not only make the link, but state it in a public 
forum, you should be prepared to back it up with either solid evidence, 
or a logical argument as to why you believe what you claim.  So far you 
have been unable to provide either.

> It's certainly not like in Shuri where the spy disguises herself to visit
> relatives.

Irrelevant reference to a story that is probably less fictional than 
your ideas.

-- 
Rodney Webster
http://knot.mine.nu/