NEWS: Alan Johnston Released

dirtydog · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:33

Greg said:
This thread was intended to inform people of Alan Johnston's release, not for you to portray your Religious beliefs

I could say exactly the same to you.

Jokester · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:34

Shame to see him in such a bad way, he's aged a few years and looks like he's lost a lot of physical strength.

Jokester

Yas786 · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:35

dirtydog said:
I could say exactly the same to you.

. Exactly where has he mentioned religious beliefs DD??.

Andelusion · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:36

Wayhey! VERY lucky bloke!

I sense a book or two

dirtydog · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:36

Spawn said:
. Exactly where has he mentioned religious beliefs DD??.

Greg said:
Thank God he's been released.

I know with some people that would be a figure of speech, but with him he means it.

cleanbluesky · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:40

dirtydog said:
I know with some people that would be a figure of speech, but with him he means it.

I don't think you can guaruntee that he 'means it'. Also, I think you were expressing your irregligous beliefs.
Also, Greg is not the thread police. So shouldn't get so indignant.

Bar · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:43

This thread is about a man being freed.

I don't see how debating faith is adding anything to the thread. The only likely outcome is for the thread to be derailed and end up in the usual (now boring) never ending cycle between a small group of posters.

Greg · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:44

dirtydog said:
I know with some people that would be a figure of speech, but with him he means it.

My OP was using the term as a figure of speach, however, when you made your ignorant and quite frankly offencive remark, anyone in my position would take offence.

Bar said:
This thread is about a man being freed.

I don't see how debating faith is adding anything to the thread. The only likely outcome is for the thread to be derailed and end up in the usual (now boring) never ending cycle between a small group of posters.

I agree, but I'm sorry if I take offence to his comments.

cleanbluesky · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:45

Greg said:
<snip>

There is no need to get so harsh so quickly Greg. This is the internet and emotional confrontation doesn't really work that well in this medium.

Greg · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:46

cleanbluesky said:
There is no need to get so harsh so quickly Greg. This is the internet and emotional confrontation doesn't really work that well in this medium.

Tis why I've edited my post! As I said, I'm sorry, but I take offence to his prevoking comments. I feel sorry for him that he has no faith

cleanbluesky · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:54

Greg said:
Tis why I've edited my post! As I said, I'm sorry, but I take offence to his prevoking comments. I feel sorry for him that he has no faith

1) If you feel 'sorry' for him then you must look down on him. That's not a cool thing.

2) You assume he has 'no faith' because he doesn't share your faith

platypus · 4 Jul 2007 at 13:59

cleanbluesky said:
2) You assume he has 'no faith' because he doesn't share your faith

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Gilly · 4 Jul 2007 at 14:02

Get off the topic of faith please, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

kkthxbye · 4 Jul 2007 at 14:30

About time, good news

VIRII · 4 Jul 2007 at 14:42

cleanbluesky said:
Interesting, I wonder if Shackley would see this as an argument in favour of brutality against the brutal?

LOL of course he would as long as it involves lobbing rockets from palestine into Jerusalem.

Greg · 4 Jul 2007 at 14:44

cleanbluesky said:
1) If you feel 'sorry' for him then you must look down on him. That's not a cool thing.

2) You assume he has 'no faith' because he doesn't share your faith

I feel sorry for him because, yes, it apears he has no faith. Just because I feel sorry for him, doesn't mean I look down on him, it means I wish he could see and believe what I do. I don't make assumptions, never have done, never will do.

I agree, I'd like this to get back on topic but, Gilly, I don't think I or any other member should have to put up with provoking remarks! Sorry!

VIRII · 4 Jul 2007 at 14:44

Shackley said:
Probably not. I'm sure that the Americans in Vietnam would have been very happy if the media had not reported as they did and I expect many other people would go along with you, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Serbian and Bosnian War Lords, various Hutus in Rwanda and on and on and on. You are in infamous company.

War criminals would rather control the flow of information through "authorised" channels.

Like the Hamas TV station? Do they allow any other media to broadcast in palestine?

VIRII · 4 Jul 2007 at 14:45

Spawn said:
Great news thats hes been released and also good work from Hamas for securing his release.

The conspiracy theorist would argue that Hamas set the whole thing up in order to try and look good

Greg · 4 Jul 2007 at 14:48

VIRII said:
The conspiracy theorist would argue that Hamas set the whole thing up in order to try and look good

This is true, but I do believe that they levelled the 'free him or we'll kill you' to come of on top. It does their PR no end of good in the local region!

VIRII · 4 Jul 2007 at 14:48

@if ®afiq said:
Your'e right in that the troops were betrayed - but by the shoddy journalism and support for this war of aggression rather than whatever you may think.

The troops not our troops? Interesting choice of words.