Hostages were 'dupes,' Iraq says

[Johnny Utah]

Hostages were 'dupes,' Iraq says.
Freed peace activists refusing to co-operate with British.
CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, March 25, 2006
Excerpt:
TORONTO - Iraq's embassy to Canada lashed out at the Christian Peacemaker Teams Friday, calling them "phoney pacifists" and "dupes" after the antiwar group responded to the rescue of three of its kidnapped activists by condemning the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq.

The Iraqi embassy called CPT "willfully ignorant" and "outrageous," and accused the Chicago-based group of being on the side of anti-democratic forces in Iraq.

"The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism," the embassy's statement said.

A British-led special forces team on Thursday rescued three CPT members, who had been kidnapped in Baghdad nearly four months earlier.

They included James Loney, 41, of Toronto; Harmeet Singh Sooden, 33, a Canadian who had been living in New Zealand; and British national Norman Kember, 74. The body of a fourth hostage, American Tom Fox, was found dumped earlier this month.

The day of the rescue, CPT issued a statement blaming the "illegal occupation" of Iraq for the kidnapping. The group said the hostages were "motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a non-violent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict."

"They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers," CPT's statement said. "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."
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=9b0bead9-99ab-43e8-b51b-2284d82b5953

Dupes indeed, these Peaceniks go into Iraq on their own get taken hostage and somehow it's the fault of Coalition Forces?

These are the same kind of people who went to Iraq to be Human Sheilds before the start of the War. :roll:

 

[annabattler]

I just "googled" CPT.
Participants are asked to raise their own dollars for their "missions", for airfare,in country travel,simple accomodations,2 meals/day and honorariums.
Their "missions" are usually 7-10 days in length.
Their web site stated they've been involved in Arizona(supporting illegal immigrants on the Mexican border),Colombia(supporting the poor against the paramilitary),Iraq,Grassy Narrows,Ontario(March 17-26,and July 28-Aug 6......fighting "racism" on behalf of the Anishinabe),and Israel/Palestine(supporting Palestinians).
They've also had "missions" to Puerto Rico and Oneida,New York.
I'm not convinced that even a ten day stay can accomplish much,other than to give the "beleagured" some sense that others support them.
And I'm certainly not convinced that naively throwing oneself into a war zone does much but endanger citizens of the country and ,of course, their rescuers,who put themselves in peril.

 

[Mogz]

These people are the floatsam of society in my opinion. They preach about love and peacek and freedom, yet fail to realize that the very peace they preach about, that they live under, was earned with a rifle. War is a part of humanity, and no words or prayer sessions will change that. By going to Iraq they did nothing of benefit and only tied up thousands of dollars and manpower to rescue their pacifistic asses. Myself, I have no time for them.

 

[Jay]

Isaiah 2:4

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

But untill that day.....

 

[EagleSmack]

Hostages were 'dupes,' Iraq says.
Freed peace activists refusing to co-operate with British.
CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, March 25, 2006
Excerpt:
TORONTO - Iraq's embassy to Canada lashed out at the Christian Peacemaker Teams Friday, calling them "phoney pacifists" and "dupes" after the antiwar group responded to the rescue of three of its kidnapped activists by condemning the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq.

The Iraqi embassy called CPT "willfully ignorant" and "outrageous," and accused the Chicago-based group of being on the side of anti-democratic forces in Iraq.

"The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism," the embassy's statement said.

A British-led special forces team on Thursday rescued three CPT members, who had been kidnapped in Baghdad nearly four months earlier.

They included James Loney, 41, of Toronto; Harmeet Singh Sooden, 33, a Canadian who had been living in New Zealand; and British national Norman Kember, 74. The body of a fourth hostage, American Tom Fox, was found dumped earlier this month.

The day of the rescue, CPT issued a statement blaming the "illegal occupation" of Iraq for the kidnapping. The group said the hostages were "motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a non-violent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict."

"They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers," CPT's statement said. "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."
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=9b0bead9-99ab-43e8-b51b-2284d82b5953

Dupes indeed, these Peaceniks go into Iraq on their own get taken hostage and somehow it's the fault of Coalition Forces?

These are the same kind of people who went to Iraq to be Human Sheilds before the start of the War. :roll:

I almost forgot about the liberals HUMAN SHIELD fiasco! That is so funny how they got out of Iraq right before the bombing started. They were also surprised that Saddam took them at their word and started placing them at high priority targets.

"Hey guys... they are really going to use us as human shields and not mouth pieces for the anti-war movement."

When those idiots came back they had their YELLOW tails between their legs. My favorite comment from one of them was

"It wasn't what we expected. They did not treat us that well."

What did you expect dip ----, you're a human shield, when a cruise missle comes over the horizon try and catch it before it hits my anti-aircraft battery.

 

[Jay]

I almost forgot about the liberals HUMAN SHIELD fiasco! That is so funny how they got out of Iraq right before the bombing started. They were also surprised that Saddam took them at their word and started placing them at high priority targets.

"Hey guys... they are really going to use us as human shields and not mouth pieces for the anti-war movement."

When those idiots came back they had their YELLOW tails between their legs. My favorite comment from one of them was

"It wasn't what we expected. They did not treat us that well."

What did you expect dip ----, you're a human shield, when a cruise missle comes over the horizon try and catch it before it hits my anti-aircraft battery.

I almost forgot about that too.

I found this....kinda long, but not really.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2852



"Human Shields: The Moral Ideal?
by Michael J. Hurd (June 28, 2003)

Shortly before the recent Gulf War II, a number of young Americans went to Iraq to commit the ultimate act of self-sacrifice: to act as human shields (against American bombs) on behalf of Saddam Hussein.

This can leave no doubt about the ultimate motive of the most fervent anti-war activists (and, to a lesser degree, their friends at home): the moral code of self-sacrifice. It makes both logical and psychological sense that such people hate the United States, because in their eyes (and correctly so, relative to the rest of the world) the United States represents self-interest and individualism. These extreme anti-war activists might not love Saddam Hussein, but to them he's a heck of a lot closer to their ideal of self-sacrifice than is the United States with its emphasis on the self-interested pursuit of personal happiness.

In a particularly disgusting interview by the fawning mainstream media, a CNBC reporter asked Nathan Chapman, a 20-year-old who volunteered to be a human shield for Saddam Hussein, how he would like to be remembered if he died. Chapman replied,

"Well, I think [we] will be remembered as … strong anti-war protesters and … really wake people up to the fact that this war is wrong and just how far the President is willing to push this, to [the point of] killing white Westerners."

Interesting and revealing.

This anti-war "human shield" for Saddam thinks that the war is about how many whites you kill or non-whites you kill. He's incapable of thinking outside of this established, liberal box. It doesn't even occur to him that the war is about defending freedom and individual rights for all who want it -- white and nonwhite, Westerner or not. The anti-war types would consider Bush to be the racist, but they in fact are the ones making race the primary and central consideration in nearly every political matter that arises.

The War Against Terrorism should be renamed the War In Defense of Individual Rights. Such a name change would not only be more positive and inspiring; it would also force more of the Nathan Chapmans of the world -- and his elder cohorts in the media and academic establishment -- to stand, once and for all, for what they believe: collective slavery under tyrants such as Saddam Hussein over individual rights according to the American model. To anti-war activists, collective slavery is superior to individual rights because individual rights are selfish. They might, on the surface, claim to be against terrorism and even against Saddam Hussein (as some of the human shields concluded upon deserting him). But in reality they share the same moral code: self-sacrifice as the ideal. The only difference is that the Nathan Chapmans of the world really mean it, while the Saddam Husseins of the world cynically cash in on the willingness of others to sacrifice.

If there were no Nathan Chapmans, there would be no Saddam Husseins. It's something to think about as you ponder how to teach your kids right from wrong. Nathan Chapman was merely following what his elders told him: not to be selfish, and to hold self-sacrifice as the ideal."

 

[Johnny Utah]

The Human Shields were complete idiots going to Iraq to be Human Shields. If some of those Moonbats were killed in Iraq it may have wised up the rest of the peaceniks, you don't mess around in a War Zone.

That also reminds me of Rachel Corrie and how she was panacaked by the Israeli Bulldozer for sticking her nose where it didn't belong.

Those kids look scared.

 

[zoofer]

Rachel Corrie like these peaceniks were useful idiots.

It was the famed psychiatrist Karl Menninger who once wrote, "The extraordinary propensity of the human being to join hands with external forces in an attack upon his own existence is one of the most remarkable of biological phenomena."

Right up there with lemmings self destructing.
:roll:

 

[jimmoyer]

Just conducted a history tour here in Winchester Virginia, and started Saturday morning with a visit to the Quaker meeting House of 1758 where Tom Fox, one of those hostages that got killed, attended and rented a little room nearby.

On the door is a a name tag for each member, and
Tom Fox tag still hangs there by the door.

We lucked out having one of the Quakers show up
and he is a Sheriff, and most Meeting Houses do
not accept anyone who carries a firearm, but they
accepted him, as he went on to explain they do
not believe in Original Sin and they do not believe
in having any preacher conduct the faith, and so
they don't have one, and often everyone meets in
silence and no one speaks.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yeah... reluctant as I am to agree with a group of loonies and puppets like the people "governing" Iraq, I'm inclined to think they're right about this one. High principles are all very well, but reality has to count for something too, and the reality is that if you lie down in the path of a tank you're likely to get run over. Putting your life at risk for no purpose is just dumb. You can't be reasonable with unreasonable people, you have to show them something they understand on their own terms. Like a gun.

Never mind arguments about the legality or otherwise about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I don't see that they're relevant to this. Four naively high minded folks went into a war zone thinking their noble moral purpose would protect them, they were captured by lunatics, one of them was murdered, three were rescued by heroic efforts from the people whose presence they originally went there to protest against (who certainly had better things to do), and they displayed rank ingratitude until a degree of public outcry made them realize they'd better show some respect to their rescuers instead of just thanking their non-existent sky spirit for it.

I think they're all fools. I'm glad they were rescued and I feel badly about the one who was murdered, but their naivety brought it on themselves and I cannot be very sympathetic.

And kudos to the guys who rescued them.

 

[PoisonPete2]

if the war mongering yanks were not in Iraq, peaceniks wouldn't have been there. Someone has to witness the murderous acts of those who would deny a foreign nation the right of self-determination.

 

[jimmoyer]

It just depends which propaganda you listen to, PoisonPete2.

Seems you're properly skeptical of American policy,
but improperly gullible for terrorist propaganda.

I wonder who you think it is that wants to deny
Iraq success or security ?

It's a quiz.

Every skeptic has a gullible side.

Eh Pete ?

 

[PoisonPete2]

Re: RE: Hostages were 'dupes,' Iraq says

It just depends which propaganda you listen to, PoisonPete2.

RESPONSE: I weigh the propaganda from both sides and then measure it against the reality. The reality is that Bush wanted a war in Iraq and he wanted their oil, and he wanted a beach-head in the Middle-East. He was willing to allow massive losses to the Iraqis and has no problem with a 1,000 American losses a year. To him that is very light losses for such a huge prize.

Seems you're properly skeptical of American policy,
but improperly gullible for terrorist propaganda.

RESPONSE: total crap: You point out 'terrorist propaganda' and I will respond to it. Is it propaganda to show school children, victims of American bombs, getting medical aid? or is it a simple fact that 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been sacrificed by Bush? I'm not sure they enjoy being sacrificed for 'Democracy'. Was America 'bombed into Democracy' by foreign forces?

I wonder who you think it is that wants to deny
Iraq success or security ?

RESPONSE: Take a look at those in power in Iraq and those in the wings waiting for power. People like Chelobi. Check out their backgrounds. Is it being successful when you are not allowed to control your country's natural resources? Is it security when there is a program of detaining and identifying the Sunni male population? Is it security when the American designed aConstitution that is a recipe for civil war?

It's a quiz.

RESPONSE: There is no quiz. Bush got the war he sought. He lied to the American people to get the war and he is a War Criminal and the American people are dupes.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire

Every skeptic has a gullible side. Eh Pete ?

RESPONSE: obviously you do not know the nature of skepticism or you would not produce an oxymoronic observation. Someone recently said that 'for every credibility gap, there is a gullibility gap'. I concentrate criticism on the Americans because they are the ones with the killing machines in a foreign country, while the Iraqis were 'in no way' a threat to anything but American Hegemony.

In the end, the Iraqi government does not speak for itself (including diplomats). They express the American line. Soon Harper is going to go down to get the strings connected to his head (and arms and legs), just another dummy, bending the U.S. will.

 

[jimmoyer]

Well after all those erudite observations, you did
leave out the most obvious of all suspects who
wish Iraq no success.

Every hard steel trap mind of a skeptic does
have a gullible blind side. Obviously Iraq was of
no "imminent danger". Nor was the breakup of
Yugoslavia an imminent danger, but I hazard a guess that you would do no better than the world's leaders in forcasting what would fester and be worse down the road.

Some oxymoronic observations are nevertheless true.
Zen masters call it crazy wisdom.

You see this skepticism married to gullibility on
both liberal left and conservative rightwingers all
the time.

The liberal left is properly skeptical of American
policy yet little impassioned by any other dangers
and tend to downplay them and even follow in
gullible fashion much of al Qaeda's talking points.

Likewise the conservative right downplays the
harm of American hubris and is gullible or too
accepting of the leadership they voted for while
very much properly skeptical of the festering
dangers in the Middle East, Iran and North Korea.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Hostages were 'dupes,' Iraq says

if the war mongering yanks were not in Iraq, peaceniks wouldn't have been there. Someone has to witness the murderous acts of those who would deny a foreign nation the right of self-determination.

So, who had the right of "self-determination" in Saddam's Iraq?

Was it the Kurds? You know, the ones he dropped chemical weapons on. At least 35 villages, an average of 1,000 dead per village.

How about the Shi'ites that lived ion the southern marshland? You know, the ones that he murdered by the tens of thousands, before he drained the marsh to destroy their livelyhood and culture.

The Yanks, although they are having huge problems, are at least trying to work towards a better place.

The Ba'athists just wanted more genocide, more murder, so the minority Sunnis could stay in control.

Democracy IS self-determination.

Unless you have a better system.

 

[PoisonPete2]

The British spent 10 years bombing the Kurds as they were an irritant to British Occupation. Watch for an increase of Turkish incursions to keep the kurds down. The Kurds want a homeland, but that ain't in the cards. I quess it just isn't democratic. The Americans were in the north stirring up those nationalistic sentiments but let the kurds down when Saddam squelched their rebellion. Ask who provided the gas that Saddam used. Ask if the chemical weapons the Americans used were any purer. Ask how many dictatorships the Americans support. Whose democracy is it?

And Jimmoyer. Enough of the Zen already. Skepticism is the opposite of gullibility so its like saying anything that is black must also be white. And please don't confuse skepticism with advocacy. One is an independence of mind and the other is an allignment of belief.

So Jimmoyer, are you saying that these 'world leaders' have some inherant right to manipulate events to their benefit?

 

[zoofer]

Yawn!

 

[Doryman]

Re: RE: Hostages were 'dupes,' Iraq says

The British spent 10 years bombing the Kurds as they were an irritant to British Occupation. Watch for an increase of Turkish incursions to keep the kurds down. The Kurds want a homeland, but that ain't in the cards. I quess it just isn't democratic. The Americans were in the north stirring up those nationalistic sentiments but let the kurds down when Saddam squelched their rebellion. Ask who provided the gas that Saddam used.

And the best way to make this up to the Kurds is to .... continue more of the same? No. The Brits and yanks helped bad men put the Kurds through a lot, and now they are helping the Kurds by deposing a powerful, anti-kurdish regime. I see it as a good thing.

 

[zoofer]

The ten years of Brit bombing was to protect the Kurds from Saddam. They bombed Iraqi missile sites in the no fly zone.
Another yawn.

Back on topic.

Loney's homosexuality kept secret over fear of reprisals from captors
Carly Weeks, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, March 28, 2006

SAULT STE. MARIE - The Christian Peacemaker Teams admitted yesterday they purposefully kept the fact James Loney is gay a secret over fears his sexual orientation could further endanger his life while he was held captive in Iraq. "There was concern for his safety in this violent world of gay-bashing," said administrative co-ordinator Rebecca Johnson. Mr. Loney, who was rescued last week after 118 days in captivity, appeared at a Toronto news conference on Sunday with his partner, Dan Hunt. It was the first time his sexual orientation was publicly mentioned since Mr. Loney was abducted on Nov. 26. It was in Mr. Loney"s "best interest" to keep that part of his personal life under wraps because gay people are still targets of "antagonistic" attacks, Ms. Johnson said. Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Loney's brothers arrived in their hometown of Sault Ste. Marie, where family members are preparing to welcome Mr. Loney and Mr. Hunt. They were accompanied into the city by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When they spoke to reporters yesterday, the brothers declined to comment on news that Mr. Loney's sexuality was considered a threat to his safety, saying the former hostage would address the issue himself. Members of the peacemaker group discussed the decision to keep Mr. Loney's sexual orientation a secret with his family and Foreign Affairs, Ms. Johnson said.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2e6371e5-63a6-481d-a294-02c6164d135f

Weird that he would go to Iraq to protect people that would kill him for a multiple of reasons.

 

[PoisonPete2]

The ten years of Brit bombing was to protect the Kurds from Saddam. They bombed Iraqi missile sites in the no fly zone.
Another yawn.

RESPONSE: no, actually they were bombing the Kurd (trying to kill them) when Britain occupied the area. Nothing to do with the 'no fly zone', though during that period, the U.S strafed a lot of Kurdish sheep.

Back on topic.

Loney's homosexuality kept secret over fear of reprisals from captors ... Weird that he would go to Iraq to protect people that would kill him for a multiple of reasons.

RESPONSE: Much more civilized than going to Iraq and killing multiple people for no reason.