November 28, 2005
Background on the hostage taking here.What do Giuliana Sgrena and abducted 'humanitarian' worker Norman Kember (pictured right at a Hiroshima memorial) have in common?
Both went to Iraq to promote "peace".
Both decided to work for "peace" by documenting allegations of prisoner abuse and mass-murder by American forces in Fallujah.
Both thought it would be a good idea to meet with 'victims' of America and that their sympathies with the 'resistance' would make them immune.
Both ended up being taken hostage by the 'resistance'.
Our deepest sympathies are with Norman Kember and the American and two Canadians taken hostage with him. But, wasn't it a little foolish to believe your own rhetoric? The U.S. military is in Iraq to help the Iraqis. If civilians are killed or innocents detained by the U.S., these are regretful mistakes. Errors made in the fog of war.
But when the so-called insurgents kill civilians and take hostages--only to murder them later by proclaiming them guilty of violating Islamic law--they do this on purpose.
It is the policy of the United States of America and Great Britain to avoid civilian casualties when possible. It is the policy of al Qaeda and other mujahidin forces in Iraq to kill civilians, on purpose, when such civilians are deemed too eager to help rebuild that country.
For the peace activists of the Left, there is no distinction between an American soldier and an al Qaeda in Iraq suicide-bomber.
That distinction should be clear now to Norman Kember and the other victims of jihadi fanaticism in Iraq.
We pray for their safe return.
Posted by: Rusty at
06:36 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.
Kudos to Bluto too (oh)
;-)
Posted by: Psychic Vinnie at November 28, 2005 07:19 PM (Kr6/f)
Posted by: Jane at November 28, 2005 07:39 PM (6krEN)
This group tends to be much older. Most are products of the 60's - they however are extremely uncomfortable with the new lib/left's embrace of secular backruptcy. They usually tend to be ignored by the left until times like these when they are pointed to for some added legitimacy.
They are actually nice people - incredibly naive - we use to call some of them at one time Jesus freaks - remember.
They are sincere, honest in their beliefs yadda yadda - say what you want about them - I consider them foolish, naive, wrong whatever.
I hope it turns out ok for them but I am not optimistic.
Posted by: hondo at November 28, 2005 09:13 PM (Jvmry)
And for the current situation, whilst held hostage, say the American and/or iraqi soldiers happen to rescue them (i'm assuming this will be by kicking in doors and shooting terrorists with bullets and not tickling them with feathers), would the pacifist hostages refuse to be rescued, because of the violent means of rescue?
Posted by: MathewK at November 28, 2005 11:05 PM (pVHqF)
I remember how horrible it was when the special forces team from Black Water (Scott Helveston etc.) were killed by terrorists/insurgents in Fallujah and people on KOS etc. said they deserved it because they were "mercenaries" or "paid killers" in Iraq, I was pretty disgusted at that.
taking any satisifaction at pacifists being harmed by the people they want to "protect" makes me no better than someone posting on KOS.
On a different note I think I read on Michael Yon's (maybe?) blog that a lot of the people that were killed in terrorists hands were taken hostage by low-level thugs / criminals and then sold to the hardliners.
They were sometimes betrayed by people they trust, M.Y blog had a story of a insurgent that had infiltrated the military, and constantly offered to take him to meet his "family", I also recall a news story about a night that some other people were taken hostage; the Iraqi watchman never turned up to guard them that night, and they were taken hostage when they opened the door because they had to turn on the generator (predictability is evidently not a good thing)
Posted by: dave at November 28, 2005 11:26 PM (CcXvt)
It takes two to dance the Pacifist Tango.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 28, 2005 11:55 PM (RHG+K)
Matthew,
I've tried asking some pacifists common sense questions like that, and they simply don't answer. They acknowledged in my presence to not having an answer, and they have no problem with it that I could see. In some bizarro way they must think that not having easy answers makes them more enlightened and complex. You and I with our easy answers and simple solutions are morons to them. Talk about living in a dreamworld. They're extreme Liberals in the sense that the less they can get a handle on something the more enlightened it makes them feel.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 28, 2005 11:55 PM (8e/V4)
I'm thinking there's something we might call the "mother of all memes."
Mother of All Memes: "This unpleasant reality is the result of human inadequacy or illusion (misapprehension); therefore I'm justified in ignoring it."
Non-Memetic Truth: "This unpleasant reality is the result of human inadequacy or illusion, and I'm an inadequate human subject to illusion. Therefore I will wrestle with this unpleasant reality, like Jacob with the Angel, until I obtain its blessing."
Eh?
Posted by: Demosophist at November 29, 2005 12:20 AM (Yg/pS)
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 29, 2005 04:26 AM (CtVG6)
Posted by: Agent Smith at November 29, 2005 06:06 AM (hNv1g)
To say that you are willing to die by the thousands, without protecting one's self, for something you believe so strongly in is to run headlong toward extinction of one's self AND the cause. They're not peacemongers. They're suicidal.
Posted by: Oyster at November 29, 2005 06:09 AM (YudAC)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 29, 2005 10:13 AM (0yYS2)
Posted by: MathewK at November 29, 2005 03:53 PM (pVHqF)
Posted by: Lucas Redekop at November 29, 2005 04:45 PM (lWwu9)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 29, 2005 05:31 PM (0yYS2)
Posted by: greyrooster at November 29, 2005 06:52 PM (ZaAd/)
34 queries taking 0.0453 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
