Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frank Hovis

Ban British Aid Volunteers From Entering Syria Or Iraq?

Recommended Posts

Whilst it's everybody's right to wander off wherever they want and get killed when it comes to these cases it means that other people then end up putting their own lives at risk to rescue them. So there should be a block put on their going.

This is a similar argument to not wanting women serving as front line troops - in their event of their capture they are likely to get treated much worse than male prisoners so the effect upon morale would be worse and the risks taken to free them would be higher so it would hurt everybody else.

Of course a block / ban may be unenforceable but the government could make a pronouncement that no British citizen should go to either country unless it is officially-sanctioned because of the huge risks involved, and if anybody ignores this warning then they are entirely on their own - there will be no rescue mission or negotiation.

This would also make Brits less attractive kidnap targets.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2757258/Hostage-Alan-Henning-kidnapped-IS-just-30mins-entering-Syria-thanks-tip-corrupt-official-incredibly-terrorist-group-Al-Qaeda-tried-released-grounds-taking-unIslamic.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And sailors. And mountaineers. They should pay the full costs of their recklessness or they should be stopped.

But where should one draw the line, the cyclist cycling to work, the footballer breaking his leg, or the smoker and the food addict.

Hmmm. Perhaps not.

Where there is clear temporary massively-heightened risk. I would have thought that was obvious,

For instance had the 1979 Fastnet Race been called off because the weather hit earlier and a pronouncement made that the race was off because it was too dangerous and anybody ignoring this would not be rescued by other people putting their lives at risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My elder works for an NGO and twice she's had to go to Afghanistan for 2-3 weeks. She is blonde and would stick out like a sore thumb except that she always wears a burka. Last time she went she phoned from a bunker in their office garden in Kabul - a big bomb had just gone off nearby. I always have forty fits until she's back, but she's not had to go to Syria or Iraq yet. Just to Lebanon, for the Syrian refugees in camps there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There shouldn't be a ban. It should just be made clear to anyone wanting to go what the risks are and that nobody will be coming after them to carry out a rescue when things go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to know if they are really 'aid' workers.

The last 'aid worker' who lost his head, well someone in here posted articles pertaining to the fact the guy was balls deep in military intelligence...had his own mercenary type business and everything.

Theres plenty of humanitarian stuff to be done locally, so im suspicious of any so called 'aid workers'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to know if they are really 'aid' workers.

The last 'aid worker' who lost his head, well someone in here posted articles pertaining to the fact the guy was balls deep in military intelligence...had his own mercenary type business and everything.

Theres plenty of humanitarian stuff to be done locally, so im suspicious of any so called 'aid workers'

Weapons' grade cynicism there Mr Sadman!

I'm sure there are people such as you say but there are many genuine people. The current hostage is a cabbie who had made several trips before and thought (correctly) that he was helping people but also thought (incorrectly) that because he was there with good motives he was safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where there is clear temporary massively-heightened risk. I would have thought that was obvious,

Isn't that usually when they actually really need aid workers?

Should aid agencies pull out of West Africa because there's a "temporary massively-heightened risk"? If not, how are you logically distinguishing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that usually when they actually really need aid workers?

Should aid agencies pull out of West Africa because there's a "temporary massively-heightened risk"? If not, how are you logically distinguishing?

Periods of security risk are not the usual times when you need a lot of aid workers.

Post natural disaster, in the event of a famine, or in refugee camps outside of the danger area would be the majority of cases when aid workers help.

For Ebola the risk is not a security one, there will be no need to put special forces' lives at risk rescuing them, so anybody who is courageous (a word I rarely use about anybody) enough to go there to help should be encouraged and assisted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Periods of security risk are not the usual times when you need a lot of aid workers.

When millions of innocent people are displaced and the surrounding countries are unable and/or unwilling to help, you need aid workers.

For Ebola the risk is not a security one, there will be no need to put special forces' lives at risk rescuing them, so anybody who is courageous (a word I rarely use about anybody) enough to go there to help should be encouraged and assisted.

Those that get sick (a foreseeable risk) are repatriated. There must be a significant (and constantly increasing) risk to the people tasked with doing that.

I just don't see why people fleeing the results of geopolitical maneuvering are any less worthy than those fleeing the results of tsunami or plague. Why is it more courageous to help sick, innocent children in west Africa, than in and around Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When millions of innocent people are displaced and the surrounding countries are unable and/or unwilling to help, you need aid workers.

Those that get sick (a foreseeable risk) are repatriated. There must be a significant (and constantly increasing) risk to the people tasked with doing that.

I just don't see why people fleeing the results of geopolitical maneuvering are any less worthy than those fleeing the results of tsunami or plague. Why is it more courageous to help sick, innocent children in west Africa, than in and around Syria?

There is a obvious risk of death in going in and helping in the Ebola wards, it is horrible unpleasant work helping the sick and dying.

For the volunteer aid workers like the kidnapped taxi driver it is a mini-adventure like doing a rally in a banger or walking the Great Wall of China. None of which I regard as courageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely don't ban people, the idea that you're (supposedly) free to go wherever you want as long as that place is willing to let you in isn't something I want the government interfering with. The "at your own risk" part is reasonable in some circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My elder works for an NGO and twice she's had to go to Afghanistan for 2-3 weeks. She is blonde and would stick out like a sore thumb except that she always wears a burka. Last time she went she phoned from a bunker in their office garden in Kabul - a big bomb had just gone off nearby. I always have forty fits until she's back, but she's not had to go to Syria or Iraq yet. Just to Lebanon, for the Syrian refugees in camps there.

That's very nice of her! I've been to some shit parts of the World! You can't ban people from going, and I never got beheaded! Well done to those people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting developments . Reported Persons at the charity are under investigation by charities commission. There is a possible sinister side as the reporter asked the guy about tipoffs who they let go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.