Comments on Colcam: A Grudging, Mean And Unchristian Response From Kem...

I will do that then.

2006-03-28T18:02:00.000+01:00

I will do that then.

I hope I didn't give the impression I had too much...

2006-03-28T13:26:00.000+01:00

I hope I didn't give the impression I had too much sympathy for the troops, Jez, because I don't.

And there should be a right to not be forced to take what someone might consider immoral actions, I agree.

Certainly I do not expect anyone to be grateful to any government for saving them, but the row in the first place was about a word of thanks to the individuals who risked themselves to free people.

A recognition that risks were taken, and a sincere word of thanks to those individuals is merely a matter of common decency - especially by people who claim to be Christians.

But I do understand and sympathize with many of the points you make.

The issue about protest at home, at politicians, is one that I have been giving much thought to, worried about, and would like to cover as a separate issue which, if I may, I will try to do shortly as a post.

And I hope and you will provide feedback when I do.

I wasn't being all legalistic about it. I was taki...

2006-03-28T08:30:00.000+01:00

I wasn't being all legalistic about it. I was taking a moral stance. Even if there is a draft, I believe we have a moral duty and freedom to resist. I'm not saying I would be that brave, but I hope I would. Therefore, while I do not equate soldier with political leader, I find it hard to have as much sympathy for them as we are apparently supposed to have.
Furthermore, the suggestion that we should be ever-so-grateful our gvt pulls it's finger out to save one of us, Is verging on the dictatorial, in my opinion. The gvt and state are at our service, they are not a benevolant uncle. We have a right and a duty to oppose what we deem to be immoral or generally wrong, and there should be no strings attached to that right and duty.

Thanks Jez. War criminals were prosecuted at Nurem...

2006-03-28T04:21:00.000+01:00

Thanks Jez.

War criminals were prosecuted at Nuremberg (12 Nazi leaders executed) because they committed or, indeed, ordered the carrying out of crimes, mainly the murder of millions of Jews and other groups. Ordinary troops were not prosecuted for fighting or by their mere presence in a country, nor were aircrew who dropped bombs on London, or U-boat crew who torpedoed allied merchant ships.

Despite the Iraq war being, in our and many others view, illegal, it is perhaps being a wee bit idealistic to expect the military of several countries to refuse to serve when ordered, and it would be illegal for them to do so.

If an order to commit war crimes in the generally accepted meaning of the term (ie. an action carried out during the conduct of a war that violates accepted international rules of war) is given, then the excuse of 'following orders' will not do, and the soldier has a duty to disobey.

The words 'during the conduct of a war' are important. Because while we may call the war illegal, that does not give a soldier the right to refuse to serve, only to refuse to carry out certain actions such as:

Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings.
Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science.
Plunder of public or private property.

Or:

Murder.
Extermination.
Enslavement.
Deportation.
Imprisonment.
Torture.
Rape.
Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

The only reasonable and legal way for someone to refuse is to not join up in the first place and, being realistic, people the world over are not going to stop joining the military, no matter how much we would like to see that happen.

I should add that I am not suggesting that crimes such as those listed above are not happening in Iraq, and when they do happen the perpetrators should be brought to justice, along with higher ranking officers who sanction the actions - and I would point mainly to the Americans on that score.

Politicians start wars, not soldiers and, at the end of the day, it's politicians that end them too.

Actually, I have to point out that the soldiers wh...

2006-03-28T00:23:00.000+01:00

Actually, I have to point out that the soldiers who are in Iraq are, as far as I know professional soldiers, not drafted. They chose the job. Also, even if you think they couldn't be expected to have forseen the illegal war, they had a duty to disobey what they percieved as illegal or even immoral orders. That is how many war criminals were prosecuted at Nuremberg.
Once again, I don't see how we are effectively opposing the war here at home or even on our streets.
We can have a ciggie if you like, but not in a pub I'm afraid(-:

Jez, I can only repeat my answer to your other com...

2006-03-27T13:38:00.000+01:00

Jez, I can only repeat my answer to your other comment regarding Kember, the CPT and Iraq.

You ask what they were doing?

The CPT website says what they were doing:

"committed to reducing violence by "Getting in the way", being a witness to the the gospel of peace and nonviolence in violent ..."

Really fuckin' useful!

While I am against the war, against the troops being there, and cannot understand why anyone is daft enough to join the armed forces in the first place, the fact is they are there, not at their own request, and the irresponsible risking of their lives has already been achieved perfectly successfully by the real villians who sent them - governments, politicians - without naive religious fruitcakes "getting in the way" to satisfy their self-righteous egos, and having to be pulled out at the risk of others lives.

If Kember and his pals want to "get in the way," it's politicians they should be targeting, in the US and UK.

That would be useful, but not grand enough for these sanctimonious plaster saints.

Sorry to repeat myself, Jez. Let's both have a ciggie and stop arguing :)

If the military hadn't been there in the first pla...

2006-03-27T11:24:00.000+01:00

If the military hadn't been there in the first place, we wouldn't be having this stupid debate. I don't wish to tar all soldiers in Irak with the same brush, but then, they did join the army.
Even if this is not the right post, I shall say this to anon: stop. think. and then comment.If you go out into the street, and a driver runs you over, will you just accept that you were taking a risk by leaving your home and that you therefore have no right to complain?

Ta Byronb. I suppose they can't lock him up for be...

2006-03-26T23:55:00.000+01:00

Ta Byronb. I suppose they can't lock him up for being a dangerous fool, but should more members of the Christian Peacemakers Teams get into the same situation, perhaps others lives should simply not be risked in future.

Just leave them be and let them face the consequences.

However, those who do risk their lives are more charitable than those they have just saved, and would take the same action again, despite the risks and the lack of appreciation.

And I have no doubt the CPT know that and play on it.

Thanks to Anonymous, who is commenting on my No Sm...

2006-03-26T23:41:00.000+01:00

Thanks to Anonymous, who is commenting on my No Smoking post.

Some very good points are made here by Anon, and he/she is right on most of the issues he/she mentions.

I agree with most of Anon's views, and had hoped to say more in my post about some of the same issues, but had to limit myself because of a possible conflict of interest arising out of a piece I am working on for another source.

Thanks again Anonymous for commenting.

Ha! Ha! Missed, Anonymous!Actually, this is very s...

2006-03-26T20:08:00.000+01:00

Ha! Ha! Missed, Anonymous!

Actually, this is very sad - it's not a Chrtistian attitude, it's a stupid self-righteous one. The fellow should be locked up for endangering the lives of our soldiers.

What is this Labour Government doing? They have ba...

2006-03-26T19:35:00.000+01:00

What is this Labour Government doing? They have banned smoking from bars, hotels and clubs on health grounds. Why?

Anyone who really cared about their health would not go to a public house in the first place.
Assaults and violence are often drink related. Alcohol-related deaths and crime far outnumber the deaths from smoking. Every weekend vast resources are spent on policing. The nation's habit of binge drinking is accompanied by social chaos. Although it is early days, there is a good chance that the legislation will encourage more drinking in the home. Now instead of public houses taking the brunt of antisocial behaviour, it will be wives and children that will feel the brunt of the legislation.

Moreover the political spin put on the legislation, infers that smokers will die and passive smoking is 'highly dangerous', and that everyone has a right to live in a risk free environment. Cobblers! At the end of the day everyone will die. No amount of hot air or political spin will stop the inevitable. This is bad news for non-smokers. They are going to die too!