O yer back then Norman!

[PragmaticJen]

I am glad he is safe and sound but you know, these so called peace activists are bloody foolish! Apparently, Norman Kember was incensed at the use of military force to free him from his captors,, however, what if these special forces had met more opposition, it could have been a disaster. The naivety of this man put the rescuers lives at risk. He says it is great to be free again, yet cannot bring himself to thank the people that risked their lives to free him! :twisted:

bloody hypocrite I say!!

 

[RAMIUS]

Think it simply disgusting that the man and his organisation can't thank the soldiers who saved them.
What went through his mind when the door opened and a bloke walks in with a gun and then says "it's Ok we are British soldiers". ?

Wonder why he didn't say "No thank you I will stay here"

 

[higthepig]

could not agree more with the above he will now come home a hero.

 

[andym]

Should have left the old git there!

 

[Floppyjocky]

Just heard on the news that he is thinking of going back!

 

[finknottle]

Some of these god squad get right up my snoring horn.

 

[sidon55]

Just heard on the news that he is thinking of going back!

Best place for him

The squadies should negoiate with kidnappers to take him back. Slab of beer should do it

 

[seajay]

Obviously the guy is a bloody idiot but I think it's unfair to call him hypocritical. Sounds to me like he's stuck by his non-violence principles pretty consistently despite the hard time he must have had. That's quite impressive. Even if you don't agree with him.

 

[Maxi_77]

Obviously the guy is a bloody idiot but I think it's unfair to call him hypocritical. Sounds to me like he's stuck by his non-violence principles pretty consistently despite the hard time he must have had. That's quite impressive. Even if you don't agree with him.

I tend to agree, I don't think he is right in what he is doing, but on the other hand he is committed and is prepared to stand up for what he believes in and that does demand some respect. Unlike some I can think of he is not all mouth and no guts.

Peter

 

[QARNN01]

Obviously the guy is a bloody idiot but I think it's unfair to call him hypocritical. Sounds to me like he's stuck by his non-violence principles pretty consistently despite the hard time he must have had. That's quite impressive. Even if you don't agree with him.

I tend to agree, I don't think he is right in what he is doing, but on the other hand he is committed and is prepared to stand up for what he believes in and that does demand some respect. Unlike some I can think of he is not all mouth and no guts.

Peter

Again, I agree with the last.... however think it would be better if he laid low and did some home charity for a while - otherwise I don't see our lot going in again to save him.... but of course we have to or we look like we're abandoning our own. Typical. You can't win! Supposing there had been a gun battle and he'd been injured - don't suppose he'd have argued if he'd been sent to a field hospital and military nurses had looked after him?!

 

[PragmaticJen]

While I agree hypocrite was probably harsh... let me put it another way! Someone who is against the armed forces being in Iraq is "rescued" at huge danger to the lives of the people he is against being there and at who knows what kind of cost to the various governments involved. So far all that has been reported is that he is in good health, had a nice breakfast and now on his way home. If, as I suspect will be the case, he is given a "heroes" welcome...well, wouldn't that be about the most ridiculous twist ? After all isn't it a little ironic that this pacifist, who placed himself in deadly danger, had to be rescued by the armed forces... :roll:

 

[Ratrat]

I feel that he is not unique in this sense - how often do we hear of (or have been involved with) thoughtless individuals who have scant regard for other people.

I mean the weekend sailor who goes to sea unprepared, unskilled or just stupid in a unseaworthy craft or the person who goes hill-walking not suitably equipped. They outcome invariably is that somebody has to rescue them.

 

[janner]

I feel that he is not unique in this sense - how often do we hear of (or have been involved with) thoughtless individuals who have scant regard for other people.

I mean the weekend sailor who goes to sea unprepared, unskilled or just stupid in a unseaworthy craft or the person who goes hill-walking not suitably equipped. They outcome invariably is that somebody has to rescue them.

The difference being that those rescued don't think of the RNLI or Mountain Rescue people as being t.wats. If the man was so keen he should have insisted on staying where he was until he was either shot or talked his way out of trouble.

It will be interesting to see what comments he makes, if any, about his rescue

 

[fullasternboth]

BZ to Gen Jackson for speaking up!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4841480.stm

 

[finknottle]

These type of people should not even be allowed in Iraq, our troops have enough on their plate without rescuing the likes of Kember anyone who says they are doing gods work always gives me cause for suspicion, have a shufti at the christian peacemakers web site, motto 'Getting in the Way’?

http://www.cpt.org/publications/history.php

 

[seajay]

Actually the more I see of this in the news, the more I'm coming round to PragmaticJen's point of view.
Look at this for instance "Why Norman was right to go" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4836438.stm

If you're one of the guys who went in to rescue him, that article may as well say "Why it was ok for Norman to put your life in extra danger"

I think what annoys me most is not Norman's actions, it's the idea that when he gets home some people will think that HE is the hero not the rescuers.

 

[GCYZ]

Have just listened to an interview on the BBC with some mouthpiece from CPT saying that if any of their members are captured in the future they don't want anyone rescuing them who is going to use violence and that responsibility for the rescue would lie with the authorities that send the rescuers in.

So fine, go to Iraq, make a difference, but when someone is kidnapped don't bloody moan that the government isn't doing enough to secure their release. The government should agree to CPT wishes and when someone is kidnapped simply reply "nothing to do with us Guv'!".

P.S. What sort of arrogance takes an organisation to a Muslim country with "Christian" in the title and makes them think they'll be accepted as peacemakers not crusaders?

 

[finknottle]

Maybe they expected the hand of God or is it Allah to pluck them from their captivity? Having said that in future if they are stupid enough to go there and get into trouble leave me to their fate. They are not worth our troops putting themselves at risk on their behalf the ungrateful gits.

 

[NozzyNozzer]

This morning on Radio 4 (the Home Service to the older generation of matelots here - Ow! Don't hit me PO, I was just joking) they had some Christians on, insisting that God has answered their prayers. God gets praised by the believers: after all it would be unchristian to thank the armed forces. :roll:

It reminds me of regularly attending the Church Service and Parade on Remembrance Day at Cranbrook, Kent, and us all getting an anti-war sermon that resembled an anti-servicemen sermon and being viewed suspiciously by the Padre who was a member of CND. Only when the cold war ended did he see that what we had done was prevent the Russians from absorbing us into its semi-colonial Empire.

One interesting thing, unconnected with this thread, was that CND's Edinburgh office always seemed to know of military exercises before those of us participating were given the dates! If I wanted the date of a NATO exercise 6 months in advance, I would ring them up, pretending to be a supporter, and they would give me the dates, yet the Chain of Command always insisted they had no idea when these exercises were due precisely. I wonder if someone in CND set the dates of NATO exercises? Any thoughts? :?:

 

[QARNN01]

Perhaps we should get any "peace" activists who want to go to dangerous places like Iraq, but not get rescued by the military, to sign some kind of form?!!!! Like a rescue waiver or something... or it should be built into their insurance policy so they pay for all this manpower and hardware that's used to get them out! Just a thought!