I have read with growing disbelief (but sad resignation) about the 74 year old British hostage who was rescued from his captors in Iraq. His initial refusal to publicly thank the men who literally risked their lives to get him out (after months of planning) stinks of the kind of left wing, namby pamby, bleeding-heart liberalism that I really detest.
Four days on, he has now given his “thanks” to those brave individuals, along with this cringe inducing explanation:
"I do not believe that a lasting peace is achieved by armed force, but I pay tribute to their courage and thank those who played a part in my rescue,"
My question is why these people bothered to rescue this imbecile of a man in the first place.
I fully understand his desire to help those who were less fortunate than himself and this is indeed a noble act. However, let’s think about this: He is seventy-four years old; I don’t know how good his Arabic is and in truth, his mission (if we interpret his recent comments correctly) seems to have been as much about proving a point (i.e. the British and Americans shouldn’t be in Iraq) as helping the natives.
He got captured, worried the life out of his family and friends and when he was finally rescued, used the media as a tool to attack the Establishment. I honestly think the soldiers should have left this ungrateful potz to his fate.
If the soldiers involved feel aggrieved, they have every right to – this man’s behaviour is frankly inexcusable.