Those damn pacifists!
Rule number one about writing a Canadian-centred political blog: When at a loss for material, pick up the National Post.
Today's Pus runs an editorial on statements that James Loney, one of the members of the Christian Peacemakers Team that was kidnapped in Iraq and rescued in March of this year. They take offense that Loney still holds onto statements that imply the worst of the problems in Iraq are directly attributable to the presence of American and British military forces. This in spite of evidence that civilian deaths resulting from the post-invasion chaos have not decreased, and that reconstruction of the nation's infrastructure has lagged and stalled in most areas of the country.
Oustide of the "permanent camps" and the Green Zone, of course.
Also, the cowardly turds of the National Post still seem to harbour resentment that the hostages were not mistreated, aside from being chained and cooped up. What does this say about the writers of this screed? Could it be that the editors are comparing this report with what prisoners of Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib would say of their American captors?
The editorial then drifts into the farcical, suggesting that Loney and his co-hostages consideration of using non-lethal violence in order to free themselves demonstrates the "moral indefensibility" of pacifism. This is such a pretty lame argument. I think it suffices to say that a person's judgement after three months of forced separation from loved ones, regardless of the physical situation, would be hampered to some extent.
Today's Pus runs an editorial on statements that James Loney, one of the members of the Christian Peacemakers Team that was kidnapped in Iraq and rescued in March of this year. They take offense that Loney still holds onto statements that imply the worst of the problems in Iraq are directly attributable to the presence of American and British military forces. This in spite of evidence that civilian deaths resulting from the post-invasion chaos have not decreased, and that reconstruction of the nation's infrastructure has lagged and stalled in most areas of the country.
Oustide of the "permanent camps" and the Green Zone, of course.
Also, the cowardly turds of the National Post still seem to harbour resentment that the hostages were not mistreated, aside from being chained and cooped up. What does this say about the writers of this screed? Could it be that the editors are comparing this report with what prisoners of Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib would say of their American captors?
The editorial then drifts into the farcical, suggesting that Loney and his co-hostages consideration of using non-lethal violence in order to free themselves demonstrates the "moral indefensibility" of pacifism. This is such a pretty lame argument. I think it suffices to say that a person's judgement after three months of forced separation from loved ones, regardless of the physical situation, would be hampered to some extent.
