November 30, 2005

The Lesson Of Susan Hallums: Or, Why I Refuse To Condemn These Hostages

Susan Hallums, ex-wife of former hostage in Iraq Roy Hallums, left this comment on my post here:

I was deeply saddened to hear that more hostages were taken. These men were good Christian men trying to help promote peace in Iraq. I will pray for their safe release and for their families. There is such devastation to the families , I know this horror... I pray for them , I wish I could help in some way.

I replied to Ms. Hallums via email, here is what I wrote:

Please do not take any criticism I have for the CPT organization as a whole to mean that I have no empathy for the plight of these people.

I do not believe for one minute, no matter what brought them to Iraq, that anyone should be subjected to what Mr. Hallums went through.

I've watched what happened to Nick Berg and the others, I know full well what these people are capable of, and I wish that on no human being.

I still pray for Mr. Hallums', and your, good health, although I know you may never fully recover from his ordeal.

Ms. Hallums was kind enough to reply, however, since I don't have permission, and it's irrelevant to this post anyway, I won't publish it.

Look, kids, I spent a healthy chunk of my dwindling free time yesterday perusing the CPT website, and I wholeheartedly disagreed with just about, well, no, absolutely everything they do. From the Adopt a Detainee campaign to opposing any kind of enforcement of our national sovereignty on the border.

But I still won't wash my hands of these hostages. Here's another nugget I found this evening:

The organization is supported by several Protestant denominations, including the Mennonite Church, that believe Christianity forbids all war-making and violence. It has sent activists into war zones, including Bosnia and Haiti, since the late 1980s. It has about 160 members around the world and about a dozen in Iraq.

Folks, based upon their website, I was under the impression that this group was far larger than it really is. Had I known this, I wouldn't have spent so much time on that website. The influence they wield is precisely nil. Jane Novak, one woman with a blog, has had more global impact in a year than these people have in 20.

So what is the lesson here? First off, as Rusty said in his reply to Ms. Hallums' comment, and I paraphrase, "I believe they're misguided, but they're victims nonetheless." Second, I draw from my own experience. I've written posts about local stories on my home blog about murdered children, and twice the mothers of those children, like Susan Hallums, commented on my post. And like Susan Hallums, I've had a nice exchange of email.

These hostages, whose politics and ideology I may wholeheartedly disagree with, are still human beings. They have, from what I know right now, committed no evil acts that have placed them in the situation they're in. Granted, running around in Iraq as a member of the Christian Peacemakers may not be the smartest thing to do in this day and age, but it's surely not evil.

There's that, and there's what I've been alluding to this whole time. These people have families and friends. They more than likely have family and friends who, like me, totally disagree with the mission they undertook, or the views they hold. But, be that as it may, the loved ones of these people probably don't care one whit about those political views right now. They surely don't believe that these people deserve to be in the place they are.

And neither do I. Granted, this all may turn out to be one big stunt, but at this point, I could care less. If it is, all I'm out is the fact that maybe I cared a little too much. I can live with that.

What I couldn't live with is if I were making statements like the ones I've read, on this blog and others. Glib, making flip comments, only to see these people get the Nick Berg treatment. If it were my brother (quite a moonbat in his own right, I must say) over there, and I stumbled upon some of what I've read both here and elsewhere, I would be disgusted.

If you still can't find empathy for these four based on their ideology, that's fine, I can't control what you think or feel. But at least pause for a moment and consider their families.

F.E.T.E

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:51 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Agent Brown, Agent Smith and Agent Jones unanimously agree that Vinnie deserves our respect for his brave humanitarian stand in the name of saving the kidnaped hostages.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 01, 2005 06:38 AM (Ww5es)

2 Just like the pretentious asshole website this is to assert "one woman with a blog has had more global impact than CPT in 20 years". Oh really? People in the countries that CPT has people working in, don't spend their days perusing the internet reading blogs as they try to survive war! ya Dumbass!

Posted by: Jawa Sucks at December 01, 2005 07:53 AM (/3n/k)

3 Way to go Vinnie. I doubt this is a 'stunt', and I would actually disagree that pacificism and pacifist organizations aren't evil (they are IMO), but they are still victims. Unlike their organization, we will lay the blame where the blame belongs: at the feet of the terrorists. I guess Jawa sucks knows nothing about the Yemen and their Jihad against our blog sister Jane?

Posted by: Rusty at December 01, 2005 08:21 AM (JQjhA)

4 Here Here Vinnie.

Posted by: Howie at December 01, 2005 09:24 AM (gwnmZ)

5 Brave words on this blog Vinnie ! Fighting words on this blog !!! Rusty ...Pacificts and their organizations are evil ? As in evil Quakers and evil Amish ? That seems to me to be a bit harsh. Will a fatwa be issued against these groups ?

Posted by: john ryan at December 01, 2005 09:42 AM (ads7K)

6 I put in the part about evil because many people seem to think that these 4 deserve what they're going through. No. Someone like Zarqawi would deserve it. I've seen no evidence that these 4 individual's behavior would warrant any treatment like this. I would change my tune if say, they were found to be supplying terrorists with arms, or something like that. But it seems the most they've amounted to is being a nuisance. And who cares what the troll thinks, anyway. It would be pointless to even try and explain it to him/her/it.

Posted by: Vinnie at December 01, 2005 10:33 AM (Kr6/f)

7 I'm sure the terrorists felt justified in taking me hostage. We should try to understand their point of view. It was probably something I did. I'm currently deep in introspection about what I can do to make them like me more. If they saw my head off I must have done something to deserve it.

Posted by: Hostage at December 01, 2005 11:11 AM (M3nr/)

8 "The organization is supported by several Protestant denominations ...that believe Christianity forbids all war-making and violence" If it were not for the "warmonger" Charles Martel stopping the Islamic hordes at Battle of Tours in 732, these pussies would not even _be_ Christian. Oh, the irony!

Posted by: Scott Free at December 01, 2005 12:11 PM (64hjG)

9 Pacifist is just another word for chickenshit. Our ancestors weren't pacifists, they were men, and they went out and killed anyone who was threatening the safety of their families while the useless "pacifists", aka "cowards", sat at home and talked about girl stuff.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 01, 2005 02:21 PM (0yYS2)

10 IM you have a real point here. Pacifists often freeload off the gains made to our society by those who shed blood to achieve such gains. Free speech and thought had to be fought for. Humans are naturally oppressive and evil can rise up easier than peace and harmony, so we must fight to maintain a civilized world where the vulnerable are protected.

Posted by: Jester at December 01, 2005 02:52 PM (wBDaS)

11 Thank you, Vinnie, for a voice of reasoned and respectful disagreement in otherwise troubled times. Jester, it may interest you that CPT also works to protect the weak and vulnerable, albeit in a different means than you suggest. Note, as well, that they generally do so in times and places where violence is being used predominantly to protect the strong and powerful. Here are some recent news discussions that may help clarify that point: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1133304615981&call_pageid=968332188492 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1363536 Improbulus, there are two types of pacifists: 'passive pacifists' are those who hide from the world's problems; chickenshits, as you call them and it's not a bad description. The other type of pacifist, however, is the 'active pacifist' who directly confronts the world's problems. They literally stare down gun barrels, challenge suicide bombers, and stand in front of columns of tanks. This is the type of pacifism that these four hostages subscribe to and they risk their lives with all the balls and bravery of a well-armed Marines (arguably even more). For those of you who insist on deriding and mocking these hostages in their darkest hours, it's time to 'fess up - have you ever stared down the barrel of a gun without shitting yourselves? If so, my hats off to you and we can at least continue this debate without resorting to misapplied mockery.

Posted by: Rob at December 01, 2005 04:01 PM (vPEvo)

12 I could think of nothing worse than being captured by the likes of Zaqueery...To be killed by a bunch of cowardly goatf**kers is a terrible thing.

Posted by: Jester at December 01, 2005 04:46 PM (wBDaS)

13 Rob, anyone who walks into the lion's den as these fools have shouldn't be saved from themselves. "Active pacifists" are about as useful to society as tits on a bull, and have never achieved anything worthwhile. Ghandi is a good example; he helped end British rule in India, and thousands have died since, because of the contstant squabbling between ethnic groups and religions in the region, and India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers in a continuous state of warfare. Yay Ghandi. As far as looking down the barrel of a gun, I've taken fire and returned it, and I'm still here. What have you done? Don't be so quick to pull that argument here, because unless you've ever "ran to the sound of the guns", you have no credibility wherewith to ask such from anyone else.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 01, 2005 04:48 PM (0yYS2)

14 Actually, I have stared down the barrel of a gun, and I didn't like it at all. That's why I went and got a concealed carry license, and now I take my gun with me wherever I go. Just in case someone wants to try to kill me again.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 04:51 PM (rUyw4)

15 Improbulus and Joe, Thanks for clarifying. While we still have plenty of disagreements to sort out, at least we can move beyond calling each other chickenshits. You see pacifism as futile and counter-productive. I see violence as futile and counter-productive. We can argue about that until the cows come home and I doubt either of us will budge an inch. Fair enough. For the time being, then, let's at least focus on debating competing philosophies rather than slandering and mocking four individuals who, rightly or wrongly, now find themselves in a very precarious situation. Friends and families of those four men come to the Jawa Report for breaking news about their loved ones, the motivations of which perhaps even they don't fully understand. The last thing these people need right now is vitriol and hate. Thanks you.

Posted by: Rob at December 01, 2005 06:04 PM (vPEvo)

16 Oh I'm not calling you a chickenshit, I'm just saying that pacifists are chickenshits. Any man who won't commit righteous violence in order to protect the innocent from harm doesn't deserve to take up space on the planet.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 01, 2005 11:21 PM (0yYS2)

17 Improb, Psst... Don't tell anyone but, uh, I'm a pacifist born, raised, and committed. ;o) I thought you might want to know. In the meantime, anyone not willing to commit to a sane, calm, and reasoned debate about the real issues doesn't deserve to take up space in this blog thread. I have no problem with you and I agreeing to disagree but I do ask that you treat me (and, more importantly, the four hostages currently in grave peril in Iraq) with at least a certain modicum of human decency and respect.

Posted by: Rob at December 02, 2005 12:43 AM (Wl7Nx)

18 Agent Smith says that squirrels are more dangerous than dogs in Russia.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 02, 2005 08:15 AM (fLJDr)

19 Rob, are you saying that if faced with the choice of watching someone murder your family, or doing violence to stop it, you would stand by and let your family be murdered rather than commit an act of violence?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 03, 2005 10:30 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
32kb generated in CPU 0.023, elapsed 0.1396 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1318 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.