April 09, 2007
A Few More Thoughts on the British Hostages (By Guest Blogger Tom Elliott)
I see that Karol still thinks criticism of the oddly obsequious manner in which the British hostages interacted with their captors is unfair. "I maintain that we can't know how any of us would react until put in that situation," she writes.
True, certainly. The point, though, doesn't seem relevant. Who cares how "any of us" would act? "Any of us" does not equal volunteer soldiers fighting for England. Presumably this means they have some loyalty to their country and its heritage. That they enlisted not because they couldn’t find other work, but out of a sense of honor. In that capacity, this story shows that either the sailors'/Marines' training for such situations is inadequate, or that these soldiers suffer a serious deficiency in patriotism.
I'm inclined toward the latter, as pride in England seems lost among younger Brits. Such a decline of patriotism is almost entirely attributable to multiculturalism's concurrent rise -- a doctrine that teaches societal moral relativism to a suicidal extent. In just the last few days we’ve learned that British teachers are intentionally leaving many of their Muslim students ignorant of historical reality, i.e., the Holocaust. (All the better to sustain anti-Semitic prejudices.)
And that the BBC recently spiked a 90-minute documentary it had put together on a Victoria’s Cross recipient -- a rarer honor than the Congressional Medal of Honor -- because the story was "too positive" and might "alienate" viewers who are presumably perfectly content with their opposition to their country’s foreign policy.
This all is simply in keeping with the multiculturalism ethos. When those in positions of the greatest influence to a developing mind outside of the family -- educators and the media -- spend their careers encouraging skepticism toward your country, these soldiers' performance is precisely what's to be expected.
But perhaps the greatest reason these kidnapped soldiers ought to be embarrassed is that they don’t seem to realize they’ve been used as pawns in Iran's larger schematics. Today, of course, Ahmadinejad called a presser to inform the world that its continued "grave concern" over Iran's nuclear program has provided enough cover for the system to become operational. Iran would also be reconsidering its role in the Nonproliferation Treaty, he said, though that's been clear enough for some time.
Now, as this "grave concern" deepens, diplomats will point toward Ahmadinejad’s "Easter gift" as evidence that Iran is a country that can "we can do business with." Meanwhile, no one should feign surprise if the meetings are conducted under the ominous shade of a mushroom cloud.
Posted by Tom Elliott at April 9, 2007 01:43 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags:
No matter how patriotic one is, no matter how brave, when faced with nutjobs who will kill you and not think twice about it, most of us would be pretty scared. The soldiers are just human, the fact that they wear a uniform and pledge to defend their country doesn't make them less susceptible to fear.
Posted by: Karol at April 9, 2007 02:08 PMKarol, you don't seem to be quibbling with the notion that the way these sailors/Marines behaved was dishonorable to their country -- only that fear is what brought them there. Fine. But many in uniform would take death before dishonor. These soldiers' threshold for capitulation was, well, a lot less. The least they could do at this point was apologize to their countrymen, and say much as you have -- that they were scared into submission. The problem is that they don't seem to grasp that so quickly abandoning honor deserves an apology.
Posted by: FunkyPundit at April 9, 2007 02:33 PMFor a start Tom, it is Britian that they are fighting for and not England.
"That they enlisted not because they couldn’t find other work, but out of a sense of honor"
Err, you are not too clued up about the modern army pal. Avoiding prison and escaping from deprived areas continues to fuel the lower ranks. Can't quote some political article on that one - just know that from experience.
I am not that impressed by the way that the hostages have behaved - particularly after the event - but I still agree with Karol. She states a human truth rather than a few disperate articles thrown together in evidence against a country you appear to know little about.
Tom, I'm tired of the way the Right is trying to impose its manly-man narrative on what happened.
If the job description of a "guest blogger" includes pissing off the regulars, it looks like I'm off to a good start.
Urbane McMeercat -- I apologize for not writing clear enough, for you seem to have missed my point. I said Brits ought to have more pride in their country, not less. That's not an argument "against" the UK, but one in favor.
Multiculturalism is a societal sickness corrosive to national identity -- a dangerous pathology in times like these.
And you're right, I should stop using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably.
Posted by: FunkyPundit at April 9, 2007 06:31 PMIf the job description of a "guest blogger" includes pissing off the regulars, it looks like I'm off to a good start.
Haha, I love my surly commenters.
Karol, you don't seem to be quibbling with the notion that the way these sailors/Marines behaved was dishonorable to their country -- only that fear is what brought them there.
Their behavior wasn't ideal, no. But the criticism seems very harsh. They're only human.
Posted by: Karol at April 9, 2007 06:42 PM"And you're right, I should stop using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably."
After May 3rd you may not have to bother.
No need to apologise. I just thought that the multiculturism argument (which I don't wholly buy) was irrelevant in this case.
Your politeness in the face of surliness is appreciated.
After May 3rd you may not have to bother [distinguishing between Britain and England].
Is something happening to Scotland? To Wales?
As to the larger question... Oooooooh Tom, you are soooooo tough. The way you handled those Iranian captors in your mind makes me all swoony.
Posted by: Charles at April 10, 2007 08:46 AMhttp://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=507282007
Posted by: Urbane McMeercat at April 10, 2007 04:56 PM
