Printable View
I'm sorry if I offend someone but this idiot should never have been in an active war zone in the first place. What makes this even worse though is that he hasn't even had the deceny to thank the service men and women who rescued him and not even admit that he needed their help. They should have left the guy to rot :mad:
:rant over: :D
I see how you meen, but the fact is he was there for the right reasons (stupid i agree) I dont have major sympathy for people like this who get kidnapped simply because it was a choice to be there...
I see your point, but we should never let anyone rot ;)
[conspiracy theorist] So he and his friends, who all want to get the troops out of Iraq and release the prisoners, get kidnapped by a random gang of whom nobody has ever heard and, I seem to recall, whose name was not spelled correctly, the group make a couple of videos asking for prisoners to be released and the troops to leave but then nobody hears from them for ages, and then a few months later the victims get found but there's not a kidnapper to be seen, and they don't even bother to thank their rescuers but ask for the troops to be withdrawn? Hmmmmmm [/conspiracy theorist]
. . .which means you're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
. . . only three words later and the libellous comments are aboundQuote:
but this idiot
But that is what he wanted to do wasn't it?Quote:
should never have been in an active war zone in the first place.
You do not know thatQuote:
What makes this even worse though is that he hasn't even had the deceny to thank the service men and women who rescued him
. . . and you certainly can't have known that.Quote:
and not even admit that he needed their help.
Irrational, so I'll conveniently ignore that bit.Quote:
They should have left the guy to rot :mad:
I guess Martin Luther King should have kept his mouth shut - just in case he got assassinated?
In case you've missed the (ironic) point, some people stand up for what they believe in peaceful means. In this day and age isn't that something to be triumphed? Isn't that something to be congratulated?
That fact that a gross army turned up to save him is neither here nor there; I'm sure he was happy they turned up but at the end of the day he knew the risks, and he must have accepted them otherwise he wouldn't have been there.
I can't wait until the quotes of how much it cost, who many lives could've been saved if this mission hadn't occured . . . .
He was lucky to be rescued, since, whether right or wrong, it WAS completely his own fault.
I cant see the relationship?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Peace workers are wasting their time in Iraq, the locals don't give a rats ass anyway let them all get on with it I say.
Anyone from a civilised (I say this not without a sense of irony) society like the Western world would have to be seriously masochistic to want to go to a place like Iraq on a voluntary basis, you are just asking to get kidnapped / tortured / beheaded, its the national sport over there.
But then again, I'm a completely insensitive arrogant ******* who doesn't believe in divine retribution, thats how I sleep at night. :D
The reason he hasn't said thanks is he specifically asked not to be rescued in a waiver before he left. With that in mind, maybe we should have left him but it then becomes a question of our morality rather than just his which is a far more complex issue. I don't think you can criticise him for not thanking the troops for doing something he'd specifically asked them not to do though. I'm just curious how long it'll take for some enterprising lawyer to point out he's been denied his right to martyrdom and persuade him to sue :rolleyes:
I think the parallel to King is quite obvious, both were willing to put themselves in life threatening situations to promote a cause they believed to be right. And some of the situations King cheerfully walked into were every bit as dangerous.
There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. But people have to accept the consequences of their actions, or even their inactions. I hardly think many people were patting Neville Chamberlain on the back after WWII or congratulating him on his peace efforts with the Nazi’s. Standing up and saying you are for peace is easy (who can argue with peace?); it’s standing up and confronting evil that’s hard and thus should be congratulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
X
I say, that since beheading is the national sport, that leads to only one rational conlusion. The turkey should be the iraqi national bird. Many a nobel gobbler have suffered that fate. What better way to remind a nation of their favorite passtime than to have mankinds best feathered friend as a standing symbol of the headless..Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
I like to think that the gunman was actually aiming at Jessee Jackson and was just a bad shot. I also feel this way about the fate of John Lennon / Yoko Ono.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I have to agree. It's a damn good thing that someone didn't get killed rescuing his stupid ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Peace is definable in an objective manner; evil is not. Mixed metaphors, and the normal irrational sentiment (normally something to do with the 2nd World War) may sell tabloid papers but it doesn't cut any ice with anyone here who has a last three neurons connected . .;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
or to put it another way Godwins Law 1Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
BTW he did thank his rescuers. All this storm was started by a general claiming he didn't. why? well my cynical mind would suggest to make him a pariah and do damage to any aid work or human right activities going on in Iraq.
When Marines enter peoples houses and shoot women in the head as they lie sick in bed, and then claim they died in a bomb attack, you don't want people of consience about the place.
He has only recently thanked them after "reflecting" and probably reading the posts on the BBC News website.
and in so doing put allied soldiers' lives at risk, whose families I'm sure don't mind this fool being there in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The fact of the matter is he should never have gone to Iraq, no matter how noble his cause. He has only now admitted he was wrong and thanked the soldiers who saved his life (at risk of their own), the very soldiers he was protesting against. Perhaps now they will admit that to make a difference it is not about being in the country itself and protesting (especially when the Iraqis don't want them there) but rather protesting outside Westminster or 10 Downing Street and bringing it to the front page.
I have to commend the politicians on this one though (as much as I hate to). In one swipe they have undermined the protestors in Iraq leaving them without a voice.
All this about putting soldiers lives at risk. when it comes to putting lives at risk Kember would be at the bottom of the list of which certain politicians would be at the top.
On a more light hearted note. They broke into an empty house, criminals do that kind of thing every night without any kind of military training or concern for the risk to their lives.
You learn something new everyday: Godwin's Law :thumb: :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadEyes
I think that the problem is that people like you are not able to discern evil in our time so you seek to placate and appease. As I said this is understandable as most rational people always seek peace. But what (people like) you fail to understand is that sometimes peace can only be brought about through the barrel of a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
It also appears that you feel the lessons of History are merely tabloid journalism for those less mentally astute individuals who frequent tractor pulls. While you might be able to write off the most influential event in the 20th Century you might find people with a lot more active neurons than you disagree with you :)
X
Indeed. We can sit at our respective PCs and debate the value of peaceful protest but as mentioned previously sometimes it has to be done with war. If Britain had not stood up and defended themselves against the Nazi's in 1939-1940 Europe would now be a fascist state, perhaps even more due to his bloodlust.
This idiot should not have been there. By being held hostage and rescued by the very soldiers he has protested against he has effectively destroyed the chances his organisation has of mounting large-scale support. If they had however protested with a bit more intelligence by going on the News, morning talk shows, just generally making waves they would have stirred up unrest.
Nice one Norman ;)
That post falls under the Wilcox-McCandlish law :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
If you'd care to define 'evil' in an objective and rational way, then I'll be in a position to either agree or disagree with you. As it stands I couldn't possibly comment because what you say is opinion and you are, of course, entitled to at least that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
You started it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
X
It doesnt matter as you have already stated that you believe "Peace is definable in an objective manner; evil is not." And you of course are also entitled to your opinion :)Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
X
I think the odds of Russia running over the rest of europe were a bit higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
you cant compare the war in Iraq with WWII
in WWII the Nazis attaked the Allies
in the Iraq war we attaked Iraq, there was no military threat
I am willing to change my opinion in the face of a rational argument . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
:p
Then it looks as if we are both waiting for the same thing :)Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
X
Zing, and zing!
agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
If there was a nail you just hit it ;)
So? We still had to stand up against another tyrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I have to agree with wossname, and Pino, here. Peace workers are wasting their time and if anything making the local police's jobs even harder!
They are doing no good over there, what they are infact doing is making the problem worse....Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Think about it, if there was no western civilian targets over there then there would be less kidnappings (a soldier would have less chance of being kidnapped) less kidnappings means less publicity for the terorists and hence a decline in what they do,
how many times do we hear about the good things going on in iraq? well we dont do we and that doesnt meen that good things dont go on because they do and I feel everyone knows that it does (as well as the bad remmber this is a war zone!)
What I am trying to say is that all these people want is to get attention... and by stupid people like this goin over there we are fueling this media frenzy.
All these 'people' (use the term loosley) who make these kidnappings are after attention thats all.
I agree :thumb:
Yep. Possibly the most tragic mistake of history :rolleyes:Quote:
I also feel this way about the fate of John Lennon / Yoko Ono.
I love statements like this. Jingoistic and oxymoronic all rolled into one. There is ALWAYS an alternative to war. Admittedly it might be accepting occupation and possibly genocide but there is always an alternative. With that in mind the question we should ask before going to war is : Does the 'evil' we will avoid and the 'good' we will achieve through going to war outweigh the inevitable 'evil' that we will instigate? (forgive my use of good and evil which are indeed subjective but I'm sure we can all agree that killing peole is evil and liberating them is good).Quote:
sometimes peace can only be brought about through the barrel of a gun.
In the case of WW2 you're talking about preventing an attempt to subjugate an entire continent to a tyrant. In Iraq you're talking about liberating a single country from a tyrant. As a sheer matter of scale the two don't stack up. Whether the Iraq conflict was justified in and of itself is a grey area and really comes down to how much you value concepts such as liberty and self determination vs concepts such as freedom and human life.
Forgive my demonstration of Wilcox-McCandlish ;)
So genocide is a good alternative to war?Quote:
There is ALWAYS an alternative to war. Admittedly it might be accepting occupation and possibly genocide but there is always an alternative.
I dont think so.... plus lets be honest its basic human instincts to go fight people. When I hear comments like above I tend to think that the people saying them are confused, war is the only answer somtimes and it allways will be.
Lets not get off topic though, fact is this dude was stupid enough to go to an active war zone, to me thats like shooting yourself in the head :)
I don't see why the feeling towards this man is (apparently) so extreme. He thanked all involved, and it was, evidently, the terseness of his thanks that prompted the rather ill-informed general(?) that this guy was unrelentingly unthankful. Which, of course, promoted the feedy frenzy of the red-tops.
What are we trying to achieve in Iraq? I presume that the final objective is to create a society in which people can live in peace with freedoms much like our societies in the West.
Part of our society is the understanding that people can do as they wish as long as it's within the constraints of the law. This means we have to put up with the 'do-gooders' the religious lobby, the oil lobbies (the list is endless) and finally peace activists.
Are you seriously trying to say that what this man did is wrong because it endangered the 'security' forces lives? What do you think that you're doing when you exceed the speed-limit in a car (something which I do on a daily basis)? You are endangering the general public, the emergency services that will assist you should you crash. You are impacting the lives of doctors, nurses, and other patients who probably need that hospital bed more urgently than you.
Under your reasoning, do you therefore stop speeding? Or even driving?
What about the medicin sans frontier (sp?) Who are there to pick up, help, and assist in medical need? These are civilians promoting excellent medical care regardless of who and where you are. (I'm not sure whether they are operating in Iraq, but they certainly operate in some of the most dangerous parts of the world)If one of these good fellows gets kidnapped is it still the case that they are endangering the lives of our armed forces? I suspect you'd be much more accomodating because medical care is something that can be measured, and assessed. You'd probably go on to say how 'brave' how 'committed' and how 'generous' these people are.
Why do you wish to differentiate between acts for the body, and acts for the mind? (One presumes Kembler was there to promote a vision of peace)
It appears to me that you are confusing the mens rea with the actus reus and lumping them (conveniently) together to create a moral issue when none, actually, appear to exist.
:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
No! Because if the result of going to war is genocide then the war will be justified on a good vs evil balance as I described. I deliberately used genocide as an example because this would be a case where you would be justified in going to war.Quote:
So genocide is a good alternative to war?
I couldn't disagree more. It's usually a response to feeling threatened.Quote:
plus lets be honest its basic human instincts to go fight people
I even daresay that your servicemen's lifes are in danger anyway simply by being part of an ill-conceived war and uneasy occupation regardless of the presence of Norman Kember or any other activist.
That's why they are soldiers and why they are there instead of you.
"Hey, they're returning fire. They're not supposed to do that! Sarge, tell them to stop. It's not fair!"
The man apologised. Half-heartedly, a little late and under pressure perhaps but nevertheless apologised. He was there by own choice, he knew the risks etc...
Why exactly was he endangering lives besides his own?
I'd like to introduce the all new Funky's Law:-Quote:
or to put it another way Godwins Law 1
All online discussions regardless of their initial topic will at some point tend toward a mention of George Bush. At such a juncture, all participating Americans will simultaneously lose their marbles, declare Bush as the new Messiah and declare in the face of all contrary evidence that he can do no wrong. Simultaneously all participating Europeans will lose their marbles, declare Bush to be the new Satan and declare in the face of all contrary evidence that he can do no right. Godwins law will subsequently be invoked within a maximimum delay of 16.2 posts though there is no predictable pattern as to whether this will be by an American or a European.
At some point the following interchange will also take place, albeit with some slightly different phrasing:-
I meant the West...
No, you meant the Americans...
No, I meant the West...
repeat ad nauseum.
I wanna be net famous too ;)