Thursday, March 23, 2006

Local twit on the fate of twits

It's God swill.

Local peace activist Allen Slater of the Christian Peacemakers is only slightly less grudging in his devotion to the "flat equivocation of all values in the name of 'peace'" than his comrades in response to the rescue of three of their members from captivity in Iraq. The Free Press is merely afraid to make the suggestion that values exist at all:

His feelings are mixed, too, about coalition troops who may have freed the hostages.

“I would say thank you . . . (but) if the occupation had not been going on, there would not have been a kidnapping.”
Slater would say thank you, he says… a childishly peevish way of pointedly not saying thank you. Like a poorly raised child, he has no appreciation of the freedom to exercise one's conscience in the face of reality instead of smothering it in the fairy tales of activist collective imagination. "[I]f the occupation had not been going on, there would not have been a kidnapping"… Slater and his gang of stunted collaborators can speculate on their puppet-strings as long as they want, but the only incontrovertible reality is that there would not have been a kidnapping if the pacifist idiots hadn't been there in the first place. As far as the reporting by Jonathan Sher of the Free Press, what's with the "may" in "coalition troops who may have freed the hostages"? Glad to see he's earning his journalism badge by making sure the truth is as dubious as the value of his byline. In any case, really, the whole response by the Christian Peacemakers Teams is incredible.

Ed Rasimus sums it up with, as Billy Beck says, the right amount of snarkiness:
So, let me see if I can interpret all of this. We’ve got a quartet of well-intentioned, incredibly sincere and arguably naïve fools that go to Iraq to gather information on how the Coalition forces are abusing folks. They wander around until, almost predictably, they get captured by a nice group of those folks which they are there to support. The nice folks then make cute videos of the four, surrounding them in well choreographed arrangements dressed in fashionable black masks and carrying an array of the finest in clandestine terrorist armaments.

After a suitable length of time, the friends of the pacifists execute one of them for maximum publicity impact. And, according to the reports from this morning’s action, the good group of repressed Iraqi militants regularly whip up on the remaining three so that when they are recovered this morning they must be whisked off to Coalition medical facilities.

Who recovered these dolts? Why it was those nasty ol’ Coalition military people. They were the ones who gathered the intelligence, planned the operation, and then executed the mission. They were the ones who came in regardless of the possibility of their own death or injury to rescue these people. They were the ones who built, supplied and manned the medical facilities that are going to nurse these fools back to health. Coalition Forces in Action

Gratitude would be a reasonable expectation under such circumstances, wouldn’t it? Might there even be a possibility of some education having occurred. Might the touchy-feely pacifists have reconsidered who is the villain in this scenario? Might they not have thought that the folks they supported didn’t much care for them and the folks who rescued them at great personal risk might have been better than they originally assumed?

Might they even have concluded that they didn’t know much about the situation and that they unnecessarily endangered themselves? Don’t they bear a bit of responsibility for the whole episode?

Well, here’s the official statement: Ignoring the Obvious

I read it twice, looking for some acknowledgement of the folks who rescued them. I wanted to see at least a cursory thank you. If not a thanks, then how about an honorable mention? Nah, apparently it was expected and the guys with guns weren’t really a part of God’s plan.

Stupidity among pacifists runs rampant. I hope they get a bill for this.
Update: "Pacifism either tempts us to make no judgements at all, or to give an undue preference to tyranny." — Reinhold Niebuhr, cited in Oliver Kamm's generously moderated dismissal of the CPT's belated and grudging mention of gratitude to the soldiers on their website.
I cannot but think that the moral compromises (I use the weakest and most generous term I can find) involved in this type of politicised pacifism have their counterpart in the response of the Christian Peacemakers to the rescue of their comrades. Servicemen took personal risks to free the pacifist captives; tardiness in expressing thanks has the mark of the dogmatist. That is a politer term than bigot, but in this case the difference is a matter only of degree.

1 Comment:

Honey Pot said...

Unthankful bunch of looney tunes. What are the idiots doing in a theatre of war passing out daisy's anyway? Bad enough the soldiers have to be over there fighting for the wing wangs rights to exist. The dummies got to go and get themselves held hostage, and waste a whack of manpower trying to save them. Can not someone tell the pacifist to stay to hell home and organize safe homeland protest against the people who are risking their lives for the right for those numbnuts to do just that.