Gay Patriot Header Image

Christian “Peace Activist” Hostages Snub Nose At Rescuers

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:38 pm - March 23, 2006.
Filed under: Liberals,War On Terror

Hat tip – Stop the ACLU.

Talk About Ungrateful – Michelle Malkin

Our troops teamed with British forces to rescue three left-wing, anti-war activists kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq. Those freed were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32; and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The men, who were members of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams, were kidnapped on Nov. 26 along with their American colleague, Tom Fox, 54, whose body was found earlier this month.

Reader Jen M. took at look at the Christian Peacemaker Teams website for the group’s statement on the rescue and she e-mailed me her observations:

Not once do they thank or even reference the fact that a Special Forces team rescued these guys. In fact, the only reference to military at all is blaming them for the kidnapping in the first place. Nice! Also on their home page is a long statement about how terribly treated terrorists are when detained by evil soldiers.

Jay @ Stop The ACLU points out:

Now the group adds insult to ingratitude. Not only are they ungrateful, they place the blame for their kidnapping on the very coalition that rescued them. Unbelievable!

“We believe 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 today. The occupation must end,” the co-chairman of CPT Doug Pritchard told a news conference in Toronto.

I have an idea… send ’em back and sit their lily-white Western-faced asses in the middle of an intersection in Sadr City.

Remember: There can be no peace with out freedom. Iraq was not at peace under Saddam.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

17 Comments

  1. Western Hostages Rescued by Coalition Forces

    Great news–hostages rescued! The Jawa Report is The place to go for news about hostages in Iraq. The Jawa Report was the first U.S. media outlet to release the names of the four hostages & to confirm that the Islamic Army in Iraq was linked to the a…

    Trackback by The Jawa Report — March 23, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - March 23, 2006

  2. “There can be no peace without freedom. Iraq was not at peace under Saddam.”

    Absolutely! I wish every war opponent could understand this simple truth.

    Comment by Calarato — March 23, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - March 23, 2006

  3. I say drop those ungrateful bastards off in Iran – at 30,000 feet.

    Way to go, USA military. You got spat upon once again from the same assholes who did it 35 years ago. Yet you did not forsake your principles. My admiration for those brave men and women grows every day.

    Rush had a great suggestion – send more peaceniks to Iraq as human shields. The insurgents will be so busy taking them hostage that they won’t have time to set off any IEDs!

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 23, 2006 @ 1:41 pm - March 23, 2006

  4. The first report on the MSM that I heard on their “release” made it sound like they had been let-go by their captors; no mention that they actually had been “rescued” by the Brits. In-fact, It wasn’t until this afternoon’s blog-surfuing that I read the TRUTH….grrrr.

    From the BBC; …”This was several weeks in the planning. It was an operation that was rolling, in a sense that it went on for some time,” said the UK’s Defence Secretary John Reid. The multinational team included representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. “Other agencies from Canada – they did a terrific job with us as well as the Americans,” UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said. The foreign secretary said civilians had been involved in the operation “in the background”. Announcing the hostage release in London, Mr Straw said: “Mercifully no shots were fired.” This was clearly a major success for the British-led force, says the BBC’s defence correspondent Rob Watson. …”

    “… Mercifully, no shots were fired.”!!
    Perhaps someone should remind Mr. Straw of who’s side he’s supposed to be on.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 23, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - March 23, 2006

  5. If you want to send your thoughts to the “peace” organization, the e-mail is below. I sent mine first thing this morning. What? Surely you don’t think I save all the bile in my pen for GP etc. do you?

    peacemakers@cpt.org

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 23, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - March 23, 2006

  6. The sad thing is I bet the guys who rescued those ungrateful people, would do it again.

    Comment by just me — March 23, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - March 23, 2006

  7. #6 – Of course they would, just me. Here are some of the words from Toby Keith’s song – American Soldier:

    Oh, and I don’t want to die for you
    but if dyin’s asked of me
    I’ll bear that cross with honor
    ’cause freedom don’t come free

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 23, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - March 23, 2006

  8. #5 – Patrick, for once (and probably the only time), I agree with you. Some “peace” activists.

    And yes, I am pleasantly surprised that you don’t save all your bile for this blog. Wonders never cease!

    Let me state for the record: peace is achieved after a victory achieved by force. Just look at Japan and Germany. (Italy was a capitulation and as such was not “in it” through the end.)

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 23, 2006 @ 6:01 pm - March 23, 2006

  9. There can be no peace with out freedom.

    Of course there can be peace without freedom — look at Morocco.

    We don’t have to resort to this sort of facile sloganeering to justify our overthrow of Saddam. He was a regional threat to US interests, he was linked to global terror networks (even if you dispute the Al-Qaida connection, those checks he made to suicide bombers don’t lie), and he had repeatedly violated protocols for WMD inspections.

    The “no peace, no justice, no freedom” bit doesn’t work for the Left, and it won’t work for us.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 11:06 am - March 24, 2006

  10. They’ve come out with a “statement of gratitude,” though only an idiot would accept it as such.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 24, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - March 24, 2006

  11. The first thing I thought of after reading the orgs statement was, “OK, well lets just give the hostages back to the terrorists then and you can go rescue them this time.”

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 24, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - March 24, 2006

  12. #9 – What about Morocco, Tim? Is it a monarchy? A dictatorship?

    Think about your terms more carefully. If a monarchy acts in a restrained way and respects the rights of the people – in other words, if it gives them a certain basic modicum of FREEDOM – then yes, it can have peace. On the other hand, if a monarchy acts abusively – denying its people that basic modicum of freedom – then it will only have “the peace of the grave”, at best.

    Dictatorship – which means: using physical force to suppress independent or opposing viewpoints – is war. Civil war. By its nature. Inherently. Always.

    There can be no peace under dictatorship – except perhaps, again, “the peace of the grave” – and even that, only temporarily.

    “The “no peace, no justice, no freedom” bit doesn’t work for the Left, and it won’t work for us.”

    May I ask, who is “we” in that sentence? Do you consider yourself not part of the Left? If so, may I ask why?

    Comment by Calarato — March 25, 2006 @ 11:59 am - March 25, 2006

  13. P.S. It could be that you made your misstatements in #9 because of a confusion of the concepts of “democracy” and “freedom”. The UK, the Netherlands and Denmark are all technically monarchies – and all relatively or comparatively free. (Because of socialism, they are barely free; but that’s a story for another time, and they are still freer than many dictatorships.)

    Democracy is technically just a certain method of selecting government officials. “Freedom” refers the extent to which a government – however it may have been created or selected – restrains itself before the people or refrains from abusing their lives, liberty and property.

    It is possible (though uncommon) to have a democratically-elected dictatorship. Freedom vs. dictatorship is the key set of opposites here.

    The confusion of “democracy” with “freedom” is all too common. I wish President Bush would talk about spreading freedom in the Middle East – rather than “democracy”, his usual word – because freedom is The Thing, and democracy is (again) technically just a political method that happens to reflect or incorporate freedom, the majority of the time.

    Comment by Calarato — March 25, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - March 25, 2006

  14. Anybody notice what he says in the Canadian news article http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/03/26/1506360-cp.html

    “While he said he wanted to tell the story of his captivity and rescue, he first wants to slip into “an abyss of love” and get reacquainted with his partner, Dan Hunt, his family and community.”

    He is a gay Christian “peace” “activist”?!? why didn’t he want to shhhhhaaaaare
    this news with his captors?!

    Comment by teri — March 27, 2006 @ 12:46 pm - March 27, 2006

  15. Jim Loney said when he landed in Toronto: “For the British soldiers who risked their lives to rescue us, for the
    Government of Canada who sent a team to Baghdad to help secure our release, for all those who thought about and prayed for us, for all those who spoke for us when we had no voice, I am forever and truly grateful.”

    It’s fine to object to the politics or theology of Jim and the other CPTers, but don’t invent a non-issue and pretend that they wouldn’t be grateful for being rescued. Even the British and US military used the word “released” in their first statements, just as CPT did (before they were even told how the three men were released). Every one of the three men has thanked the rescuers, both in person and in public.

    Comment by Paul — March 29, 2006 @ 9:39 am - March 29, 2006

  16. yeah, i just HATE when people stand by their principles.

    the rescuers should be even happier that the rescued principled people, people who stand by their personal convictions.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 31, 2006 @ 3:15 am - March 31, 2006

  17. If they wanted to stand by their principles, they should have pleaded NOT to be rescued by the military.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 31, 2006 @ 12:38 pm - March 31, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.