Morlocks “free” Eloi

As reported today in the Washington Post:

Iran today said it is freeing the 15 British sailors and marines it seized two weeks ago in disputed waters of the Persian Gulf, ending a diplomatic crisis with a bit of political theater that included a chatty, smiling round of goodbyes between Iranian President Mahmound Ahmadinejad and the departing Britons.

Howard Sutherland comments:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has played the British government and the rest of the West for fools, and it looks like he is going to get away with it. He extracted as much humiliation, self-abasement and propaganda as possible from his woefully unprepared captives and now will get to look magnanimous by “pardoning” them and sending them home.

When people ask what the Iranians thought they would gain by playing patently false “confessions” on television, they forget who the target audience is. This spectacle of humiliating infidels was for Moslem consumption, and any fear it might strike into the hearts of other infidels was an added bonus. Ahmadinejad appears to have timed it well; with his prisoners out of Iran and Westerners no longer understanding the principle of retaliation to send a message (as President Reagan did with Operations El Dorado Canyon and Praying Mantis), any U.S./British strikes against Iranian targets would be roundly condemned by the “international community” as mindless violence.

Actually, I think I can already hear the praises gelding Western “leaders” will soon be offering Ahmadinejad for his moderation, restraint and compassion. Dhimmified Eurocrats will lead the chorus.

Bad news all around, except for the physical safety of the captives. As for them, if any shred of pride in service remains, do the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines really want them back?

Mr. Sutherland follows up:

Take a look at not-so-Fab Fifteen in the photo. Some (including the sailorette) are totally caught up in the euphoria of the moment, smiling and waving to the cameras, giving Ahmadinejad the photo op he wants. Others look very uncomfortable indeed, so some sense of professional pride (or shame) remains.

I am no fan of Ahmadinejad, but I have to admit he has a point about us when he singled out the female British captive, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, and said: “You will know that among the detainees there is one lady who is a mother of a child. Why is it that the most difficult work like patrolling at sea should be given to a woman? Why is there no respect for motherhood? Why does the West not value its women?” Of course, one shouldn’t overlook the rank hypocrisy of his second question!

A correspondent writes:

Some of them look like the British Olympic delegation entering a stadium.

Nice of Tony to share that he bears the Iranians no ill will.

Ben W. writes:

Free at last,
Free at last,
Thank Allah Almighty,
They are free at last.

“One of the detainees was heard to comment in English, ‘We are grateful for your forgiveness.’”

Edward D. writes:

Shameful actions, indeed, by the British captives. What happened to just giving name, rank, and serial number? I know just recently the topic was mentioned about black veterans getting more praise for mediocrity that whites do not receive. Here is the flip side of that: have ever read the story of Col. Fred Cherry, a black Air Force pilot shot down in Vietnam and held as a POW for over seven years? He was routinely starved and tortured, but would refuse to give the North Vietnamese any anti-American or anti-white statements for propaganda use. What a far cry he was from this current crop.

LA replies:

Why this decline? To say that there was a sense of honor then, which no longer exists, begs the question. Why is the sense of honor gone? Because honor comes from membership in and adherence to something larger than yourself, in this case the armed forces, and ultimately, the nation. If the nation no longer exists or is no longer seen as morally legitimate and worthy of love, there is nothing to be loyal to and thus no basis for honor. There can be no honor in a world of consistent liberalism.

Blair said once that his aim was to “sweep away all those forces of conservatism.” He has succeeded.

Ralph Peters wrote this week in the New York Post:

… members of Britain’s Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors.

… I can’t imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would’ve resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman….

What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They’re members of what passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government’s program to gut the U.K. military—grounding planes, taking ships out of service and deactivating army units—also ripped the courage from the breasts of those in uniform?

The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading for tea and sympathy … Ma, say it ain’t so!…

The once-proud Brit military has collapsed to a sorry state when its Royal Marines surrender without a fight, then apologize

Carl Simpson writes:

Ralph Peters just can’t help himself….

To quote: “Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would’ve resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman…. “

Yeah right. Peters’s boast about U.S. military females resisting jihadi torture or the threat thereof is pure hot air. There’s never the slightest hint of a question from him about the sheer folly of the underlying liberal assumption (women in combat) which has been implemented by the U.S. autorities over the last several decades, including the current “conservative” in the White House.

LA replies:

Absolutely right. I quoted Peters to get his main point about the Brits, but Mr. Simpson points out the underlying absurdity of his position. Putting down the British, Peters boasts in macho fashion of an American military that is tough as nails, even as he automatically subscribes to the feminist premises that would inevitably render that military or any military soft as butter.

Ben W. writes:

When I was growing up and going to school, it was in vogue for the liberal to assert arrogantly that he bowed the knee to no god. That he had done nothing to be forgiven for, and there was no reason to ask an unreasonable god for mercy.

And now we have the whole liberal world begging on both knees for forgiveness for past civilizational and cultural “sins”—sins against the races, against the environment, against the sexes. Praising Iranian Muslims for extending mercy and forgiveness to them.

My, how the liberal has come full circle. He won’t bend his knees to God, but he will bend his knees to everybody else. He displays such metaphysical “defiance” (waving the fist at God), yet is ultimately reduced to such pitiful human cowardice.

God must indeed be laughing at the liberal’s “bravery.” Having declared that God has nothing to forgive, the liberal now seeks forgiveness and apology at every instance, in every quarter … from those who push him around.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 04, 2007 11:22 AM | Send