Ungrateful "Christians" rescued
 

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-23-voa22.cfm

A special forces team, risking their lives rescued these ungrateful peacniks and whats is their thanks...

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...40&p=y76987846

INHO, next time let em rot.

So, they protest the occupation of Iraq after having been captured in Iraq. How is this bad? It seems natural that they would do that after having their lives put in such a situation.
They didn't insult any 'troops,' so I fail to see the big issue here.

I love how the second they go against your viewpoint they deserve to die, Wesker.

=\

No shots were fired and the kidnappers weren't there? Sounds to me like the army got a call to pick them up, because the kidnappers didn't want to deal with the situation anymore, and decided to turn the whole thing into a opportunity to show that they're doing SOMETHING out there. They need a couple results to flash.

What'd you think was going to happen? They'd change their views and be pro-war, or occupation as they put it?

Hostilities break out. They went there to garner peace and protest the action. They were held hostage. They were released/rescued.

You think they are going to change their stance based on being rescued? They wouldn't have been there in the first place, and nothing would have happened had the war not been started/continued. That's like the old push someone halfway into trafic, then pull them back, and say you saved their lives.* Most people wouldn't be all too grateful, since in their eyes, you were the one that put them at risk in the first place.

*Well, in this case they really are tempting fate to be pushed into traffic, but still.

At least those peacenik Christians actually take a stand for their pacifist beliefs. I can respect that.

Not like those superficial "anti-war" democrats. Uhh no offense to those democrats I just insulted. Keep fighting the good fight or something.

Did they call their rescuers babykillers? Because otherwise I don't see the point in this thread being open.

Maybe it's to say the dumb asses shouldn't have been there in the first place. I know many that seem to think they deserve no sympathy since they went out of their way looking for such trouble, in a war zone, no less...

That said, I am just glad they are safe. All the above said, you do have to respect that they had the balls to stand up for their beliefs. But really, what did they hope to achieve? They should be blessing their stars that they aren't dead right about now! :ashamed:

I'm not saying they should change their views, but how about a mention of their rescuers. Instead they rail against the evil Americans and British. It wasn't the Americans or British who murdered their companion. The fact that a shot wasn't fired during the rescue is irrelevant. There could just as easily have been a firefight.

Seem to me this incident highlights nicely the warped mindset of many on the left. The U.S. and allies can do no right. Even when they get their sorry asses saved my the military they are incapable of looking beyond their hatred of all that is American and offer even a simple thank you.

More on the story here

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=458062006

Still no thanks to his rescuers though, but "pity" for his murderous captors.

Well, this probably has something to do with that they weren't rescued so much as released (as the rather significant lack of gunfire or kidnappers indicates). I'm sure they thanked the people who picked them up in person, but that doesn't mean they have to publicly praise the military.

Also, religious pacifism in no way indicates that these people are "on the left". And they hate America, too? Seems to me they were working with an American, not to mention the fact that one of them is British, which bunches him nicely with your "U.S. and allies".

They don't say ANYTHING about their troops. They're not attacking the troops that rescued them, so they're not being hypocritical. They're not OBILIGATED to be grateful.

From the article

Acting on this, the SAS was able to launch a snatch raid on Wednesday night to seize two of the kidnappers or their associates. It seems that the prisoners were "persuaded" to give up information on the whereabouts of the hostages. This might have been done with the offer of a financial inducement or the use of some of the more extreme interrogation techniques criticised by human rights groups.

A strike-force was then organised by the SAS. It also involved elite Canadian anti-terrorist units. The actual assault operation turned out to be an anti-climax, with the hostages apparently being left unguarded in the house.

It is not uncommon for Iraqi hostage-takers to do this, drugging or chaining their captives to stop them escaping while they are elsewhere.

TIM RIPLEY

It doesn't sound like they were released now does it.

There has also been an interview with an American soldier involved saying that the first knowledge of the prisoner's whereabouts came but three hours before they were picked up, if you care to look at more than one report of the event.

You need to see the grey tones not only the black and white imo. They went over there as people in a peaceful demonstration against the violence that is going on in the region. Sure you can say they where stupid to go there and yes I do believe must have thanked their rescuers in private. But does all this change the reason they where there in the first place? Does the rescue mean they should now cave in and praise the occupying forces?

I respect their reason for being there, though I must laugh abit at the naivete of theirs on thinking them going there could affect anything.

What's the problem? These people are being completely consistent. That they were rescued shouldn't change their views anyway.

Matter of factly, suddenly turning against their anti-war stance and supporting the occupation would probably be the least 'Christian' thing they could do.

Offtopic but I would just like to say for once I'm in complete agreeance with you NP.

And thats well... Rare haha.

This is not to say that I agree with these people, I just don't see a problem with them maintaining position or why they would change it.

Indeed.

The mere tought of me going into a war-zone to preach peace makes me laugh. Just let them blast themselves to hell and back and see if they like it has always been my philosophy when it comes to war.

They're also there to probably account and report for any abuses that the Coalition troops take part in.

Not saying they should change thier position in any way, but would it kill them to say something like "Even though we continue to oppose this war and the occupying forces, we thank the brave soldiers who rescued our sorry asses from beheading???"

I'd be surprised if they didn't.

Same. I'm assuming that's their primary reason for being in a war zone. I doubt they'd see much benefit preaching against the starting of a war that already started.

Three of the four were rescued... Let's not forget the other one now.

Well it seems like Wesker's rhetoric doesn't stand up in the face of reason.

Thread closed.