On October 21, Gayle Williams was shot to death in Kabul, Afghanistan while walking to work around 8 a.m. Williams, a British-South African national, had spent a significant portion of her 34 years of life working to improve the lives of handicapped Afghans under the Christian not-for-profit SERVE (Serving Emergency Relief and Vocational Enterprises).

Williams was reportedly killed under a direct order of the Taliban for proselytizing (trying to convert people, in this case, to Christianity)- an act prohibited by law in Afghanistan. The AP quoted Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban member, in saying: "This woman came to Afghanistan to teach Christianity to the people of Afghanistan. Our (leaders) issued a decree to kill this woman."

Rina van der Ende, a SERVE spokesperson stated that the purpose of the organization was to aid the disabled in Afghanistan and denied that Williams had any intention other than that. While their work was intended to “express God’s love” preaching or converting is not, according to Rina van der Ende, in the mission statement.

The article then goes on to discuss the growing anxiety in Kabul as things become less stabilized and the government seeks to add more militia to combat the growing threats of attacks, though it is unclear as to what likelihood of attacks exist. The call for more troops by NATO officials is the ending to this sad tragedy.

This article was intriguing in its presentation. I would urge anyone to follow this AP link and read the article so that my first two questions can be adequately answered.

My first is in regards to the quote by Douglas Alexander stating: "To present her killing as a religious act is as despicable as it is absurd — it was cold blooded murder,” following the statement by Britain's secretary of state for international development which addressed the murder as a “callous and cowardly act".

It is irrational in my opinion to assert Williams’ death as anything but a “cold blooded murder”, however, I ask of my peers to help me understand how this could be understood as anything else besides a religious act? What other motives exist? Her nationality? Her mission? What else could possibly make Gayle Williams matter to the Taliban and what is gained by asserting that the motive was not religious?

The other thing that struck me as odd was the move from presenting Williams’ story to the presentation of the political aspects of Kabul. The article covers several events that have occurred to represent the instability of Kabul today as terrorist attacks rise and more militant action is needed. In a time when fear runs so much of our lives, I felt the transition in the article to be an abrupt change from a eulogy discussing the death of one woman to the possibilities of chaos amongst all in Kabul. I feel the political undertones resonating; I am just not sure what it is they are calling for. The author seems to be presenting a very bleak picture with brute force as the only remedy and an ultimate justification for American occupation.

How does this fit into the mold we have created as our current foreign policy? What does it say about the media and, in turn, about the American people?

Gayle Williams was shot while in Afghanistan working for humanity. How do acts of violence such as this affect the world in terms of humanitarian drive? What was the Taliban’s ultimate goal? Is it problematic for there to even be Christian sponsored organizations in a country so strongly apposed to diversity? Ultimately, where does this leave the people of the world in a politicized world of blood shed?