The Shotgun Blog
« News of the Day is Up | Main | News of the Day »
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Can People Really be so Stupid? II
Apparently, yes indeedy, as I have previously speculated. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled the Christian Peacemaker hostages are free and (relatively) well. Their colleague, Tom Fox, did not fare so well. Hmm...Wonder who killed him? To hear their spokesperson, you would think an American soldier had done it. Here are some gems from the group's official statement upon the hostages' release:
They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers.
Really? I'm thinking their only protection could have been their staying the heck out of a situation they had no business interfering with. Failing that, their only protection was in the power of the American and British military.
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.
Right. It wasn't the actual kidnappers who were the "root cause" of the kidnapping. And it isn't the "insurgency" or anything that is causing so much pain in Iraq, and preventing any uninterrupted development and change.
We pray that Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq. During these past months, we have tasted of the pain that has been the daily bread of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Of course it would have been nice if these buffoons had been walking this talk when Saddam was in charge. I'm thinking that pain was the daily bread of most Iraqis back then. Not to mention that I'd like to see convincing evidence that those Iraqis currently detained by the Coalition have not merited detention. Bloody hell. What morons. If I were a Christian, I wouldn't want these goofs speaking for me. Have they minded their ps and qs and thanked their rescuers? Of course, the CBC reported they had been "released," not that it was a military rescue, and the Canadian Press said the rescue was courtesy of a "multinational force." Really? The fact that the U.S. and the U.K were working together does not strike me as justifying use of the word, "multinational." Maybe "binational" would have been more accurate, but you know, the Canadian Press has to make it sound like some international lovefest, "let's all work together," nonsense. What's worse is, apparently these fools actually thought the fact that they were Christians would help them in their "negotiations" with their captors. Oh, Lord.
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on March 23, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8347d5d6153ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can People Really be so Stupid? II:
Comments
Yes, it's really disgraceful. The CPT website uses the word 'release' repeatedly, implying that the three were not 'rescued' by a team of brave British, American and Iraqi soldiers, but were 'released' by their criminal kidnappers.
The CPT do not provide one word of thanks to their rescuers. Not one word.
Instead - they preach - and provide us with more fallacies. Root causes? The criminals who took them hostage are in it for the money and the publicity. The insurgents have one agenda - a return to totalitarianism as run by Hussein's tribe.
What other fallacies? They inform the reader that Iraq is ''occupied'. By whom? Occupation means that your nation does not have its own government but is governed by a foreign nation. What an insult to all the Iraqi people, who bravely voted for their own government - even under threats by the insurgents, and who oversaw the development of their own constitution, and who are developing their democracy. Yet, the CPT insult the Iraqi by totally ignoring these actions.
Then, they inform us that the war is 'illegal'. Really? Provide the statute.
And - they utterly ignore that the insurgents don't want a democracy in Iraq; they want a return to totalitarian tribalism. The CPT seem to promote this agenda. They ignore that the Iraqi people are free of Saddam Hussein's tyranny; they never refer to the 'pain of living under that dictatorship'.
It's outrageous- their sophistry, their ignorance, their arrogance. They refuse to acknowledge the bravery and action of their rescuers; they refuse to acknowledge the right of the Iraqi people to live in freedom rather than under a dictatorship and to develop their own democracy. Instead - they attack the US/UK who freed the Iraqi from Hussein - and they ignore those same soldiers who rescued them. Disgusting.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-23 3:44:33 PM
According to the CBC (see http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/23/hostages060323.html) Canadian forces were also involved in the rescue operation. Canadian forces in Iraq -- imagine that.
Posted by: Alex VanderWoude | 2006-03-23 3:51:35 PM
The latest buzz is that Canadians, not Americans worked with the Brits on this operation. Either way it wasn't worth the risk or the money they paid to get them freed. They called themselves Christian peacemakers, but they were really missionaries. No wonder some religions get pissed off at western Christians. Some of those organizations are just thinly veiled Evangelists.
Posted by: dan | 2006-03-23 4:12:11 PM
These were not missionaries, but peace activists. They use the term Christian loosely. As in Canada is a Christian nation, which it technically used to be, but no longer is.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-23 4:37:38 PM
I don't think CPT use the term "Christian" loosely at all. I had never heard of them before the hostages but the teachings of Christ seem to be at the root of everything they do. Their statements regarding the legitemacy of the invasion and occupation of Iraq are in line with the position of virtually every Christian denomination to my knowledge. They are certainly not politically conservative but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Posted by: ChrisD | 2006-03-23 4:57:10 PM
Clearly you've never seen this page:
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~leeey/stupidity/basic.htm
Covering the Basic Laws of Human Stupidity:
1) Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2) The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3) A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
4) Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
5) A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Corollary 5a) A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.
Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-03-23 5:07:03 PM
ChrisD- if they are Christian, then, why don't they acknowledge and thank their rescuers?
Why do they ignore and denigrate the rights of the Iraqi people to establish a democracy? Why do they ignore the Iraqi life under a tyrannical dictatorship? Is that a just life?
Again - Iraq is NOT, NOT, NOT occupied! A country is occupied by another, when its government is not within its control. The Iraqi people VOTED for their gov't; Iraq is run by the Iraqi - not by any foreign nation! OK?
That's strange - the survey that I read, said that 69% of conservative Christians support the war in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm
But, whether/not these people support or reject the war, why do they spread falsehoods (that the war is illegal; that Iraq is 'occupied'; that the insurgents just want the Coalition out ..No, the insurgents want democracy dissolved.
And, why do they not have the christian charity to thank the brave men who RESCUED them?
They are peace activists; full of their own superiority and refusing to acknowledge the debt they owe to others (the rescuers) and the rights of others to freedom (the rights of Iraqi not to live under a dictatorship).
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-23 5:11:26 PM
The embarassing thing is that Rush Limbaugh did 2 hours today on the captives and their snubbing of the soldiers who rescued them . Made them to look like ungrateful , self - absorbed Marxist idiots , which they certainly are.
Go Canada
Posted by: daveh | 2006-03-23 5:35:50 PM
As much as I hate to admit it....I agree totally with the atheist above. Well said, ET. :)
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-23 5:42:41 PM
I think it's kind of nice to see that some Christians remember to turn the other cheek and that "thou shalt not kill" isn't really "thou shalt not kill unless you feel scared or intolerant."
Posted by: Read the Book | 2006-03-23 5:43:49 PM
I saw the three 'catch and release' jelly fish also and I also was disgusted with the stupid, self -rightous, egotistical, ungrateful, mindset of these left wing lorn Culvert type Christians. You certaily won't be calling that outfit Christian Soldiers!! It is this type of self centred, 'stupid as a bag of hammers' type 'Christian' that give the real soldiers of the Lord a bad name in Conservative circles - and ,in my opinion, much higher circles as well.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-03-23 5:45:35 PM
Actually, they just sound like the typical far left crazy talking, can't really tell the difference.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-23 5:55:58 PM
ET
Why do you keep harping on the idea that they were "rescued", and what difference does it make anyway? Somebody gave the troops directions to the particular house, in the vast area of Iraq, where the hostages were being held, and when they arrived, the idiots were there, safe, more or less sound and unguarded. Sure sounds like a release to me. Why try to bullshit this fairly unimportant event up to something heroic?
Posted by: Zog | 2006-03-23 5:58:09 PM
I know Mark, I am finding myself in agreement with ET. I can't help but wonder if she thinks Gaza and the West Bank are occupied - oops I mean just the West Bank - Gaza is Jewfree now.
Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-03-23 6:13:38 PM
I doubt the soldiers who rescued these folks care whether they were "thanked" or not, just pleased to have a successful operation without casualties. But, these "peace activist" folks undoubtedly remain interested in their mission. So rather than have them return to their good work in Iraq, I hereby request that Western Standard set up a fund to pay for the transportation of these "Christian-activist" (or whatever they call themselves) folks to North Korea, where they can do all of the same type of "good work" except that when something goes wrong, we don't have any of our sons and brothers stationed there in uniform, who would have to go out into harm's way to "accept the release" (of their mutilated corpses) from the hands of their nice-guy captors.
I hope Western Standard sets up such a fund. I'm a small dollar contributor but I regularly DO contribute to good causes and good political candidates. The alternative is more government and no normal person wants that.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-03-23 6:20:25 PM
The reason I use the term 'rescue' is because they were rescued. They weren't released. And the hostages didn't save themselves; they were saved by others.
Although, one must wonder - was there a ransom paid - which the CPT is not going to acknowledge? Is that the reason why the kidnappers were conveniently absent just at this time?
After all, criminals quickly realize that ideological terrorism doesn't pay well, but, one can rapidly become quite rich just by kidnapping a few of the useless non-military activists who swarm into a war zone - and holding them for ransom. It's an economic way of life in many parts of the world. Is this what happened in this situation?
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-23 6:31:15 PM
UPDATE: The CPT website (http://www.cpt.org/) now has an addendum including this"
"Addenda
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. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues....."
Posted by: greenmamba | 2006-03-23 6:37:23 PM
ET, you're not being consistent. "They weren't released." "Well, maybe the reason they were released was that a ransom was paid."
Hard to imagine people who wander around unarmed and unguarded in a war zone wanting to be ransomed. Why denigrate these folks? Naive? Yes, and in my un-Christian mind, not too bright, but give them credit, they've got cojones like coconuts.
Posted by: Zog | 2006-03-23 6:47:13 PM
Any idiot can call themselves a Christian, it doesn't mean that they actually are one. Thus, the name "Christian Peacemakers" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. Also, the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder", not "Thou shalt not kill". Huge difference.
Posted by: R Kerr | 2006-03-23 6:48:35 PM
Agreed, zog- I'm not being consistent. On the one hand, I reject the notion that the hostages were released 'just because' of the goodwill of the kidnappers. There's no indication of that - and remember, one of the hostages was brutally murdered. And, the fact remains, that the Brits/Americans and?? went and got them and apparently spent weeks planning the task.
But- was the 'fact' that the kidnappers weren't there - simply because the military had been watching the place for days, and knew that at that time, every day, the bad guys took their breakfast break at the local Tim Horton's?
Or- was a ransom paid?
I doubt if we will ever know.
And the fact that the CPT is just now acknowledging the soldiers who rescued them - is quite possibly due to the angry emails sent to the CPT bashing them for this failure to thank the military; and the talk about this failure on CNN internet; and the talk about this failure-to-thank, on various news show and on various blogs (see SDA, see Michelle Malkin - who really bashed them, deservedly so, for their arrogance.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-23 7:15:12 PM
Yes Zog, they do have guts. Pretty much the same mind set as a suicide bomber. No matter what happens there's a better life waiting for them. Thank goodness our crazies aren't wired the same as their's
Posted by: dan | 2006-03-23 7:18:31 PM
My examination of the primate anti-Canadianus ShotDumbicus in their natural environment continues...
It seems today I've come upon them on a bit of a feeding frenzy with each one beating their chests one after another in self-righteous indignation.
As far as I can tell they are utterly incensed by the actions of 'Christian peacemakers.' Granted all of them have shown an intense prediction towards conflict and war so that's no surprise - but they all seem in agreement (again no surprise given their propensity for group-think) that they alone can designate what is 'christian'. They snarl at the 'peacemakers' while ripping and tearing those who would mislabel themselves 'Christian'.
I must say I am glad that these 'peacemakers' who have just faced down kidnappers don't have to face this ravenous crowd!
As is their pattern, they believe 'truth' can only come from the American military propagandists. While history has shown us that it's an ideology that will only lead to inconceivable horrors fortuately for the sane, the reasonable and the intelligent, their numbers are so small here in Canada as to make them utterly invisible (ie pathetic).
Posted by: Justin Fossey | 2006-03-23 7:35:33 PM
Speaking of the crazies. Your fly is open. Iit is all wet there too Dan. In a hurry to Post?
Posted by: BC | 2006-03-23 7:42:11 PM
BC, Monica, Belinda, Pastor, and whatever else you call yourself, that isn't funny in this culture.
Posted by: dan | 2006-03-23 7:58:56 PM
Justin Fossey,
I don't agree with your opinons, but your post was very humorous.
Posted by: Danny | 2006-03-23 8:02:21 PM
There is nothing ultimately peaceful about these "peace workers". They are partisans, and their contempt if not hatred for the Americans and Britains is clear. They couldn't even bring themselves to thank their rescuers. They excuse the kidnappings --can they not likewise find excuses for the "occupying" by the British and Americans? 9/11, anyone???
If they had gone over while Saddam Hussein was in power, and said the same kind of things, that would have been heroic. This is not.
Finally, if the "occupation" is illegal, then so is this rescue by the "occupiers". They should denounce it and demand to be returned to their captives.
Posted by: Richard Ball | 2006-03-23 8:35:59 PM
Why not trade these three for Abdul Rahman? Rahman gets to practice Christianity and the CPT tools can sing the praises of the clerics in Afghanistan.
It's win-win.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-03-23 8:41:14 PM
First of all, I'd like to ask how much we have to pay the kidnappers to take the hostages back!
It is almost a certainty that Joint Task Force 2 was part of the rescue team.
The fact of the matter is that despite the politically inspired, vituperative atmosphere recently, there has always been a much greater level of cooperation and mutual respect between Canadian and American military and intelligence services.
I am very grateful to Canadian intelligence because of their assistance behind the scenes in the covert war, irrespective of what the gangsters in Ottawa were doing.
Naturally, special operations from all branches of the service work in close coordination with intelligence, and so a mission of the sort under discussion would be the result of the coordinated efforts of both.
Special operations teams from all countries require real-world practice, and as a consequence, arrangements are made for them to go into many situations outside of the normal practice drills.
Sometimes special ops teams are allocated temporarily to big city SWAT teams to help take down crack houses and get real-life experiences.
Whenever these guys go through a door they understand they might be breathing their last breath. If it turns out the bad guys are not there to put up a fight, then they will be thanking God, and they will mean it.
Irrespective of the fact that there was no trouble that we know of in the rescue, these guys have to be prepared for the very worst every time they ply their deadly trade.
So a big thanks to all American, British and Canadian special operations units, and a big thanks to our allied intelligence network that continues to remember what was set up during World War II even while politicians sometimes try to poison the waters.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2006-03-23 8:51:49 PM
They're idiots but even idiots don't deserve to be killed by terrorists.
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-03-23 9:22:48 PM
Can People Really be so Stupid? Here too?
The Important lesson:
And why is this not a more popular posting site?
Most persons are silhouettes, or watchers, and they are not the minority aggressive, assertive persons.
Most people do also regularly watch as to how the other posters here are being treated, even the supposed fools and maniacs, because they know that is they too likely next will be treated one day.
When they do see the boasters, pretenders, the abuses here they next do clam up and withdraw.
If anyone wants to be popular, to be shown respect don't abuse anyone, verbally or otherwise, not even the so called idiots.
Posted by: Can People Really be so Stupid? | 2006-03-23 10:10:26 PM
Yes, they are what Stalin used to call "useful idiots". While I agree that even idiots do not deserve to be murdered by terrorists, had it happened, they would have carried the responsibility. Frankly for their own safety, such fools should be kept out of the country. They might try going to China to protest the Chinese occupation of Tibet or the murder and abuse of peaceful Chinese demonstrators.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-03-23 10:12:55 PM
Yes, they are what Stalin used to call "useful idiots". While I agree that even idiots do not deserve to be murdered by terrorists, had it happened, they would have carried the responsibility. Frankly for their own safety, such fools should be kept out of the country. They might try going to China to protest the Chinese occupation of Tibet or the murder and abuse of peaceful Chinese demonstrators.
In case you did not realize it you are totally incoherent, illogical, must be a lack of sleep.
Posted by: In case | 2006-03-23 10:21:15 PM
About Allain
He is rather rather speaking about himself
all he wants want it seems is a spot with his name on it as well.
and Jean Chretien too was the only politician who could not speak well or write well in the two official languages of Canada next managed still next to be a Prime Minister.
Posted by: Mimmiy | 2006-03-23 10:25:18 PM
http://lifeissues.net/writers/cho/cho_13wrathanger.html
Even if we should assert that a virtuous act animated by great passion is of greater merit than one which lacks such passion, can we, also, assert that a failure to become angry in a particular moral situation could be a sin, a peccatum or vitium? The Angelic Doctor is clear. Yes, there are occasions in which failure to become angry would be sinful and would indicate either a defective grasp of the true good or a will incapacitated by intemperance, lust, or lazy inertia. St. Thomas quotes St. John Chrysostom who writes, "He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do wrong."
Posted by: Plato's Stepchild | 2006-03-23 10:37:29 PM
Greg: It also occured to me today that our special forces are in need of some real world experiences. A wise old WW2 veteran once told me "you can't march a bunch of soldiers around in circles forever without letting them fight". I know it's easy for me to sit hear and give my opinion while those people risk their lives. I don't know if I'd volunteer, even if I was younger. All I know is that since Harper went to Afganistan, and we hear that our people are actually doing something, I look at people in uniform with a lot more respect.
Posted by: dan | 2006-03-23 10:39:12 PM
The 'Peacemakers' are not stupid, simply evil.
They are not ungrateful that they were rescued, they're angry, they wanted to be martryed.
'Pacifism' is a ruse, don't buy it.
Posted by: infidel | 2006-03-23 10:49:08 PM
Thank you Western Standard for having the highest of standards and integrity in putting top quality blog content on your website! I couldn’t agree more with this blog; Christians are stupid, inconsiderate, and completely ignorant! Thank gawd someone has the courage to finally say it.
Posted by: Xenomorph | 2006-03-23 10:57:47 PM
Quote from Duke's Place
"The smart Christians are fighting the Jihad and will be happy to help others once the Morloc have been vanquished."
Some Christains are whack. but most are just decent people trying to live in the advanced civilized culture THEY created.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-23 11:08:00 PM
Hmmm, a bunch of people who talk tough but have diligently stayed out of harm's way talking trash about a bunch of people who have deliberately put themselves in harm's way but insist on talking about peace.
Why does this sound strangely familiar? Ah, yes, that's right -- it's the same technique George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove used against John McCain, Max Cleland and John Kerry. But hey, why risk your ass in a shooting war when you can stay home and shoot off your mouth?
BTW ET, if Iraq isn't occupied, why is it up to the Americans to decide when the troops are leaving? Just asking.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-23 11:30:00 PM
I thought that this may well have been a setup and a charade on the part of the "Christian peacemakers" from the beginning and said as much on Angrygwn at the time.
So many questions.
Why would the RCMP be conducting an operation in another country? Could it be because it is an investigation that's an extension of an investigation already under way in Canada? Could the RCMP have dug up something on this group that lead to their location in Iraq? Wiretaps? Email interception? Cell phone location?
Why would this group have staged their abduction if indeed they did? To get exposure and increase their own stature as a group? It did that. To support the enemy? Perhaps. To be the recipients of a ransom? Could be if one was paid.
Why does Harper have so little to say because of, in his words, "national security"? Could it be because the investigation is ongoing? Is there a connection between the terrorists in Iraq and this group from Canada?
If I'm right about this then I have one more big question.
Who killed the American?
Posted by: John Crittenden | 2006-03-24 12:06:56 AM
truewest
Well said and right on the money!
You don't have to be either a leftist or a Christian to appreciate courage - even courage with a whiff of martyr complex.
As far as the question of occupation goes, Norway in WW II had its own government, and Chechnya has its own today. Anybody want to claim that they weren't/aren't occupied?
Posted by: Zog | 2006-03-24 12:20:25 AM
I thought that this may well have been a setup and a charade on the part of the "Albertans" from the beginning and said as much on Anger at the time.
So many questions.
Why would the RCMP be conducting an operation in another country? Could it be because it is an investigation that's an extension of an investigation already under way in Canada? Could the RCMP have dug up something on this group that lead to their location in Iraq? Wiretaps? Email interception? Cell phone location?
Why would this group have staged their abduction if indeed they did? To get exposure and increase their own stature as a group? It did that. To support the enemy? Perhaps. To be the recipients of a ransom? Could be if one was paid.
Why does Martin have so little to say because of, in his words, "national security"? Could it be because the investigation is ongoing? Is there a connection between the terrorists in Iraq and this group from Alberta?
Who killed the American? The Muslim devils
Posted by: Again | 2006-03-24 1:55:12 AM
..John Crittenden
John you are so full of Liberal crap it comes out on the posts
next you will say the Muslims are the good guys
All hate Posts like yours should be banned forever here.
Posted by: ViagraVirus | 2006-03-24 1:58:48 AM
Made them all look like ungrateful , self - absorbed idiots, which like us they certainly are. Canada
Posted by: Zid | 2006-03-24 2:01:35 AM
Like it has bene said the latest spin is that these are Canadians, not Americans who had worked with the Brits on this operation. It all depends on what section of Goggle news you read. They had called themselves Christian peacemakers, but were they really missionaries? By the lying spins and twists here it is no wonder some persons get pissed off at the western rednecks. Some of us here are just thinly disguised hate mongers. Excuse me by my pants are wet agaim. These were for sure real peace activists. While the teachings of Christ seem to be at the root of everything they do. Their statements regarding the legitemacy of the invasion and occupation of Iraq are in not in line with the position of most Christian denominations to my knowledge. But I do not go to church and it is showed here by my ignorance of what a christian really is. They are certainly not politically conservative for the Conservatives do not act like christians. But I tried to be on the devil's side as usual. For I as liberal do not have love for the others here.
Posted by: Dan | 2006-03-24 2:12:25 AM
I think it's kind of nice to see that some Christians remember to turn the all of the pages of the Bible and not be Bible pretenders like me who has to distort it cause I am fully ignorant of what it says. But I do know that people often quote the Bible out of context and forget the rest of it, cause the devil and Muslims, do not like the Bible to be read in whole. This site truly is a great example of the posts by fools, and examples of hate, religious intolerances, the Bible ignorant folks. The Alberta devil has a lot of his workers busy here for sure. He appreciates it.
Posted by: I read in the Book | 2006-03-24 2:20:00 AM
and who wants to. We all mostly came here to hate, lie, spin the liberaal and the conservative way
Dan
Posted by: Read the Book | 2006-03-24 2:23:54 AM
Without firing a shot, U.S. and British forces stormed a house Thursday and freed three Christian peace activists who were bound but unguarded, ending a four-month hostage ordeal that saw an American in the group killed and dumped along a railroad track.
The U.S. ambassador and the top American military spokesman held out hope the operation on the outskirts of Baghdad could lead to a break in the captivity of American reporter Jill Carroll, a freelance writer for The Christian Science Monitor who was abducted Jan. 7.
The military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, said the 8 a.m. rescue of the Briton and two Canadians from a "kidnapping cell" was based on information divulged by a man during interrogation only three hours earlier. U.S. forces had captured the man Wednesday night.
A senior Iraqi military officer told The Associated Press, however, that the operation had been under way for two days in the Abu Ghraib suburb west of Baghdad, site of the notorious prison.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canadian forces also took part in the rescue operation, although their precise role was unclear
Yanks, Brits, Americans take the credit for a fully Canadian Operation
Posted by: Dan | 2006-03-24 2:33:56 AM
The freed men 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 an American colleague, Tom Fox, 54.
No kidnappers were present when the troops broke into the house where the peace activists were discovered with their hands tied. Funny, looks like it was not accidental they were not there.
Posted by: EC | 2006-03-24 2:36:00 AM
Those CPT are a few screws loose in the head me thinks. Ironcially the CPT initals are too close to the CPC...wonder if the MSM will pick up on it.
(CPC=Conservative Party of Canada if some of you are cave dwellers)
There was a thought a few years ago that if "free elections" were held and a Muslim/Taliban outfit got into power, would the West honour it?
Well guess what, in ignoring that question it is now front and centre.
So I gotta ask again, what are we doing in Afghanistan?
Fighting for democracy right... So does freedom of religion fit in here?
Ok, so what's freedom of religion then?
What bothers me is the silence "again" by Muslim clerics here in Canada.
Ironically Ontario wanted to bring in the Sharia law.
Ha. Where are the proponents now?
CNN has stuff on the poor guy standing trail. Wait, the picture they use makes him look a bit mad...wonder if that was done on purpose?
Nawww...
Oh, Ezra, why don't you go on a protest regarding this fellow in your publication and out and out ask the Muslim community:
1. Their stand on Christianity and.
2. Their stand on this fellow's conversion
3. Their stand on Afghanistan.
Posted by: tomax | 2006-03-24 3:50:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.