Sunday, December 04, 2005

The Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

It isn't that often you come across a journalist who can get to the heart of the matter in very few words. No equivocating, no politically correct b.s. and no mincing words. And while there will undoubtedly be a good deal of ink devoted to the kidnapping of the anti-war activists in Iraq, because their lives are in danger, not too many in the mainstream media are going to be willing to tackle the issue of what these activists really stand for. It's probably a bit like speaking ill of the dead, but some of these people are fellow travellers of those terrorist enablers who've served as human shields for the likes of Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat. And they're also the same people who made every effort to mislead the world into thinking it was the sanctions that had been the cause of all the misery and death in Iraq. Yet, even now, I doubt a single one of them has had the decency to admit they were mistaken even after it became evident that Saddam had used the oil for food program as his personal piggy bank, or that he swelled the ranks of his very public baby funerals by coercing parents, who may have lost infants for any reason, to preserve the bodies in their freezers to later be trotted out en masse to show how the sanctions were killing thousands of Iraqi babies on a regular basis. Not only that, but one of these so-called peace activists has already spent time in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and you can put money on the fact that he wasn't there volunteering to help build the security fence.

So, here's New York Post columnist Arnold Ahlert's take on them...and, as usual, he's right on target.

"Anti-War Sheep"

Arnold Ahlert
New York Post
December 1, 2005

The Christian Peace-Maker Team's website says its "violence reduction" project in Iraq "accompanied the Iraqi people through the U.S.-led 2003 war and continued during the post-war occupation to expose abusive acts by U.S. Armed Forces and support Iraqis committed to nonviolent resistance." Four members of the group are now being held hostage in Baghdad -- and the group blames President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair.

OK, anyone held hostage by terrorist thugs deserves sympathy -- even those willfully blind to ongoing terrorist atrocities.

But it's hard to ignore the gross miscalculation that grips such nonviolent, anti-war delusionists -- who believe that the beheaders, bombers and baby-killers can be "assuaged" into giving up their violence.

This is hubris disguised as humanitarianism -- for, without the freedom provided to much of the world by American blood and treasure, their "mission of peace" becomes Mission Impossible.

Frankly, it's difficult to imagine how, after 9/11, anyone can still be delusional about these issues. Perhaps I'd even have a modicum of respect for their activism if they had spoken out nearly as vociferously when Saddam was shoving human beings into giant shredders...or gassing the Kurds...or murdering his political opponents. But, characteristically, their silence was deafening.

11 Comments:

At 2:33 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Yeah, Rory, isn't it amazing what they choose to be upset by? Gee, no agenda there, eh?

 
At 2:36 PM, Anonymous seawitch said...

At first I read the source as the New York Times, then after reading the column, did a double check, it's the Post. Some things do need to be said and Ahlert said them very well. I just hope the hostages come out of this okay.

 
At 5:53 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Some of these humanitarians amount to subversives, with a particular agenda, of course. "Delusionists" may be too kind a term.

Of course, I hope the hostages are released unharmed. Nobody should have to be subjected to such treatment.

 
At 9:17 PM, Blogger Batya said...

Important post.

 
At 9:54 PM, Blogger Rory said...

Esther,
That's the problem exactly. None of these "acitivists" were screaming bloody murder when Saddam was turning Iraq into a killing field. For some reason (and we know what it is) their humanitarianism only seems to get riled up when they think they can lay the blame on the U.S. and Israel.

Seawitch,
I know I would have done a double-take if I thought I saw "New York Times." But I doubt we'll see anything like that on their pages before hell freezes over.

AOW
Of course. I'm sure we all hope they're released unharmed, but sometimes it's hard not to be struck by the irony of these kidnappings when, in the past, the victims have been sympathetic to their captors.

Batya,
Thank you. I do think it's important that people understand what sometimes lurks behind terms like "peace activist." Having once been on that end of the political spectrum myself, and it's still where I am on certain issues, so I'm far from being a born-again Conservative, I know just how much knee-jerk anti-Americanism is involved.

 
At 9:23 PM, Anonymous Felis said...

"Delusionists" may be too kind a term.

"Criminaly Insane" perhaps?

 
At 10:10 PM, Blogger Rory said...

Felis,
I agree. The term "delusionist" presupposes a naivete that nobody in their right mind could still be hanging on to.

 
At 10:15 PM, Anonymous Bozwell said...

Wolves in sheeps clothing is an excellent analogy for these creeps Rory.

As for Ahlert's comments, I have found another hero!

 
At 11:29 PM, Blogger Rory said...

Bozwell,
Perhaps Arnold Ahlert has taken a page from Andrew Bolt...or vice-versa.

 
At 11:32 PM, Blogger patrickafir said...

Yeah, it's pretty sad and disgusting. I fervently hope they come home safely (and I really suspect that they will), but it makes me angry that they were there in the first place. And then their organization came right out to blame Bush and Blair.

The bottom line is that those who genuinely care about freedom and its power to assuage human suffering have absolutely no business consorting with the enemies of freedom.

 
At 1:31 AM, Blogger Rory said...

I don't know, Patrick, somehow they manage to reconcile the irreconcilable. There's just no way that any thinking person can defend or enable regimes like the one they had in Iraq. I guess it might be possible for people with reasonable intentions (maybe not either of us) to debate the merits of a Salvador Allende or even Daniel Ortega, but Saddam Hussein? There are some people who are just absolutely beyond the pale.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home