« Home | The Eternal Bleating of the Formerly Hot » | ...Because only a loony would... » | A triangular chess board » | This is Your Brain on Creationism » | United Gulf Development » | OPNIF I: Partisan hackery » | Chicken Noodle News » | I don't know what he was doing there.. » | Into Each Life, A Little Rain Must Fall » | Oh, They're Committed. »

Surprise! Michelle Malkin doesn't get it

Everywhere today in blogosphere and the MSM is news of the rescue or release (see below) of the Christian Peacemakers from their captivity in Bagdhad. Because of the ubiquity of coverage, I had not planned to post on the topic - you have enough out there to read without wading through another "I'm so happy they're safe" blog post.

Yes, I decided that unless someone said something really, really stupid, I was going to remain silent and just let everyone get on with their day. But on a planet that includes the likes of Michelle Malkin, resting until someone says something stupid gives you no rest at all.

In a post today she takes umbrage ("For crying out loud" no less!) with the fact that the Christian Peacemakers in their announcement of the freeing of the hostages used the term "released" and not "rescued". Further adding to her temperature is the fact that the CPs did not thank the rescuers and in fact said:

Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent 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. 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.

Today, in the face of this joyful news, our faith compels us to love our enemies even when they have committed acts which caused great hardship to our friends and sorrow to their families. In the spirit of the prophetic nonviolence that motivated Jim, Norman, Harmeet and Tom to go to Iraq, we refuse to yield to a spirit of vengeance. We give thanks for the compassionate God who granted our friends courage and who sustained their spirits over the past months. We pray for strength and courage for ourselves so that, together, we can continue the nonviolent struggle for justice and peace.

I don't want to speak for the Peacemaker's organization, I'm not even Christian so why should I presume? but I will speak for the political nature of this statement in simple words so that morons like Malkin can understand. The Christian Peacemakers as an organization are fighting against war as a concept, not for the Iraqis nor for the US/British forces. That makes all soldiers, including those that rescued them their enemies. To summarize; the Iraqis that captured them - enemies, the British and American troops that rescued them, also enemies.

You might or might not subscribe to this philosophy, but there is no excuse aside from functional illiteracy or blinkered partisanship to not at least understand where they come from. If you read their entire response, you will see an example of real Christian love that seems utterly lacking in the Malkin/Necropublican world that could actually provide a bridge to real peace between not only the US and the Iraqi people but between the West and Islam.

Thank you, Christian Peacemakers, for keeping the spirit of non-violent resistance alive in the best tradition of Ghandi. And thank you Michelle Malkin for showing me that I need help along those very lines myself.

The only real way to create lasting peace - the way of non-violence - contradicts the prevailing view of the military-industrial power holders, reported explicitly and implicitly by some members of the Media. The danger is succumbing to cynicism and tuning out - that's what I rely on you for, Kevvyd, keeping me awake.

Dude- you can also look at it like this:

The concept "enemy" implies that there are opposing forces at work. If one side claims passivity, then the other can not critically be considered an enemy per se, but the object of passive resistance.

Semantically, in English, doesn't "enemy" connote a potential for violent or aggresive
action on either side of a conflict?

K-D
True, however I'm sure the Peacemakers were using the more biblical "enemy" which implies (as in the Book of Matthew - "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you") those that wish you harm or actually harm you. In this usage, there is no implication of returned resistance or violence.

However, they can still resist.

Ohhhhhhhh, well if you want to get all biblical on my ass and such then I will defer.

Just trying to keep things in context ;)

I noticed that Liberal Catnip just caught this, too. Good on her.

Indeed the term "released" may not be entirely incorrect. If media reports that multi-national forces met no resistance, and not a shot was fired, one of at least two possible scenarios could be true. The captors "got wind" of an impending assault and fled, leaving the hostages behind AND alive, effectively "releasing" them or a backroom ransom deal was struck, and the captors left, "releasing" the hostages. There is no reason to suggest the captors were incapable of killing the hostages prior to their "rescue".

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link