Three peace activists have been rescued by U.S. and British military forces.
Though the story makes clear that the hostages were freed without firing a shot, I don't imagine the soldiers went into a potentially hostile environment unprepared or unprotected.
And that brings us to an interesting point.
If it is the position of these peace activists that it is an abomination before the eyes of God to even have a military or that it is wrong to use force to overcome evil in all instances, shouldn't these prisoners have been willing to remain in the custody of their captors, who are themselves merely adherents of the "religion of peace" responding to the aggression of decadent Western powers, until social workers or other do-gooder types arrived on the scene to negotiate their release through rational persuasion alone?
As with others disposed towards such idealistic nonsense, the inability to defend oneself is an ethical demand to be imposed on everyone else rather than upon those in the vanguard of the revolutionary consciousness.
Opposing specific military actions is one thing. Disavowing the right to fight all together something else entirely.
These peace activists, refusing to realize the inherent evil of the terrorist enemy, only have themselves to blame for their frightening ordeal. They should merely thank the Lord that someone would come to their rescue with guns blazing had the need arisen.
by Frederick Meekins