Irish fighter captured in Iraq

bobbyjoe

Anyone heard about this sounds very strange!
Whats this guy doing over there.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - More than 300 foreign fighters have been captured in Iraq by U.S.-led troops and Iraqi security forces since April and their nationalities include Israeli, Irish and British, a senior U.S. commander said on Thursday

Lynch declined to give any further details about the one Israeli on the list, or the suspect from Ireland and two from Britain

toiletduck

bobbyjoe wrote:

Whats this guy doing over there.

judging by the title of this thread, im gona say he was.... fishing?

Nuttzz

he was probably mointoring the peace process there

toiletduck

Nuttzz wrote:

he was probably mointoring the peace process there

or birdwatching?

murphaph

Classic!

Moriarty

I was thinking Memnoch was rather quiet lately.

RedPlanet

Fighting a foreign army of occupation?
Sounds like he/she/they may well have been fighting on the right side of history. Fair play to em.

mike65

Forget the paddy (you expect that sort of thing).....whats an Israeli doing there?

Mike.

murphaph

mike65 wrote:

Forget the paddy (you expect that sort of thing).....whats an Israeli doing there?

There's loads of arab-israelis, ie, muslim-israelis descended from those who lived there before the zionists arrived. Didn't one of them play soccer for Israel against us?! The fecker!

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

I was thinking Memnoch was rather quiet lately.

personal insult by your insinuations, hope you get a ban for that.

I oppose the immoral and illegal invasion of iraq by the coalition of the killing but do not believe that further violence would solve any problems there and I have never nor intend on participating in violence of any sort.

Hagar

An Irishman in the British Army perhaps?

Maybe he's the advance party setting up next year's St. Patrick's Day Parade in BallyBaghdad.

mike65

Anyone got a sense of humour gif?

Mike.

Memnoch

mike65 wrote:

Anyone got a sense of humour gif?

Mike.

easy when the personal insult isn't directed at you.

so quit the patronising it doesn't wash

Moriarty

Memnoch wrote:

personal insult by your insinuations, hope you get a ban for that.

Heh. Figures.

Memnoch wrote:

I oppose the immoral and illegal invasion of iraq by the coalition of the killing but do not believe that further violence would solve any problems there and I have never nor intend on participating in violence of any sort.

I just imagined all those posts by you over the past 2 years where you cheered on the insurgency then, right?

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

Heh. Figures.



I just imagined all those posts by you over the past 2 years where you cheered on the insurgency then, right?

I support the right of iraqis to defend themselves against an immoral and illegal war of agression. I would do the same if the invader was american or african and the defender was chinese or Indian.

That doesn't mean I wish to participate in violence.

It's no surprise that you can't see the distinction. Those who support agression rarely can

Rock Climber

Memnoch wrote:

but do not believe that further violence would solve any problems there

Yeah right.

Spare us the self righteous moral indignation,it doesnt wash when you post inconsistently.
For example when you posted the following:

Memnoch wrote:

they are fair game by any standards. Iraqi "civilians" signing up to security forces run and supported by the americans would be considered collaboraters, just as during the 2nd world war where people who cooperated with the germans were considered collaborators. Collaboraters are considered fair game in a war of independance. I agree that blowing up your fellow men and woman is a scummy thing to do, but pretty much all violence involves blowing people up or shooting them, the insurgents however have had violence forced upon them by the invasion.

( link )
You're condoning and supporting what they are doing there and yet you claim some sort of belief in pacifism??


Reading your posts memnoch is like listening to Ian Paisley praising the Pope.
They are couched with lightly veiled and sometimes practically unveiled support for insurgency ie murder.
But carry on-just don't expect us all to follow you...

black_jack

RedPlanet wrote:

Fighting a foreign army of occupation?
Sounds like he/she/they may well have been fighting on the right side of history. Fair play to em.

This is irony isn't it? Going to a foreign country to fight a foreign army of occupation?

Memnoch

Rock Climber wrote:

Yeah right.

You're condoning and supporting what they are doing there and yet you claim some sort of belief in pacifism??

there is no discrepancy. I don't believe that violence is a solution. That being said I still support the Iraqi's right to defend themselves against the invading army. I don't think it will achieve much, or who knows maybe it will in the long term if they make the war more costly than it is worth like vietnam.

Regardless of that I don't think violence is a solution because violence only begets more violence. That does not however change the fact that people who commit murder like the coalition of the killing deserve what they get when they taste their own medicine.

support for insurgency ie murder.
But carry on-just don't expect us all to follow you...

insurgency is murder? says who? I'm sorry but if u want to debate an issue try not to resort to utter gross generalisations. You brand all insurgents as murders even though there are countless factions within iraq some even against each other. When you are ready to debate the actual issues i'll be happy to participate, keep generalising endlessly, and it's just more hot air.

Remember the Coalition are part of a single command

the "insurgents" aren't. In fact the "insurgents" as you define them dont' actually exist, there is no single group that represents all the iraqi's fighting in that country and so it is a misnomer.

Rock Climber

Memnoch wrote:

insurgency is murder? says who?

I'd pretty much expect the family of that Irish aid worker Mrs Hassan would amongst others.
But then you dont even listen to the rhetoric of your own posts properly if you are questioning that insurgents murder.

As I said earlier your preaches and sermons here are sounding as consistent and believeable as a sermon by Paisley praising the pope or Sinn Féin.

In consideration of the mess you are making of getting your views across,I'll give you a tip,I'd have more respect for your views if they were consistent ie if you werent ignoring maniacal insurgent acts as if they didnt exist or trying to couch your references to them in thinly veiled and practically unveiled support.
Thats inconsistency and frankly withdraws any shred of credibility from your argument here and in other threads.

Indeed now you are even saying that insurgents dont exist at all...
Reality check needed memnoch tbh and you mightnt think it but I'm being sincere about that.

Purposely killing people = murder

The question is wheter the murder in question is morally acceptable.

cal29

Deleted User wrote:

Purposely killing people = murder

The question is wheter the murder in question is morally acceptable.

Legal, non-murder killings
Some cases of premeditated, intentional killing have lawful excuse and thus are not legally murder, or even crimes at all. In most countries this includes:

Killing a person who poses an immediate threat to the lives of oneself or others (i.e., in self-defense)
Killing a non-surrendered enemy combatant in time of war
Executing a person in accordance with a legally imposed sentence of death


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

I retract my completly foolish, idiotic and now utterly pointless statement. I beg the forgiveness of both yourself and the almighty wikipedia.

I'm awfully tempted to change that entry in wikipedia, and in doing so once again be have the might of truth once again on my side.

cal29

I agree with Memnoch the Iraqi resistance have a right to use force to remove a n aggressive occupying force

That does not mean that I support the use of violence it is merely a recognition of a fact the Iraqis have the right to use force if they see fit
The US/UK etc forces are the cause of the conflict and the responsibility for its ending is with them

Rock Climber

cal29 wrote:

I agree with Memnoch the Iraqi resistance have a right to use force to remove a n aggressive occupying force

That does not mean that I support the use of violence it is merely a recognition of a fact the Iraqis have the right to use force if they see fit
The US/UK etc forces are the cause of the conflict and the responsibility for its ending is with them

Supporting the right for the insurgents to murder like they did to Mrs Hassan and others and not supporting what they did are not interchangeable.
It's a contradiction in terms.
Supporting their right to do so nullifies saying that you disagree with what they do.

You cant support someones right to do something and then say its wrong to exercise that right.
It's even more ridiculous in memnochs case when it comes to the right to murder people.
No one ever has the right to murder people even in War.
Personally I'm not at ease with killing/murder in a war just as much as I'm not at ease with terrorist or insurgent killing/murder

To not have that view would be hypocricical.

cal29

Rock Climber wrote:

Supporting the right for the insurgents to murder like they did to Mrs Hassan and others and not supporting what they did are not interchangeable.
It's a contradiction in terms.
Supporting their right to do so nullifies saying that you disagree with what they do.

You cant support someones right to do something and then say its wrong to exercise that right.
It's even more ridiculous in memnochs case when it comes to the right to murder people.
No one ever has the right to murder people even in War.
Personally I'm not at ease with killing/murder in a war just as much as I'm not at ease with terrorist or insurgent killing/murder

To not have that view would be hypocricical.

I think you are deliberately distorting what was said I can recognise their right to do something but disagree that they are right in exercising that right
JUst because you have the right to do something does not mean it is the best path to follow


Also the right to resist occupation does not extend to murdering civilian aid workers and never could.
Engaging the forces of occupation and collaborators foreign and domestic is completely different from kidnapping and murdering aid workers.

cal29

cal29 wrote:

I think you are deliberately distorting what was said I can recognise their right to do something but disagree that they are right in exercising that right
JUst because you have the right to do something does not mean it is the best path to follow

In my book nobody has the right to kill anyone.
So you believe someone has the right to kill.
I dont see the marriage between that concept and believing that someone should not kill.

Both beliefs are not compatable.It's either one or the other,It cant be both.

I'm watching this thread now and anyone steps out of line and I shall put on my moderator hat and take action.
Reasonable humour may be acceptable as per usual of course but don't push it.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

In my book nobody has the right to kill anyone.
So you believe someone has the right to kill.
I dont see the marriage between that concept and believing that someone should not kill.

Both beliefs are not compatable.It's either one or the other,It cant be both.

I'm watching this thread now and anyone steps out of line and I shall put on my moderator hat and take action.
Reasonable humour may be acceptable as per usual of course but don't push it.

I believe everyone has the right to Kill in certain situations

In an ideal world people would not have to act in self defence or to take up arms because their country had been invaded but this is not an ideal world

I see no incompatability between saying that combatants in a war situation have a right to kill enemy combatants or someone acting in self defence of themselves their family or their community (ie the Gardai) have a right to kill someone in certain limited situations but that murder is wrong the first actions are not murder they are legal killings

I think that the Iraqi people have a right to take up arms and resist the occupation however I also believe that that is not the best course of action to take at this time.

Not to be trivial but as you are a moderator I recognise you have a right to ban me from this forum however if you chose to exercise that right now I believe you would be wrong

it is the same thing recognising that a right exists does not mean i have to agree with how when or if that right is exercised

cal29

cal29 wrote:

I see no incompatability between saying that combatants in a war situation have a right to kill enemy combatants or someone acting in self defence of themselves their family or their community (ie the Gardai) have a right to kill someone in certain limited situations but that murder is wrong the first actions are not murder they are legal killings

That position would mean you agree then that combatants at war with the insurgents also have this right? not because the war is right but simply because they are at war?

I think that the Iraqi people have a right to take up arms and resist the occupation however I also believe that that is not the best course of action to take at this time.

I understand the democratically elected government of Iraq(60%+ turnout) are opposed to the insurgents activities ergo then there is an inherent flaw in the freedom fighting argument.

Not to be trivial but as you are a moderator I recognise you have a right to ban me from this forum however if you chose to exercise that right now I believe you would be wrong

Of course I would be wrong-thats self evident.The expression of an opinion is not a contravention of this boards charter.

it is the same thing recognising that a right exists does not mean i have to agree with how when or if that right is exercised

No it isn't as I dont have the right to ban you in the instance you stated,I'd need a valid excuse-but I see the point you are trying to make though.

Personally I'm making a distinction when it comes to deciding on the moral question of murder.
I wouldnt see something as trivial as a permission applied to my username that gives me the ability to click under another username in certain fora and ban them ...I wouldnt see that as an equivalent by a long shot.

When I'm making that distinction I'm deciding that my moral decision is applying to all human beings equally rather than doing an orwells animal farm on it like memnoch did and only apply it to one side ,yet in a doublestandardised way feign a kind of pacifism as a belief notwithstanding that murder is acceptable when in agreement with certain peoples motives.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

That position would mean you agree then that combatants at war with the insurgents also have this right? not because the war is right but simply because they are at war?

Of course both sides have the right as individual combatants to kill or be killed
that does not mean that I have to agree with the reason the combatants are there in the first place

Earthman wrote:

I understand the democratically elected government of Iraq(60%+ turnout) are opposed to the insurgents activities ergo then there is an inherent flaw in the freedom fighting argument.

Democratically elected is a bit of an over statement

Can you provide some links to your 60%+ figure I know high turnouts were reported at the time but I cant find anything that gives a definitive turnout althought the estimates I have found range from 35% to 58% and lets not forget that the vast majority of the country did not have any monitoring that would normally be required to assign the label democratically elected
And the fact that the country is still occupied which would fly in the face of fair and free elections although I am sure it was fairer than what Saddam would have organised

That said I would not imagine that the sunni insurgency would have a lot of support in the shia or kurdish areas but that does not mean that the shias in particular are particularly fond of the occupying forces

Earthman wrote:

Of course I would be wrong-thats self evident.The expression of an opinion is not a contravention of this boards charter.

irrelevant

Earthman wrote:

No it isn't as I dont have the right to ban you in the instance you stated,I'd need a valid excuse-but I see the point you are trying to make though.

thank you

Earthman wrote:

Personally I'm making a distinction when it comes to deciding on the moral question of murder.
I wouldnt see something as trivial as a permission applied to my username that gives me the ability to click under another username in certain fora and ban them ...I wouldnt see that as an equivalent by a long shot.

I was using it as an example of the recognition of a right without having to agree to the circumstances in which that right is exercised I was not suggesting there was any moral equivalence

Earthman wrote:

When I'm making that distinction I'm deciding that my moral decision is applying to all human beings equally rather than doing an orwells animal farm on it like memnoch did and only apply it to one side ,yet in a doublestandardised way feign a kind of pacifism as a belief notwithstanding that murder is acceptable when in agreement with certain peoples motives.

The distiction I would draw would be that of legal killing and murder I recognise that sometimes people have a right maybe even an obligation to kill
that does not mean they can kill whom ever they choose or whenever they want
In this particular case whilst recognising that the Iraqis have a right to use force I also recognise that coalition forces have the right to defend themselves and engage the Iraqi combatants that is war
But recognising that right does not mean in any way that I support the coalition invasion and occupation it is merely a statement of fact

cal29

cal29 wrote:

Democratically elected is a bit of an over statement

Can you provide some links to your 60%+ figure I know high turnouts were reported at the time but I cant find anything that gives a definitive turnout althought the estimates I have found range from 35% to 58% and lets not forget that the vast majority of the country did not have any monitoring that would normally be required to assign the label democratically elected
And the fact that the country is still occupied which would fly in the face of fair and free elections although I am sure it was fairer than what Saddam would have organised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_2005

58% was the figure I was thinking of.
I doubt that US soldiers were standing over those voters making them vote in the way that they did.

I'm always skeptical of posts discounting democratic votes.
I understand tyhe Iraqi Govt is now opening talks with the insurgents.

cal29

cal29 wrote:

irrelevant

nope I answered your point.

I was using it as an example of the recognition of a right without having to agree to the circumstances in which that right is exercised I was not suggesting there was any moral equivalence

Except modding is not a right it's an ability and a job.I dont do it because it's my right.

The distiction I would draw would be that of legal killing and murder I recognise that sometimes people have a right maybe even an obligation to kill
that does not mean they can kill whom ever they choose or whenever they want
In this particular case whilst recognising that the Iraqis have a right to use force I also recognise that coalition forces have the right to defend themselves and engage the Iraqi combatants that is war
But recognising that right does not mean in any way that I support the coalition invasion and occupation it is merely a statement of fact

Well I understood that from your earlier posts.
At least you are clear about it.
You are not being hypocritical in your qualification of what you do and do not agree with.