Before his capture, Tom Fox wrote:
"We reject the use of violent force to save our lives, should we be kidnapped, held hostage or caught in the middle of violent conflict situation."
Unlucky for Tom, his captors didn't share his belief in using only non-violent means to an end.
Knowing perfectly well that the Brit soldiers who rescued Tom's fellow captives today in Baghdad were well prepared to use violence in their operation to free the other three captives, Briton Norman Kember, 74 and Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32; will they use their time in front of the microphones to denounce the rescue, stand by their belief in non-violence, and volunteer to go back as captives?
Yeah, right. I'd love to see it, but Lefties are not that principled.
(update - to hell with having them volunteer to go back to their captives, which the cowards would never do anyway. I say we take the shitheads and give them back to their captors.)
I'm confused by the CNN link. It says that the hostages were rescued by a multinational raid. But everyone knows that this war is a unilateral war.
Posted by: John Davies | March 23, 2006 at 04:41 AM
Sorry, forgot the tag.
Posted by: John Davies | March 23, 2006 at 05:24 AM
Looks like typepad removes anything that looks like bad HTML
Shoud read "Sorry, forgot the < / S a r c a s m > tag"
Preview is my friend.
Posted by: John Davies | March 23, 2006 at 05:25 AM
It's only unilateral when a bad thing happens. And it's only a bad thing when it's a unilateral US action.
See how neat and logical that is?
Posted by: Diggs | March 23, 2006 at 07:18 AM
Those guys should quietly go home and live out their lives in silence. They were saved by violent men and their philosophy of non-violence would only ensure their extinction of their culture and way of life.
Non-violence is not a practical philosophy because not everyone believes in it. Some people find that out the hardest way possible.
Posted by: Trevor | March 24, 2006 at 05:40 AM