Next time, save your ammo
March 23, 2006 · By Peter Rempel
Following the rescue of Harmeet Sooden and Jim Loney from terrorists, their sponsoring organization, Christian Peacemakers Teams, issued the following thanks to the brave soldiers who freed them:
“We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.”
This was followed up by recognition of those who had rescued them:
“They [Sooden and Loney] knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers.”
And mercenaries. With blazing guns. International co-workers didn’t rescue them. And international co-workers didn’t stop the terrorists from sawing off Tom Fox’s head, either.
This slap in the face is perhaps the clearest manifestation of the blinding effect of ideology I’ve ever seen. I’m almost speechless.
More reactions: Those Bastard Hippies, Not a Word of Thanks, Hostages Freed, Ungrateful, anti-military remarks to follow, no doubt, Disgusting.
sitting in a developed democracy running your mouth rather than in Iraq staring at a dull blade.” Personally, I think the special forces should send the hostages a bill for their rescue. Well, after about 18 hours of public outrage, the CPT finallyamended their official statement “We have been so overwhelmed and overjoyed to have Jim, Harmeet, and Norman freed, that we have not adequately thanked the people involved with freeing them, nor remembered those still in captivity. (…) We are grateful to the soldiers who risked
Oh, I know. It should have been like a movie, where the cringing hippie cowards are suddenly awakened to realization of The Way Things Really Work, suddenly understand that they’ve been wrong all along, get haircuts and shaves, and join the military.
Ungrateful wretches. The nerve of them, continuing to believe in what they believed. Disgusting. All that forgiveness shit…and they have the nerve to call themselves Christians.
Thank God there are REAL Christians around to tell these arrogant faggots what Christ really thought, eh?
Balbulican, were you this slow in Sunday School too?
Feeble, George. Typical, but feeble.
“Ungrateful wretches.”
Exactly.
“The nerve of them, continuing to believe in what they believed.”
Right, as though ideological obstinance is something to be admired. Without proper violence of the kind exhibited by the troops that performed the rescue, the two of them would still be sitting in a terrorist spiderhole or else their severed heads would be laying in a ditch somewhere.
Or to put it this way: Would the people from CPT have accepted the use of violence by soldiers to rescue Sooden and Loney if they knew that the alternative was the slow dismemberment of both of them? It’s easy to be principled when you’re sitting in a developed democracy running your mouth rather than in Iraq staring at a dull blade.
“Thank God there are REAL Christians around to tell these arrogant faggots what Christ really thought, eh?”
And by the way: If you want to insinuate that these are my true sentiments, then say so explicitly so that I can respond appropriately by telling you to fuck off.
“Or to put it this way: Would the people from CPT have accepted the use of violence by soldiers to rescue Sooden and Loney if they knew that the alternative was the slow dismemberment of both of them?”
Don’t know: you’d have to ask them. Many of the Christian martyrs welcomed an opportunity to die horribly for the sake of their beliefs. I understand your ideological disposition requires the contemptuous dismissal of these folks (how could ANYONE actually disagree with you out of pure moral principal? Inconceivable!).
“If you want to insinuate that these are my true sentiments, then say so explicitly so that I can respond appropriately by telling you to fuck off.”
I have no idea what your “true” sentiments are. You tend to rely a bit too much on the stupid truculence to tell.
“Feeble, George. Typical, but feeble.”
Strength comes through weakness, or don’t you know much about Christianity, balbulican?
As for the freed hostages, they’re coming off pretty whacked, which maybe is excusable considering the circumstances. Hopefully they will come around soon; gratitude expressed to those God used to free them from the clutches of evil is to be expected.
As for you, I find it funny you accuse Rempel of relying too much on stupid truculence when that is exactly what you have done here. Face it, you’re a miserable human being going straight to hell … because you’re there already!
“Don’t know: you’d have to ask them.”
Fine. Then let’s try to wrap your head around the conflict here. It’s no good to celebrate the rescue of these two and, at the same time, condemn the means that were required to rescue them. Appearing ingrateful is the least of their worries here. If they are so opposed to military interventions, then shouldn’t they have expressed remorse at the violence associated with the rescue?
“You tend to rely a bit too much on the stupid truculence to tell.”
Wow. The irony here has struck me dumb. What exactly are you doing here anyway, besides erecting strawmen and slinging insults? Are you trying to fill a void created by Anonalogue’s absence?
“Face it, you’re a miserable human being going straight to hell … because you’re there already!”
George, sometimes I can’t tell if you’re kidding, or actually nuts. Could you precede statements like this with either a (k) or an (n) to let me know?
“Are you trying to fill a void created by Anonalogue’s absence?”
He was your soul mate, son, not mine. But George seems to be filling the bill nicely – A. was always a great one for diagnosing the state of his opponents’ souls.
“If they are so opposed to military interventions, then shouldn’t they have expressed remorse at the violence associated with the rescue?”
I can’t presume (and neither can you) to know how they felt about that. You’d have to be pretty Christlike to prefer death by torture to rescue by any means, and that’s a standard not many of us would meet.
This, er, “conversation,” could do with some clarification as to whether the hostages actually wished to be released or whether they were truly seeking martyrdom. If the latter, then their lack of gratitude toward the Canadian, American, and other troops who saved them would make sense. But they should have told the troops to get lost when they arrived to save them. If they were simply whining because their ideological posturing got them into trouble with some bad men, then, by all means, toss them back. Who wants to save someone who hates you?
“Who wants to save someone who hates you?”
Anyone who follows the teachings of Christ, presumably; he was pretty clear on the subject.
I doubt the hostages were “seeking martyrdom” (although I don’t know them, and I could be wrong). They were protesting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and they put themselves at risk by going there.
I’m sorry if I’ve been rude here, but the simple-minded characterization of the peacekeepers is a bit rude-making. I’m guessing that like most animate organisms, they prefer not to suffer torture or execution. I’m guessing that as individuals they and they their families are happy that they were rescued. and that they and their families are grateful for the men and women that did it.
But they were in Iraq to make a political statement and to achieve a political goal, and I’m guessing they remain committed to that end.
“They were PROTESTING the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and they put themselves at risk by going there. … I’m sorry if I’ve been rude here, but the SIMPLE-MINDED CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PEACEKEEPERS is a bit rude-making. … they were in Iraq TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT and TO ACHIEVE A POLITICAL GOAL, and I’m guessing they remain committed to that end.”
Uh, balbulican, maybe you best clarify how taking sides in a conflict, protesting, making a political statement or achieving a political goal coincides with peacekeeping! What you’ve said doesn’t at all appear to me to jive with how that term has been interpretted in the past, especially in reference to many a UN mission, and for obvious reasons that hopefully don’t need to be explained to you.
Without using inflammatory language, George (imagine you’re writing a neutral description of their goals for a purpose other than a blog), how would you describe what they were trying to do?
I’m not sure what they are trying to do. To refer to the multinational force as an illegal occupation, when by all accounts the sovereign, democratically legitmated regime of Iraq clearly wants it to stay, and is fully capable of asking it to leave, makes me wonder how much these “peacekeepers” really want to keep the peace in Iraq. How do you think any peace is at all likely without some semblance of constitutional order? These peacekeepers, in their very political statements, are undermining the best hope for good, constitutional government that Iraq has right now. They boldly pronounce the occupation must end, but how do they account for the wishes of the government of Iraq that clearly needs it, and what do they propose in the alternative to support the government of Iraq?
Please, enlighten us …
Not a clue, eh? Well, I’d suggest reading a bit of Quaker history. Might help you catch a glimmer. If that’s too much intellectual effort, start with Matthew 5:9.
What does Quaker history have to do with establishing constitutional order and confronting radical Islam in Iraq?
As for “Blessed by the peacemakers …”, I have called into question the hostages credentials as peacemakers given their political rhetoric, none of which you have made the slightest effort to argue.
That I found most disturbing with the response to the rescue of the Christian Peace Makers was not that they failed to thank those who risked their lives to save them (no greater love has anyone than he who would lay down his life forhis friends), but the assertion coming from one of their spokesman who said that he believed their release was the result of the pacifist beliefs of the captives. Not only did they neglect those with guns but they also neglected the God they say they are following by putting their human will to work as they try to follow a code of conduct. Jesus said,”You study the scriptures diligently thinking that by them you have life. The scriptures testify about me yset you refuse to come to me to have life”.
“What does Quaker history have to do with establishing constitutional order and confronting radical Islam in Iraq?”
What does Quaker history have with peacemakers, opposition to war, or the willingness to put one’s self in harm’s way for what one believes to be truly Christian? Come on, George. Stop playing to the peanut gallery and think.
“What does Quaker history have with peacemakers, opposition to war, or the willingness to put one’s self in harm’s way for what one believes to be truly Christian?”
This is not what I asked, dip shit. Answer MY question … “Stop playing to the peanut gallery and think.”
“This is not what I asked, dip shit.”
Heh. You never have to dig too hard to get to George’s intellectual side, do you?
George and Peter,
Unfortunately, by engaging balbulican you have given him/her the opportunity to highjack this conversation. Better to ignore him and continue the discussion as if he/she were not there.
Nonsense, “Willing Foe” – unless by “hijack the conversation”, you mean “disagree”. Peter raised some interesting points, and I responded with substance. George is a silly, angry little cliche monger, and I respond by teasing him. He’s fun to tease.
Peter’s point in his original post was his own indignation at the failure of the Christian Peacemakers’ organization to thank the soldiers who rescued them. (They have subsequently, by the way). I pointed out The Christian Peacemakers have a political goal (i.e., they are trying to influence public policy). Their public statements are consistent with their policy goals. What individuals may have felt I cannot say, although I strongly suspect they felt enormous gratitude.
Just visited your site, Willin’ Foe. Eleven posts, and a grand total of two (2) responses? Just a friendly suggestion: you may not be in the best position to be lecturing Peter about how to manage discussion on his site.
Good point Willing Foe. His eunuch like input, highly cynical, short on substance, hasn’t facilitated conversation.
The reality is, the freed hostages haven’t publically thanked the military personel who risked their lives to save them, in fact they called for their withdrawl from Iraq; an Iraq whose best hope of good constitutional government needs the multinational force. The Peace Maker agenda is not serving peace in Iraq but fueling chaos, this made apparent by their ingratitude.
What do you think?
“The reality is, the freed hostages haven’t publically thanked the military personel who risked their lives to save them.”
Bzzzzt. Wrong. You missed the statement?
“Statement
23 March 2006, 9 p.m. ET
We have been so overwhelmed and overjoyed to have Jim, Harmeet and Norman freed, that we have not adequately thanked the people involved with freeing them, nor remembered those still in captivity. So we offer these paragraphs as the first of several addenda:
We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet.”
There you go, George. I know you wouldn’t want to mislead your readership.
That statement reads like it is from a third party, nit wit. And why didn’t you source it?
So as to not intentionally misrepresent the truth, check out:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a.....43,00.html
Looks like Kember came around:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bri.....0bQ–
What about the other two?
“That statement reads like it is from a third party, nit wit.”
George waxes eloquently intellectual once again, then in his next posts shows he was wrong. Heh.
The source is the link provided by Peter, dear boy, in his original post. Complicated, I know…
Well, what can I say, I try to admit mishaps, ever open to consideration. You still could have sourced it to let others know there had been an amendment. And the fact remains, as of now, as far as I know, Kember has issued his own statement, the other two have not.
It also remains debatable how effective these peacemakers are when they make statements like this:
“We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.” — the occupation is not illegal and such statements only support the violent insurgency
Whatever. You’re an idiot and I’m outta here.
okey dokey