The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 02:34 pm
Three members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams kidnapped in Iraq four months ago—their colleague Tom Fox was recently murdered—have been rescued by US and British troops:
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the U.S. military spokesman, said the hostages were being held by a “kidnapping cell” in a house in western Baghdad, and the operation to free the captives was based on information from a man captured by U.S. forces only three hours earlier.
“They were bound, they were together, there were no kidnappers in the areas,” Lynch told a news briefing …
British officials in Baghdad said those freed were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The men – members of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams – were kidnapped Nov. 26 along with their American colleague, Tom Fox.
Immediate reaction of CPT boss Doug Pritchard? Blame the rescuers:
“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.
Much more on this at Stop The ACLU.
- Maybe now that they’ve been <strike>rescued</strike> released maybe they’ll volunteer to take Abjul Rahman’s place.Posted by andycanuck on 2006 03 23 at 11:45 AM • permalink
- Stockholm is a state of mind.Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 03 23 at 11:49 AM • permalink
- On behalf of the US and Britain: To the recently rescued—You’re welcome!
(Asshats.)
Posted by Bill Spencer on 2006 03 23 at 11:51 AM • permalink
- I propose they change their name from CPT to IAFI (I Am a F@$%ing Idiot).
Reason #1: The frothing-at-the-mouth Islamists truly believe they are fighting the Second Crusades. Probably not a good idea to wear your “I’m a Christian, I’m Here to Help” T-shirt in Baghdad.
Reason #2: Driving around Baghdad flaunting your lily white skin, is much like sliding down a belt sander into the shark tank. Dumb.
Reason #3: They claim to be “Christians” yet they came over here to help the “biggest Jesus haters” of them all, and expose the “truth” about all of the atrocities the coalition is subjecting upon these poor peaceful lambs.Is it to late to change our minds and give them back?
- Shouldn’t that be Canadian James Looney, 41?
The Christian Peacemaker Teams’ website has a link where you can leave a message of support for the (now rescued) men’s families. I left a message but it got “moderated” out.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 23 at 03:54 PM • permalink
- There’s only one question to ask hypocrites like these: “If you don’t believe in using the military to solve problems, why did you allow the military to solve your problem?”
They could have refused rescue once they saw their rescuers were military, but no, they took advantage of it the way they take advantage of the military protecting their right to be pacifists back home, then immediately and without compunction kicked their rescuers in the face the way any spoiled two-year would.
How can you take people like that seriously? You just can’t.
- email them at peacemakers@cpt.org. Let them know what you think and block up their mailbox at the same time.
- And for a Christian non-Peacemaking viewpoint check out Kathy Shaidle’s blog:
http://tinyurl.com/fa7kg
(Check out the link to her first commenting on the rescue too.)Posted by andycanuck on 2006 03 23 at 06:04 PM • permalink
- Here’s a note sent to CPT by a Michelle Malikin reader.
Congratulations on the safe return of your activists. I’m sorry they did not all make it home safely. I read your press release relating the “release” of the activists; please note that they were not released, they were rescued. The term release implies that their captors let them go. You know that is not true, they were rescued by a team of American and British soldiers who risked their lives to free people whom apparently have no gratitude for their actions. It is one thing to be against war and the actions of our military (I’m not justifying that position, just acknowledging your right to it), but another to deny when they SAVED YOUR ASS!!!! Are you so insecure in your position that you think even acknowledging your people were rescued, not “released” would undermine your whole message that the military serves no useful purpose?… Actually, I think you are correct in your assumption, so I guess you should stick to your story lest any of your supporters start to use logic and reason to dissect your beliefs. Where would you be then? I guess you might have to begrudgingly join the rest of society who realizes that a strong military is the best defense of a free nation against tyrants and terrorists who are out to destroy us and our way of life. God bless you, and I hope you quit sending your hippies to WAR regions risking not only their lives but the lives of the soldiers who end up having to secure their “release” by RESCUING them.
- Craig UK—
I said I was glad their relatives had been rescued. I asked if a word of thanks to the British and US (and, now I hear, Canadian) Special Forces wouldn’t be in order; you know, the Christian thing to do. I said I thought it was interesting that while the their loved ones captives would be remembered in their prayers, apparently the members of the armed forces responsible for their deliverance would not. I was polite, but clear. A quick check just now shows that a couple of other comments are there no longer.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 23 at 06:58 PM • permalink
- I am not surprised by the bloviation of the CPT. I’m glad to see three of them come home alive, but that’s only because I am not the blood thirsty monster CPT would have the world believe America to be. They are human, they have rights…..including the right to be stupid. Because these people are asshats.
And a special thanks to the Coalition forces that rescued them! The troops come through again….and they have my gratitude for a job well done.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 23 at 08:39 PM • permalink
- From the cpt.org website.
We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues. We are thankful to all the people who gave of themselves sacrificially to free Jim, Norman, Harmeet and Tom over the last four months, and those supporters who prayed and wept for our brothers in captivity, for their loved ones and for us, their co-workers
(emphasis mine).
I still think pacifism is a morally correct but ethically disastrous method when dealing with dictators and psychopaths.
But they did say “thanks”.I’ll join them there, thanks to all who helped make this a successful hostage-rescue mission, especially the rough men who stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
- Zoe Brain’s quote (#25) was not at the website this am. Apparently they’ve been taking considerable heat.
Am I to understand that if it had come to a choice between these guys dead and shots being fired, they would have prefered these guys dead? Man, would I have been pissed if any soldiers had died during this mission.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 23 at 09:45 PM • permalink
- Am I to understand that if it had come to a choice between these guys dead and shots being fired, they would have prefered these guys dead?
Furthermore, what if their kidnappers had tried to shoot the hostages at the time of their rescue? “No, it’s okay, Private, we’d rather these nice Muslim men put a bullet through our colleagues’ heads than that you have to put one through theirs”…or something like that, I suppose? I wonder if the hostages themselves would be similarly sanguine. For that matter, I wonder if the clueless idiot who wrote that sentence would be similarly sanguine if he’d been the hostage. Wankers.
- A rewrite of their statement, eh, Kyda? Feh.
PW—I wouldn’t put it past those CPT cretins to shield their kidnappers from the evil bullets of the rescue forces. Priorities, y’know!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 23 at 11:36 PM • permalink
- I do not believe pacifism to be a morally correct position. It allows the tyrants and terrorists to run wild. In so doing it puts at risk the lives of innumerable innocent people who will be the victims of those tyrants and terrorists. This is not a morally correct position, it is one of moral irresponsibility and moral cretinism. Such milksop behavior not only emboldens the tyrants, it’s weakness is a provocation to them, as Rumsfeld has pointed out.
My reading of history convinced me that pacifists (and anti-military isolationists here in the US) helped bring on World War II, thus helping bring on the deaths of tens of millions. That ought to have discredited pacifism and anti-militarism forever. The United States Marine Corps has done more to bring about peace and justice in the world in the last century than all the pacifists that ever were have contributed to those goals.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 03 24 at 12:02 AM • permalink
- “Pacifists prosper because brave men and women fought and died.” (Old bumper sticker.)
I agree with Michael Lonie that pacifism is morally irresponsible. This is not the same thing as being a Conscientious Objector (who feels uncomfortable about pulling a trigger) but who is willing to serve in a non-combatant role. I think there was at least one C.O. in WW2 who received a Congressional Medal of Honor (as a battlefield medic, I believe) for courage under fire.
Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 03 24 at 01:35 AM • permalink
- I can live with pacifists doing all their pacifying in their nice safe homes, where they are protected from violence by non-pacifists like cops and soldiers whose duty is to guard them.
But when the pacifists amble off to a war zone in a cloud of peacenik holier-than-thou fantasy, and real soldiers have to risk their lives to rescue them, they become a dangerous liability.Put yourself in the rescuer’s combat boots for a moment, and ponder how you would feel about being given orders to smash down a few doors and face an unknown armed enemy force in order to rescue a group of fanatic peace activists who despise you, your comrades, and everything you stand for. You still go and face the unknown, it’s your duty.
That is real courage, and not some Dan Rather blather type “courage” either.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 03 24 at 01:44 AM • permalink
- What really irks me is these hypocrites claiming their pacifism, their opposition to miliary action, is part and parcel of their—and any true—Christian beliefs. Claiming that and then accepting military action to your benefit is as contemptibly hypocritical as saying fidelity to your wife is part and parcel of your—and any true—Christian belief, but nailing that chick in Dallas last month was fine because, well, it benefited me at the time.
- Not a rewrite, Jeff, an “Addenda”.Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 24 at 12:14 PM • permalink
- 38 an Addendum. Addenda be plural.Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 24 at 01:02 PM • permalink
- That’s why it’s in “”, Stoop. Go tell it to the CPT.Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 24 at 02:12 PM • permalink
- Ahhh, they’ll probably read it here, sooner or later.Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 24 at 05:56 PM • permalink
- As someone who carries a Canadian passport (that’s about as far as it goes), I wouldn’t have cared if either of these ass-hats got his stupid head carved off with a rusty butter-knife. They don’t nearly qualify as “conscientious objectors”Posted by Son of a Pig and a Monkey on 2006 03 24 at 08:35 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
